Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 10 to March 16, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106 NOMINAL INDEX Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96S Shankar v. The Deputy Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102The Secretary and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103Arasu S v. The Tahsildar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106 REPORT Madras High Court Orders CBCID Inquiry Against Law Firm For Alleged Involvement In Unlawful Activities In Land Transaction Case Title: Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 The Madras High Court has directed the Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) to investigate the genuineness of a law firm and its associates after noting that the lawyers had been indulging in forum shopping, misrepresenting the court, and attempting to legalise their illegal activities. Justice Jagadish Chandira thus ordered a special team to be formed for investigation headed by an officer above the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the genuineness of the police complaints filed against the parties. The court also directed the team to enquire into the role played by the law firm and its associates in the land case and details of any pending case against the firm and its people. The court also directed all police personnel in the state to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures in registering complaints and issuing CSRs and to take necessary legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor if any complaint relating to immovable property had to be closed as one of civil in nature. 'Why Didn't ED Wait For Outcome Of Complaint?' : Madras High Court Stays ED Attachment Of Director Shankar's Property Over Copyright Dispute Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crore of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'. The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba. Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had passed the order provisionally attaching the property. State Can Acquire Temple Land For Public Projects Like Metro, No Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 25, 26: Madras High Court Case Title: United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 The Madras High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Chennai Metri Rail Limited proposing to acquire the property belonging to United India Insurance for construction of metro station in connection with the Phase-II project of CMRL. Justice Anand Venkatesh held that it was open for the CMRL to acquire the property of a nearby temple, as per its original plan. Borrowing the words of the Kerala High Court in a recentdecision, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the almighty would show kindness and benevolence on all for the development of metro station, which would benefit lakhs of people. The court also noted that lands belonging to religious institutions were not exempt from land acquisition and such acquisition of the temple lands would not be in violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Insurance Company Only Liable To Disburse Amount To Beneficiary Or Collector Nominee, Need Not Get Into Dispute Of Legal Heirs: Madras HC Case Title: A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99 The Madras High Court has recently held that while disbursing the amount under an insurance policy, the Insurance company was only expected to disburse the amount to the beneficiary nominee or collector nominee named in the policy and need not go into any dispute regarding the legal heirs. Relying on an earlier order of the Madras High Court, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that when a person has been named a beneficiary nominee in the policy, they would be entitled to make a claim for the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 10 to March 16, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags