Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 – September 28, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 NOMINAL INDEX Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 VP v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 SGS and another v. NIL, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323 M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324 RAP v. AM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 REPORT Photocopy Of Misplaced Cheque Can Be Accepted As Secondary Evidence In Cheque Bounce Cases: Madras High Court Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 The Madras High Court recently observed that a Xerox copy of a cheque can be accepted as secondary evidence in cheque bounce cases, and such a request cannot be refused merely because there is no evidence to prove that the original cheque was lost. Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that when the trial judge had recorded the sworn statement in which he had made an endorsement with respect to the original cheque before giving it back to the complainant, he should have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence. No Maintenance Without Evidence Of Valid Marriage, Testimony Of Unreliable Witnesses Cannot Be Considered: Madras High Court Case Title: VP v. M Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Family Court at Dindigul, which had directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, after noting that there was no evidence to prove the marriage between the parties. The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the trial judge had only relied on the evidence of the witness on the plaintiff's side without considering the evidence of the defendant's witness, which gave an undue advantage to the plaintiff. The court noted that in the absence of any evidence, the court should not have placed complete reliance on the unreliable witness, and thus opined that the trial court's order was unsustainable. Compelling Parties In Mutual Divorce To Wait For Cooling-Off Period To Expire Will Only Increase Their Agony: Madras High Court Case Title: SGS and another v. NIL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 The Madras High Court recently observed that when parties to a mutual divorce have affirmed their decision to go their separate ways, the court should not insist on them waiting for the mandatory cooling-off period, as the same would only increase their agony. Justice PB Balaji, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts regarding the issue, held as under, “Independently, I also find that both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits even in this revision, affirming their decision to go separate ways. The interest of any children is also not involved in the present case, since the parties were not blessed with any issues and both the petitioners have categorically asserted that the relationship has become irreconcilable and distressing. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to wait for the mandatory period to expire would only further increase their agony. The petitioners have also stated that their decision is voluntary and only based on their free will and there is no fraud, collusion or undue influence brought upon them to file the mutual consent divorce petition,” the court said. Interim Stay On Govt Order Doesn't Create Right Of Appointment Against Abolished Post: Madras High Court Case Name : Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V.Karthikeya and Justice R.Vijayakumar held that an appointment cannot be made to a post abolished by a Government Order, and a stay order in a different matter does not confer any right to appointment or its approval. It was noted by the court that an order of stay granted in W.A.(M.D).No.816 of 2023 was restricted to Sweepers and Scavengers. It was held by the court that the stay order granted by the Court was only to protect the interest of the parties to the proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition. If the respondent had been appointed prior to G.O.Ms.238, then he could have taken advantage of the stay order. It was...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 – September 28, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags