Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 - March 2, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 NOMINAL INDEX ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70Y Babu v The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79Vendaraja v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 REPORT Madras High Court Paves Way For Shivaratri Celebration At Isha Foundation, Dismisses Plea Alleging Violation Of Pollution Norms Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 The Madras High Court, on Monday, dismissed a plea seeking directions to the authorities to desist from issuing permission to conduct Maha Shivaratri celebrations at Isha Foundation in light of violations of pollution norms in previous celebrations. By doing so, the bench also allowed Isha to go ahead with its Mahasivarathri celebrations. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took on record the affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board informing the court that Isha Foundation was well-equipped to deal with any solid, liquid or noise pollution that may arise during the Mahasivarathri festival in its Coimbatore premises on 26th and 27th of February 2025. The bench, noting that there was no reason to raise apprehensions, dismissed the plea. Appeal Can't Be Dismissed Due To Procedural Delay When Assessee Has Complied With Statutory Requirements Including Pre-Deposit: Madras HC Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70 The Madras High Court stated that appeal can't be dismissed due to procedural delay, when assessee has complied statutory requirements including pre-deposit. “The appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount” stated the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh. Should Subsequent Bail Pleas Be Listed Before Roster Judge Even If Judge Who Heard Earlier Plea Is Present? Madras HC Refers To Larger Bench Case Title: Y Babu v The Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 The Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available. Justice Sunder Mohan referred the question to the larger bench after noting the Supreme Court's clarification in Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. The Registrar General which the high court said had held that where the roster system is followed in many High Courts, the applications filed by the accused in the same FIR would have to be placed only before the roster Judge. Justice Mohan was of the opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in the case was only a clarification with respect to the listing of bail applications filed by the accused in the same FIR and not with regard to the subsequent bail applications filed by the same accused. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Dravidar Kazhagam Members For Protesting Against Hindi Imposition In 2022 Case Title: Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72 The Madras High Court has quashed a case against members of the Dravidar Kazhagam for protesting against Hindi imposition in Egmore in 2022. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the FIR filed against Vice President Poongundran, General Secretary Anburaj, and Treasurer Kumaresan. They were booked by the Egmore Police for offences under Section 143(Punishment for member of unlawful assembly), 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC read with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act for unlawful assembly and for disobeying the order promulgated by a public servant. Alleged Adulterer Should Be Given Opportunity To Disprove Adultery Claim In Divorce Case: Madras High Court Case Title: ABC v. XYZ Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73 The Madras High Court has recently held that when divorce is sought on the grounds of adultery, the alleged adulterer should be made a co-respondent if the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 - March 2, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags