Madras High Court Monthly Digest - February 2025 [Citations 39-80]

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 NOMINAL INDEX Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42 R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43 TR Balu v R Kannan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44 V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45 Abbas Manthiri v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46 Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47 M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48 ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49 Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50 Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51 M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52 Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53 T Ramalakshmi v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 54 Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55 Jeyakumari v Stephen, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56 M/s. Ultimate Computer Care v. M/s. S. M. K. Systems, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 A Rajendran v The Joint Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 58 CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59 S Yuvaraj v The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 60 M/s. Ideaforge Technology Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 61 Suo Motu v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 62 V. R. Krishnakumar v. Commissioner of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 K. Shrish v The Controller Of Examination, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 64 M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65 XYZ v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66 Sa. Sivasooryaa v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 67 Raji v Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 68 ST Sivagnanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 69 Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 70 Y Babu v The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 Poongundran and Others v. The State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 72 ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73 S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74 Prof. Dr. M. Srinivasan v. The Chancellor of Universities and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 75 TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76 M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 77 Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss v Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78 Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam v. Regional Officer, CBFC, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 79 Vendaraja v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 REPORTS Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Flipkart Owners Sachin And Binny Bansal Challenging ED's Show Cause Notice For Alleged FEMA Violation Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 The Madras High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by Flipkart owners Sachin and Binny Bansal challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director, ED, and the subsequent show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority for violating provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India, [TISPRO] Regulations 2000. While doing so, Justice S Sounthar observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of raising their objections before the adjudicating authority. The court noted that as per the Act, the petitioners had remedy not just before the civil court but also had an option for a second appeal before the High Court under Section 35 of the Act. thus, the court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the plea. Executing Courts Can't Annul Arbitral Awards Solely On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The court held that the Executing Courts cannot suo motu dismiss the Execution Petition(s) solely on the ground of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that the executing court cannot suo motu annul the award when a party...

Madras High Court Monthly Digest - February 2025 [Citations 39-80]

Upasana Sajeev

Tags