Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27 - November 02, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393 NOMINAL INDEX N Anand @ Bussy Anand v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374 M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 375 M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 A Vignesh v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377 National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 378 M. Maher Dadha v. Mr. S. Mohanchand Dadha and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 379 The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 380 Kamaraj v. State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 381 Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 382 A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383 All India Defence Employees Federation (AIDEF) v. Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 384 M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 385 M. Gajendran & Anr. v. R. Munirathinam & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 386 Ganesan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 387 Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 388 M/s GAIL (India) Limited v M/s Coromandal Electric Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 P. Pushpam v/s The Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 G Sampath Kumar v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 391 K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 392 Srinivasan v. The Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393 REPORT Karur Stampede: TVK's Bussy Anand Withdraws Anticipatory Bail Plea From Madras High Court After Transfer Of Probe To CBI Case Title: N Anand @ Bussy Anand v. State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374 Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party's general secretary N Anand @ Bussy Anand, on Monday (October 27) withdrew an anticipatory bail petition filed by him in the Madras High Court in connection with the Karur Stampede. Anand's counsel informed a bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan that he intended to withdraw the plea, since the investigation had been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following the orders of the Supreme Court. Taking note of the same, the court allowed his request and dismissed the plea as withdrawn. Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations | 'Offence Report Need Not Be Penal'; 90-Day Period Begins Only Upon Receipt Of Report: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 375 The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report. The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed with knowledge in this regard, that would not count for the purpose of limitation. It is the date of receipt of the offence report that is material. Such an interpretation alone would be in consonance with the text of Regulation 17." Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated that an offence report need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Any official communication or proceeding or order, or notice setting out the misconduct committed by the customs broker in any customs station would qualify to be an offence report. The offence report need not be in any particular format. The only requirement is that the offence report has to emanate from an official source. Deliberate Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Not Grounds To Resist Enforcement Of Award: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award. The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Limited wherein it was observed that where the party fails to take advantage of an opportunity duly accorded to, it cannot later invoke that ground. The Court observed that the ground under Section 48(1)(b) of the Act will not be available to a party, which makes a conscious and deliberate decision not to participate in the arbitral proceedings after receiving...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27 - November 02, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags