Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 02 to March 08, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103 NOMINAL INDEX P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99 Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100 A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101 The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102 Mahesh v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103 REPORT 'Govt Acted Fairly': Madras High Court Dismisses Villagers' Plea Against Eviction For Madurai Airport Expansion Case Title: P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 The Madras High Court has dismissed pleas by more than 300 families challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the State government as part of upgrading the Madurai airport to an international airport. The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the government had acted fairly and reasonably and had even granted additional compensation to the families, along with providing alternate housing. The court noted that in the present case, the land acquisition was started in 2009, and thus, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 would not be applicable in the present case. Though the petitioners also claimed 2 acre of agricultural land, the court noted that there was nothing to show that they were involved in agriculture and thus, the demand could not be accepted. Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court Case Title: S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 The Madras High Court, on Monday (March 2nd), remarked that Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S Regupathy had given a mischievous political spin to the Thiruparankundram issue when he made a statement that the Government would not permit lighting of the Karthigai deepam at the Deepathoon (Stone Pillar). Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a sub-application filed for impleading the Minister in the ongoing contempt petition against the state authorities for failing to comply with the court order and not permitting lighting of the lamp. It had been argued that as per a newspaper article on 7th January 2026, the Minister had allegedly stated that the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court order and that the government would not permit the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon. Since the Collector had controverted the stand taken by the Minister, the court was not inclined to summon the Minister. The court also thought it fit to close the sub-application but made it clear that it would not hesitate from reopening the matter if occasion demands. Madras High Court Directs Disciplinary Action Against District Collector For Remaining Ex-Parte In Govt Land Suit Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 The Madras High Court has called for disciplinary action against the District Collector of Ramanathapuram for failing to appear in a case, which ultimately led to an ex parte order being passed against government property. Justice N Senthilkumar remarked that when valuable government property was involved in litigation, the government could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that when responsible officers fail to conduct cases, it would affect the public interest. The court has also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disatser Management Department, to issue comprehensive Government Order giving clear guidelines for all government pleaders and revenue officials specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits against the state, mandatory steps to be taken when government officials are set ex parte, time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside the ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences in case of dereliction of duty. “Either Negligence Or Connivance”: Madras High Court Calls For Vigilance Probe Into State's Delay In Filing Appeals Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99 The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the delay on the State's part in pursuing appeals against orders on time. The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that in a large number of cases, the court was observing that the State was filing appeals after a...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 02 to March 08, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags