Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 NOMINAL INDEX P v. S, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351 Palraj v. Inspector Of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352 Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 354 A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355 M v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356 The Manager v. Aron K Thiraviaraj, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 357 Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358 General Manager, Southern India Region v. P Sundarapariporanam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 359 TRULIV Properties and Services Private Limited Vs C.Ravishankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 360 Sally Thermoplastic India Limited Vs. Learning Leadership Foundation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 M/s.AL TIRVEN STEELS LTD Vs. M/s.IVRCL Assets and Holding Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 T. Gangeswari v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 REPORT Visitation Right Of Parents Should Not Affect Development Child: Madras High Court Case Title: P v. S Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351 The Madras High Court has stressed that while deciding the visitation rights of the parents, it should be noted that the child's schooling and the child's physical, moral and emotional development should not be affected. Justice M Jothiraman reiterated that while dealing with cases pertaining to visitation rights, the court's paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. The court added that though the parents had a visitation right, it should not disrupt the child's development. Madras High Court Sends Judicial Officer To Training For Convicting POCSO Accused Based On Victim's Statement U/S 164 CrPC Case Title: Palraj v. Inspector Of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352 The Madras High Court has asked a Judicial Officer to be sent to the State Judicial Academy to attend training programs to understand the fundamentals of criminal law. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima gave directions to the registry after noting that the judge, who was presiding over the Special Court for POCSO cases, had found a man guilty based on the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. Grant Of Gun License A Privilege But Its Renewal Is A Right Unless Grounds For Refusal Are Established: Madras High Court Case Title: Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353 The Madras High Court recently observed that getting a license to bear arms is a privilege however, once the license is granted, the privilege becomes a right and an application for renewal of gun license would stand on a better footing. The court added that an application for renewal of license cannot be denied unless the authority establishes the grounds for rejection. Justice GR Swaminathan observed that while the onus is on the applicant to make out a case for the grant of a license, onus will shift to the authorities at the time of renewal. The court added that the reason assigned by the authority for refusing to grant a license will be subjected to greater scrutiny, and it will be tested whether the authority has discharged the burden cast on it. Madras High Court Disposes Of Plea By IOC Against Strike By LPG Transport Owners Association After They Accept State's Proposal Case Title: M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 354 The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, disposed of a petition filed by the Indian Oil Corporation against the strike conducted by the LPG transport owners' association. Justice M Dhandapani disposed of the plea after taking note of the submissions made by Assistant Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, informing the court that the existing tenders will be allowed to continue the work till 31st March 2026. Since the Southern regional Bulk LPG Transport Owners Association, who were also the respondents in the case, accepted the proposal, the court disposed of the plea. Dismissal For Threatening Manager Not Disproportionate When Employee Has Record Of Similar Misconduct: Madras HC Case Name : A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355 A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that dismissal for abusive and threatening conduct against a superior is not disproportionate when the employee has a history of similar past misconduct. It was observed that previous misconduct of similar nature on two occasions necessarily had to be taken into account while determining the appropriate punishment for the repeated offences involving abusive and threatening conduct against the Branch...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags