Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 02 to February 08, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 NOMINAL INDEX Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 REPORT Madras High Court Directs POCSO Accused To Pay ₹25K Cost To Victim After Advocate Names Her In Cause Title Case Title: Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the accused booked under the POCSO Act after finding that the name of the survivor/victim was explicitly mentioned by their counsel in the cause title of the criminal petition. A bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri strongly condemned the conduct of the petitioners' counsel and further directed that the said amount be paid to the survivor. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Actor Vijay Challenging 1.5 Crore Income Tax Penalty Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Actor Vijay challenging the Rs. 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the show cause notice had been issued within the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As the court found no infirmity in the issuance of the notice, it refrained from examining the other aspects of the matter. At the same time, the court granted liberty to Vijay to assail the notice and the consequential order before the appellate tribunal on grounds other than limitation. Temple Kumbabishekam Can't Be Conducted By Individual: Madras High Court Orders Multi-Community Committee Case Title: Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 The Madras High Court has observed that Kumbabishekam festivals in a temple cannot be conducted by an individual, especially when there are multiple communities residing in a village. Justice S Srimathy thus directed the fit person appointed to the Sri Muniyandi Swamy temple, Sri Ayyanar Swamy temple, Sri Karuppa Swamy temple and Sri Muthumariamman Swamy Temple to form a committee consisting of persons from each community for conducting the Kumbabishekam festival at the temples. The court remarked that first honour should not be given to any community and there should not be any discrimination. NDPS Act | Rigours Of Section 37 Applies To Bail, Not On Securing Presence Of Accused After Summons: Madras High Court Case Title: Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 The Madras High Court recently observed that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act would not come into play with respect to the acceptance of bond for appearance. Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that Section 37 comes into play only when the liberty of a person from custody is sought and not when the accused is merely securing appearance pursuant to the summons. Resignation From Service Even On Medical Grounds Is Forfeiture Of Past Service, Not Eligible For Pension Benefits: Madras High Court Case Title: Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that resignation from service, even if for medical reasons, would result in forfeiture of past service and such a person would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held as under, “'Resignation' from a service or post as per Rule 23 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, resignation from service even on medical or health grounds entails forfeiture of past service. The grounds based on which resignation is sought is immaterial and resignation shall only mean forfeiture of past service,” the court said. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS Madras High Court Seeks ECI's Response On Plea By PMK's Ramadoss Regarding Allotment of Mango Symbol Case Title: M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. The Election Commission of India and Another Case No: WP 3418 of 2026 The Madras High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to respond to a plea filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi founder Dr. S Ramadoss, alleging that the ECI's communication regarding allotment of “Mango “ symbol to the party was wrongly communicated to the party's former President Anbumani, who was no...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 02 to February 08, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 02 to February 08, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers