Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 23 to March 29, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134 NOMINAL INDEX Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127 M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128 A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129 S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130 XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131 S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132 K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133 C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134 REPORT Environment Clearance Certificate Not Mandatory During Land Acquisition For NHAI Projects, Needed For Construction: Madras High Court Case Title: Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 The Madras High Court has recently observed that obtaining an environment clearance certificate is not compulsory during the acquisition of land for projects for National Highways. As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2016, obtaining an environment clearance was mandatory for all projects and activities in the nature of expansion of National Highways greater than 100 kms. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the clearance was mandatory for all construction activities. The court noted that the construction would happen only after the land is entrusted to the National Highways Authority of India and not at the time of acquisition. The court added that at the time of land acquisition, the land would only be vested with the Government. The court thus concluded that the clearance was not necessary at the time of acquisition but during the commencement of development activities. Senior Citizens Act Not Retrospective, Applies Only To Post-2007 Property Transfers: Madras High Court Case Title: MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127 The Madras High Court has held that provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 would be applicable only to property transfers made after the commencement of the Act. The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made it clear that the act cannot be given a retrospective application. The bench noted that Section 23 of the Act clearly states that the property transfer will be void in certain circumstances, which is transferred by any senior citizen after the commencement of the Act. The bench also noted that a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini v. District Collector had held that the provision of the Act was intended to be only prospective in nature. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. Unionof India, had concurred with this view, and the challenge against the same was also dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that the act was not retrospective. Madras High Court Upholds Order Directing Filmmaker Gautham Menon To Repay ₹4.25 Crore To Production Company Over Unmade Movie Case Title: M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128 The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by Director Gautham Vasudev Menon and his company Photon Factory, challenging a single judge's order directing them to repay Rs. 4.25 Crore along with 12% interest to production company RS Infotainment for failure to make a movie as agreed between the parties. The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal filed by the director and his company after noting that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the single judge. Madras High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea Over Savukku Shankar's Solitary Confinement, Declines To Direct His Surrender Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129 The Madras High Court on Tuesday (March 24) dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar, challenging his solitary confinement in prison during his incarceration in December 2025 in connection with an alleged extortion case. Significant to note that Shankar is currently out on interim bail in the matter. The court also disposed of a petition filed by her seeking specialised medical treatment for him in prison. The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman also dismissed as infructuous an application filed by Shankar seeking review of the additional bail conditions imposed on him. Though the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that the interim bail granted to Shankar would expire on 25th March (tomorrow), and he may be directed to...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 23 to March 29, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags