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

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435 NOMINAL INDEX Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422 S Prasanna and another v. Jothika, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423 Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 424 AK, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 425 RK Sarathkumaran v. The Chairman and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 426 Rahul Surana v. The Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 427 Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 428 RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429 Zubaitha Begum v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 430 State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Vijarani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 431 Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar, and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432 Aadhav Arjuna v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 433 Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434 M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 435 REPORT Computer-Related Invention Not Barred U/S 3(k) Patents Act If It Demonstrates Technical Contribution: Madras High Court Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421 The Madras High Court has recently allowed an appeal by Ab Initio Technology LLC, a US-based company, against the Patent Office's refusal and directed that the patent application be allowed, holding that the claimed invention involved an 'inventive step' to satisfy Section 2(1)(j) requirement and is not excluded as a 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the verdict on November 4, 2025, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Patent Office in July 2020. On the objection of non-patentability, the Court observed that under Indian patent law, a computer-related invention is not automatically rejected under Section 3(k). If the invention offers a real technical improvement or produces a technical effect, it can still be patented even if it uses algorithms or computer programs. In this case, the Court found that the invention improved how quickly data queries are answered which gave the invention a clear technical character. Thus, the Court ruled that the invention was not barred by Section 3(k). Misuse Of POCSO Act Undermines Its Objective, Trial Courts Must Take Action Against Persons Filing False Complaints: Madras High Court Case Title: Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422 The Madras High Court recently remarked that there has been an increase in misuse of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to settle personal scores, which ultimately undermines the true object of the Act. Justice B. Pugalendhi thus directed the trial courts to make sure that cases are registered under Section 22 of the POCSO Act against adults giving false complaints under the Act. Judicial Officers Are Expected To Approach Surrogacy Petitions With Sensitivity And Compassion: Madras HighCourt Case Title: S Prasanna and another v. Jothika Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 423 The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with petitions filed under the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act seeking an order to have parentage and custody, the courts are expected to be sensitive, responsible, and compassionate without frustrating the beneficial objective of the legislation. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that the Act is a beneficial legislation and its primary objective is to regulate surrogacy in India. The court added that an application filed under the Act should not be dealt with in a routine manner and the courts must keep in mind that these matters are touching upon the deepest aspirations of human life, to have a child. Multiple Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act “Unworkable” Without Reversing Findings On Merits: Madras High Court Case Title: Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. Versus ICMC Corporation Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 424 The Madras High Court held that multiple remand orders issued by courts under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) without disturbing or reversing the findings on merits recorded by earlier Single Judges were incapable of implementation. The court found the situation unprecedented and unusual holding that the statutory scheme of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not permit a wholesale de novo remand unless the appellate court first reverses the findings on merits which the court observed did not happen in any of the connected cases. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that ...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags