Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 03 - November 09, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409 NOMINAL INDEX The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395 Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397 I v. DM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 398 G Sampathkumar IPS v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 399Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 400 M/s. Stellar Developer v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 401 Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 402 Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 403 Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 404 D. Mohammed Nadeem v. The National Testing Agency and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405 Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 Selvaraj v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 408 M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 409 REPORT Public Interest Paramount: Madras High Court Condones 32-Year Delay By State In Filing Appeal In Title Dispute Case, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. R Ramanathan Chettiar and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 394 Condoning 32-year delay by Tamil Nadu government in filing an appeal in a land dispute case, the Madras High Court said that public interest is paramount and if it shown that the public interest has suffered due to fraud, the court could use its discretionary power to condone delay. Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the court must always march towards safeguarding public interest and avoid miscarriage of justice. The court noted that when the delay was properly explained, and there was bona fide in the explanation for the delay, it could be condoned. Approval From Higher Authority Mandatory For Issuing Notice U/S 148 Income Tax Act After Expiry Of 3-Year Limitation: Madras High Court Case Title: D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 395 The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period. Justice C. Saravanan stated that …….three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already expired on 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. However, Section 148 Notices were issued for these Assessment Years only on 29.07.2022 with approval from the Principal Commissioner instead of approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner in terms of amended provisions as in force for the period in dispute were in time……. Madras High Court Lets Udaipur Salon Keep 'Bounce,' Lifts Earlier Ban Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396 The Madras High Court has recently lifted an interim injunction that had previously restrained an Udaipur-based salon from using the name “Bounce,” noting that the term is common in the beauty and haircare industry. In a ruling delivered on October 25, A Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, vacated the injunction that had been granted in favor of Spalon India Pvt. Ltd., the operator of the well-known “Bounce” salon chain in South India. The Court also referred to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explaining that registration of a composite mark grants exclusive rights over the mark as a whole and not over individual generic words within it. Judges Must Uphold Law, Not Fear Backlash: Madras High Court While Restoring License Of Hospital Allegedly Involved In Kidney Racket Case Title: M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397 The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, cancelling the license of Cethar Hospital in Tiruchirappalli for its alleged involvement in a kidney racket, without following due procedure. When the Additional Advocate General submitted that the public would not be welcoming of such a development and might view it negatively, Justice GR Swaminathan said that judges should remain insulated to such probabilities. The judge remarked that a judge is on oath to uphold the law and must do...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 03 - November 09, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags