Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6 to October 12, 2025

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350 NOMINAL INDEX M/s. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt Ltd. v. M/s Indo Bevs Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 MC Sivakami v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 337 K Prithika Yashini (Transgender) v. Union of India and Others, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 338 Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339 K v. M, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 340 Krishnan v. The State, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 341 Raja Lakshmi v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 342 Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam v. A.T.S.V.S.Siddha Medical College & Hospital, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 343 P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 344 Visalakshi v. Secretary to Government, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 345 A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to the Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 346 Prakasam v. The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 347 S Paramasivam v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 348 Navanitha v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 349 Uma Maheshwari v. The Principal Secretary to Government, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350 REPORT Madras High Court Restrains 'Bro Code' Manufacturers From Making Infringement Threats Against Actor Ravi Mohan's Upcoming Film Case Title: M/s. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt Ltd. v. M/s Indo Bevs Pvt Ltd Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 The Madras High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of actor Ravi Mohan's production company and has restrained the beverage manufacturing company Indobevs, which manufactures the drink 'Bro Code', from making threats of trademark infringement against the production company, producing a movie with the same title. Justice V Lakshminarayan, after noting that there was a prima facie case in favour of granting an interim injunction, ordered accordingly. The court has also ordered notice to the beverage company and clarified that, in the event the notice is not served, the interim order will not be extended. Ravi Mohan had approached the court seeking to declare that the usage of the title “BROCODE” for his production company's upcoming movie did not infringe the trademark of the defendant company. He had also sought for permanent injunction to restrain the company from issuing or making groundless threats of infringement, or otherwise interfering with the movie's production, publicity, marketing, etc. Madras High Court Asks State To Consider Plea Against ₹1 Crore Land Acquisition Compensation Paid To Boney Kapoor, Janhvi & Khushi Kapoor Case Title: MC Sivakami v. The District Collector and Others Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 337 The Madras High Court has directed the State Highways Department to consider a representation seeking an enquiry into the disbursal of Rs. 1,00,87,183 to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Kushi Kapoor as compensation for land acquisition. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has directed the authority to consider the representation and dispose of the same within 4 weeks. The petition was filed by Sivakami, a resident of Chennai, claiming that the State Highways Department had illegally disbursed the compensation amount to the trio, even though they did not own any property in the area. Madras High Court Asks Transgender Woman To Approach Union Govt Against Denial Of Adoption Case Title: K Prithika Yashini (Transgender) v. Union of India and Others Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 338 The Madras High Court has closed the plea filed by Transgender Sub Inspector Priyanka Yashini against an order of the Central Adoption Resource Authority, rejecting her prospective adoptive parent application. While disposing of the plea, Justice M Dhandapani noted that unless amendments were made to the Adoption Regulations, a direction could not be issued to CARA to consider the petitioner's application. The court thus directed the petitioner to make an application to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, asking them to amend Regulation 5, thus enabling a transgender person to adopt from the CARA agency. POCSO Victim Or Their Parents Need Not Be Involved In Appeal Against Conviction, But Must Be Impleaded For Suspension Of Sentence: Madras HC Case Title: Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339 The Madras High Court recently observed that in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, it was not necessary to involve the victims of their parents. The court, however, added that impleading the victim, their family or the de facto complainant was essential in case of regular bail applications and for suspension of sentence. Justice K Murali Shankar clarified that the victims in POCSO cases should not be directly involved in the proceedings,...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6 to October 12, 2025

Upasana Sajeev

Tags