LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 06 to July 12, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 NOMINAL INDEX Y Gnana Ganesh and Another v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301 Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302 LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 V Ramu v Duraimurugan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304 V Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305 All India Private Educational Institutions Association v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 EV Velu v The State of Tamil Nadu and EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 Union of India and Another v The Registrar and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308 Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309 Sudha Kongara and another v Dawn Pictures, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310 Saratha v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311 Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 REPORT Immoral Trafficking Act | Safeguards Under Section 15(2) Not Mandatory For Search In Commercial Premises Like Spas: Madras High Court Case Title: Y Gnana Ganesh and Another v State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 The Madras High Court has observed that the provisions related to search provided under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are mandatory only if the place to be searched is a residential premises. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300] Justice R Vijayakumar held that the mandatory provisions of search without a warrant would not be mandatory when the search is to be conducted at a commercial space. The court also added that the object of the provision is to protect the privacy of the victim and to prevent disrepute that may be caused to the inmates of a building where a search was to be conducted as per the Act. The court made it clear that the provision is not meant to protect the right of the accused. The court thus refused to quash an FIR on the basis that the search was conducted without witnesses. 'Throwing Trash On Bharat Mata Is A Direct Challenge To Sovereignty': Madras High Court On Illegal Waste Imports Case Title: M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301 The Madras High Court recently observed that any person who knowingly aids in importing trash to the country is not just committing an offence under the Environment Protection Act but also directly challenging the country's sovereignty. The court added that there could not be a more aggravated form of deshdroh than throwing trash on the country. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301] Talking about “waste colonialism”, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that when developed countries dump solid municipal waste to developing countries, it not only violates international treaty obligations but also results in serious environmental degradation. Social Boycott Over Inter-Caste Marriage: Madras High Court Orders Police Protection, RDO Inquiry Case Title: Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302 The Madras High Court has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (Mayiladuthurai) to enquire into a complaint filed by a man alleging that he was socially boycotted by his villagers after he performed an inter-caste marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302] Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the RDO to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice to the village headmen and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks. The court also directed the police to complete the investigation in a case registered based on the man's complaint and to give him police protection. Advocates Can't File Writ Petitions Seeking Out-Of-Turn Listing Of Cases, Equity Demands Equal Treatment Of Litigants: Madras High Court Case Title: LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 The Madras High Court recently held that an advocate cannot file a writ petition seeking out-of-turn listing of his cases before the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303] The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that if every advocate is allowed to file such pleas against the registry, the court would be flooded with litigation, paralysing the administration of justice. The court added that though it was sympathetic to the professional anxieties of the lawyer who was answerable to the client, a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be used as an administrative tool to bypass the established listing procedure. Election Petition Challenging Victory On Grounds Except Corruption Becomes Infructuous After Expiry Of Assembly Term: Madras High Court Case Title: V Ramu v...

LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 06 to July 12, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 06 to July 12, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers