Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 5, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 NOMINAL INDEX A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332 N Sathish Kumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333 PH Dinesh v/s Home Secretary State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 334 N ANAND ALIAS BUSSY ANAND VS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 335 REPORT TN Idol Theft Case | Madras High Court Quashes CBI Case Against Ex-IPS Officer Ponmanickavel, Says FIR Lacks Materials Case Title: A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 The Madras High Court has quashed a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation against former IPS officer Ponmanickavel, who was heading the idol theft wing of the CID in the state of Tamil Nadu. Justice RN Manjula observed that the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet did not disclose any allegations committed by Ponmanickavel and were non est and redundant. The court also noted that the FIR had been registered in excess of authority without getting any permission from the High Court. In an earlier proceeding, while disposing of a petition alleging excess use of force by the officer, the court had ordered that any future case against the officer in connection with the case should be after getting the High Court's approval. Motor Vehicles Act | Borrower Of Vehicle Steps Into Shoes Of Owner, Can't Claim Compensation For Accident: Madras High Court Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a person who borrows a vehicle from its owner would step into the shoes of the owner and such a person cannot claim compensation similar to a third party. Justice R Poornima of the Madurai bench took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, where the court had held that a claim petition under Section 163A was not maintainable by a borrower/permissible user of a vehicle against the owner/insurer of the vehicle. RPF Not Governed By Railway Servants Rules, Disciplinary Action Would Be Under Railway Protection Force Act: Madras High Court Case Title: The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 The Madras High Court recently held that members belonging to the Railway Protection Force would not be governed by the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that Rule 801 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, had specifically excluded any member of the Railway Protection Forces from the applicability of the rules. The bench thus noted that any disciplinary action or punishment against a member of the force would be under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and the Rules prescribed therein. Madras High Court Rejects Pleas Seeking CBI Probe Into Karur Stampede, Govt Says No Permission For Any Political Meets Till SOP Framed Case title: SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE With Related Petitions Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332 The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday (October 3) rejected a bunch of pleas seeking CBI probe into the Karur stampede which occurred on last Saturday, claiming 39 lives. Meanwhile, the State government also informed the high court that until SOPs are framed for holding of public meetings by political parties, no permissions will be given to any political party to hold such meetings. A division bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice M Jothiraman also disposed of PILs seeking framing of SOPs, noting that the principal bench has already asked the State Government to frame SOP. Petitioners have been given liberty to file impleading petition in that plea. Madras High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To TVK Namakkal District Secretary Over Roadshow Rampage, Says Should've Controlled Party Members Case Title: N Sathish Kumar v. State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333 The Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Namakkal District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party, N Satish Kumar in connection with a violence that took place on September 27th, allegedly involving party cadres. Justice N Senthilkumar, while dismissing the plea for anticipatory bail, held that as the District Secretary of the party, Kumar should have kept the cadres of the party under control and prevented them...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 5, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags