Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 to March 23, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 NOMINAL INDEX V. Samburanam v. District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110Kavitha Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 REPORT 'Big Racket For Bogus Community Certificates In Tamil Nadu': Madras High Court Asks State To Take Action Case Title: V. Samburanam v. District Collector Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107 The Madras High Court has asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the issuance of bogus community certificates is stopped in the state, and action has to be taken to prosecute those who are involved in securing such bogus community certificates. Noting that there was a big racket going on in the State, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if proper action were not taken, it would defeat the very object of bringing in reservation. The court thus asked the State to ensure that only genuine persons who belong to the community are entitled to avail the benefits of reservation. The court noted that through the bogus community certificate, the persons were availing reservation and such other facilities under different government schemes. The court thus directed the government to ensure that the correctness of certificates is verified. The court added that when a reference certificate was given to the authorities, the authenticity of the same is verified and if found incorrect, action should be taken to cancel the reference certificate. Madras HC Rejects Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of S.13 Family Courts Act Which Restricts Representation Of Party By Lawyer Case Title: Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. Section 13 states that no party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner as a right. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran dismissed the plea noting that no further adjudication was required in the matter as the legal position was already settled. The petitioner had argued that the section infringed the advocate's right to practice in court as provided under the Advocates Act 1961. It was argued that a legal practitioner's right was absolute under the Advocates Act and thus any prohibition on the same was unsustainable. It was also submitted that when advocates were not allowed to represent, the litigants would find it difficult to defend their cases. Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court Case Title: S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109 The Madras High Court has stressed that courts should be slow to ignore delay once the limitation period for a particular suit expires and the action becomes time-barred. Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the statute relating to limitation determines the life span of a legal remedy and as time passes, newer causes would come up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy. Remarking that time is precious, the court thus noted that if the life span of legal remedy was not followed, it may lead to unending uncertainty and anarchy. Madras High Court Rejects NTK Chief Seeman's Plea To Club All FIRs Over His Alleged Comments On Periyar, Says Plea Seeks Omnibus Relief Case Title: Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110 The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to club all FIRs registered against Naam Tamilar Katchi party chief Seeman for his alleged comments against Periyar. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after observing that the plea sought an omnibus relief without mentioning the details of the FIRs registered against Seeman, without impleading the police stations where the FIRs were registered, and without impleading the complainants. Wondering how the registry even numbered the petition without the details, the court dismissed the plea. Upper Age Limit For Women To Avail ART Services Rational, Difficult For Mother To Support Child During Her Elderly Years: Madras High Court Case Title: Kavitha Anand c. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 to March 23, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags