Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 to February 2, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 NOMINAL INDEX P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29XX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 REPORT Letter Issued By Panchayat President Not Equivalent To Completion Certificate U/S 2 Of TN RERA: Madras High Court Case Title: P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25 The Madras High Court recently observed that a letter issued by a Panchayat President would not be equivalent to a completion certificate issued by the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act. A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed that as per the Act, since there was no provision and procedure prescribed for projects under execution outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area, the same was to be intimated to the concerned Local Planning Authority or Regional Deputy Director of the Town and Country Planning Department within 15 days from the date of notification of the rules after which the same was made public in the RERA website. The court thus concluded that there was no provision to substitute a letter from the Panchayat President as a completion certificate. Madras High Court Orders Political Parties & Other Organisations To Remove Permanent Flagpoles Erected At Public Places Case Title: R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26 The Madras High Court had ordered all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madurai bench directed the concerned parties to remove all permanent flagpoles within 12 weeks, failing which the authorities concerned shall take appropriate action after issuing notice to the parties. The court added that the authorities could, in such a case, recover the cost of removal from the concerned parties. The court remarked that there was no law that permitted issuing licenses to install permanent flagpoles in public places. The court added that the police and the revenue authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue a No-Objection certificate allowing the erection of flag poles in public places. The judge also remarked that these flagpoles often caused inconvenience to the commuters and also affected traffic in some cases. Madras High Court Dismisses Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others. Justice Abdul Quddhose also informed the parties that he would be hearing the interim injunction application filed by Wunderbar on February 5th, 2025. Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some behind-the-scene footages from the movie was used unauthorisedly in the making of Nayanthara's documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Since Netflix India's office is in Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had moved an application seeking leave to sue the company in the High Court which was allowed. Ex-Serviceman Not Employed When Applying For Recruitment Can Claim Concession While Applying For Multiple Posts: Madras High Court Case Title: The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28 The Madras High Court recently observed that the proviso to Section...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 to February 2, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags