Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 - July 27, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 NOMINAL INDEX High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 T Prabhakar v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 Vanaraj and Others v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 Muniraj v The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 REPORT If Chief Secretary Doesn't Obey Our Orders, Who Will? Madras High Court Criticizes Delay By Former Secy, Closes Contempt Case Title: High Court of Madras v. Siva Das Meena IAS and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 The Madras High Court on Monday (July 21) criticised the former Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary Siva Das Meena over delay in implementing its order to set up a committee to look into the issues with respect to compassionate appointments. Justice Battu Devanand orally remarked that if the Chief Secretary himself doesn't comply with court order and implement it on time, how could the court expect other officers, who were working under him, to comply with the orders. Though the counsel for the IAS officer told the court that he had "high regard" for the court, the judge orally remarked that it did not seem so, since the orders were not complied with on time. S. 161 CGST Act | Adjudicating Authority Can Dismiss GST Rectification Application Without Personal Hearing: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing. The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition. The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.” No Parity In Promotion Can Be Claimed Across Bifurcated Divisions Maintaining Separate Seniority Lists: Madras HC Case Name : P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a stale claim for retrospective promotion cannot be revived by a delayed representation after retirement. Further, no parity in promotion can be claimed across divisions following bifurcation into separate administrative divisions with distinct seniority lists. It was held that after separate zones were created, each division maintained its own seniority list and promotion panel. Therefore, claim of parity across divisions could not be sustained. Further the petitioner's reliance on the 1986 circular regarding unified seniority was held to be misplaced. Hence, no merit in the petition was found. Madras High Court Directs MEITY To Remove Teaser Of “Bad Girl” Film From YouTube Citing Obscenity, Says May Affect Childrens' Minds Case Title: R Ramkumar and Others v. The Union of India and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to remove the teaser of “Bad Girl” movie from YouTube after noting that the content disclosed exploitation of children and depicted them in a sexual manner. Justice P Dhanabal on going through the content, opined that it could affect the minds of teenage children who will be able to access the content easily as it had been posted on the internet. The court also highlighted that the State had a duty to protect the children, whose minds may be spoiled on coming across the content. Thus, the court observed that the content could not be allowed to continue and had to be removed. Madras High Court Slams Police For Closing Temple To Prevent Caste Tensions, Says Denial Of Rights Not Way To Maintain Peace Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 The Madras High Court recently...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 - July 27, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags