Madras High Court Monthly Digest - March 2025 [Citations 81-122]

NOMINAL INDEX

Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

Regina Begum v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

L V Sarojini v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

The State v MK Alagiri, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

Nupur J Sharma And Another v. The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

Venkatesh Sowrirajan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

Dr S John William v. Loyola College (Autonomous), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

S Shankar v. The Deputy Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

The Secretary and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

Arasu S v. The Tahsildar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

V. Samburanam v. District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

Kavitha Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

B Kavitha v. The Registrar General, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

State v. Govindaswamy and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

Marudhu Pandi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

REPORTS

Case Title: Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

The Madras High Court has directed the State government to appoint professors specialising in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Surgery and Orthopaedics, to the post of Dean in Government Medical Colleges, whose promotion was delayed due to an oral order of the court and imposition of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in light of the 2019 general elections.

Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order observed, “In the case in hand, there was an oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court not to issue the promotion and transfer order till a particular date and ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. This oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court should not act prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners, who would have otherwise got the promotion and transfer orders along with others on 28.2.2019 when the Medical Officers working in the other 22 specialities were issued with the promotion and transfer orders".

The court noted that the Government delayed the promotion of the individuals due to an oral instruction by the court asking the state not to issue any promotion order until a challenge to the same was heard. The court noted that the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible to be appointed as Deans, should not be denied the opportunity when they were not at fault. The court added that no person should suffer due to the act of the court.

Insurance Company Liable To Pay Compensation Even If Driver Was Intoxicated At Time Of Accident: Madras High Court

Case Title: Bhuvaneswari and others v. M/s. Bvm Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd and Another.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 82

The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Insurance company would be liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased even if the driver of the vehicle that was involved in the accident was under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Justice M Dhandapani followed a decision of the Kerala High Court in Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs. Girivasan E.K and held that even if the policy document had a condition that driving of vehicle in an intoxicated condition is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance company would still be liable to pay the compensation.

Convicted Prisoner Too Has Right To Marry: Madras High Court While Granting Emergency Leave To Life Convict

Case Title: Regina Begum v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

Noting that a convicted prisoner has a right to marry, the Madras High Court recently granted emergency leave to a prisoner for 15 days with the necessary escort for his marriage. The court passed the orders on January 3rd, 2025, enabling the prisoner to solemnize his marriage that was to take place on January 15, 2025.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima relied on Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 which states that an emergency leave may be granted to a prisoner for attending death or serious illness of father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, full brother or full sister, or the wedding of the prisoner or son, daughter, full brother or full sister and for delivery outside the prison in case of female pregnant prisoner.

The court remarked that when the rule expressly provides for the grant of leave, the court could not contrarily dispose of such pleas. The court also disagreed with the practice adopted by some jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where a life convict was not granted the right to marry.

FDs, Jewels Are Property Under Senior Citizens Act: Madras HC Allows Mother's Plea For Return Of Assets After Daughter Fails To Pay Maintainance

Case Title: L V Sarojini v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 84

The Madras High Court recently observed that fixed deposits in Banks, jewels, etc would come within the definition of “property” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The court thus noted that a complaint under Section 23 of the Act was maintainable when the daughter failed to maintain the mother after having fixed deposits transferred in her name.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reiterated that the 2007 Act was a beneficial legislation that must be given a liberal construction in consonance with the objective of the Act. The court added that the Act was aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, and when two views was possible, the court should interpret it in favour of the beneficiaries.

Caste-Based Temple Administration Not A Religious Practice, Cannot Be Protected Under Articles 25, 26 Of Constitution: Madras High Court

Case Title: C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

Promoting its idea for a casteless society, the Madras High Court recently observed that no caste could claim ownership of a temple and that administering a temple by a particular caste was not a religious practice that could be protected under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that only if a group followed a particular philosophy or had a distinct way of carrying their faith could a group be called a denomination. The court added that the caste itself was not a religious denomination, and when no religious denomination or essential religious practice was involved, no protection could be granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The court also added that the exceptions under Articles 25 and 26 should always be tested within the secular fabric and should stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal.

Sufficient Grounds For Prosecution: Madras High Court Asks Trial Court To Proceed With Land Grab Case Against Former Minister MK Alagiri

Case Title: The State v MK Alagiri

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

The Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed a revision petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of a Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, discharging former Union Minister MK Alagiri from offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC in a case for allegedly encroaching on temple land for building a college.

The court also dismissed a revision petition filed by Alagiri against the order of the Magistrate refusing to discharge him from offences under Section 120B and 408 of the IPC in the same case.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that as per the submissions, there were no grounds for discharging the Minister from the criminal case. Rather, the court observed that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with Alagiri's prosecution.

Madras HC Dismisses Congress Leader Manickam Tagore's Plea Seeking Rejection Of Election Petition Challenging His 2024 Lok Sabha Polls Victory

Case Title: B Manickam Tagore v. V Vijaya Prabakaran and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Congress MP Manickam Tagore seeking to reject an election petition challenging his victory from the Virudhunagar Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 General Assembly Elections.

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the disputed issues had to be tried with reference to the documents and evidence to be produced by the parties. The court added that it could not decide the disputed facts and issues at the stage of rejecting the election petition as it could not form an opinion at that stage. Noting that the exercise has to be done by the court at the time of dealing with the election petition and noting that there were allegations with regard to provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, the court was not inclined to reject the election petition.

Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against OpIndia's Rahul Roushan, Nupur Sharma Over Alleged Fake News On Bihari Migrants Being Attacked

Case Title: Nupur J Sharma And Another v. The Inspector of Police and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against the CEO of OpIndia, Rahul Roushan, and its Editor, Nupur Sharma, for allegedly spreading fake news about migrant workers of Bihar being attacked in Tamil Nadu.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, on Tuesday (4^th March), allowed the plea filed by Rahul and Nupur in 2023 seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the Avadi Police.

The Thiruninravur Police in the Avadi City Police Commissionerate had registered the case under Sections 153A, 501, and 505 of the IPC for making statements and publishing defamatory content, thus promoting enmity between different groups of people. The case was registered upon a complaint lodged by Suryaprakash, a member of the IT Wing of the ruling DMK party. In his complaint, Suryaprakash stated that the portal had published fake news, which could create conflict and a sense of fear among the migrant workers in the State. He also stated that the news could cause disruption to public tranquility.

Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Order To Register FIR Against News Channel For Allegedly Revealing Identity Of POCSO Victim

Case Title: News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

The Madras High Court has recently refused to interfere with an order of the Special Judge for POCSO cases, Chennai, directing registration of an FIR against a Tamil news channel for allegedly revealing the identity of a victim in a POCSO case. As per Section 23 of the Act, media is restricted from disclosing the identity of the child, including name, address, photograph, family details, etc and any contravention of the rules is punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than 6 months but may extend to 1 year or with fine or both.

Justice P Velmurugan noted that no prejudice would be caused to the news channel if an FIR was registered and an investigation was carried on by the jurisdictional police. The court added that mere irregularity by the Special Judge could not be treated as an illegality. Further, considering the seriousness of the offence, the court was not inclined to set aside the order or stay the investigation.

Non-Devotional Songs Should Not Be Played Inside Temple Precincts: Madras High Court In Plea Against Singing Of Movie Songs

Case Title: Venkatesh Sowrirajan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

The Madras High Court has asked various Temple authorities to ensure that only devotional songs are played by the orchestra that it may engage during any temple festival.

Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy was dealing with a petition stating that movie songs being sung inside temples is inappropriate. The court observed that orchestra arranged by the temple should ensure that only devotional songs are played inside the temple and should avoid playing non-devotional songs.

Subsequent Bail Pleas Arising Out Of Same FIR Should Be Listed Before Roster Judge: Madras Hight Court Clarifies

Case Title: Y Babu v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

While answering a reference made by a single judge, a division bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that all successive bail applications/anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR/Crime Number shall be listed before the judge holding the roster.

On February 21, Justice Sunder Mohan had referred to a larger bench the issue on whether subsequent bail applications filed by an accused should be listed before the roster bench even if the judge who had dealt with an earlier bail/anticipatory bail petition is available.

Thus answering the reference, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran confirmed that if there was a change in the roster when the successive bail petition came up, the judge dealing with the successive application should give weightage to the views expressed by his predecessor judge who dealt with the previous application.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran In 2024 Lok Sabha Elections

Case Title: ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran from the Chennai Central constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.

Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the plea filed by Advocate ML Ravi, who had also contested the election from the same constituency for Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi. The court also allowed a plea filed by Maran seeking to delete certain parts of the election petition.

In his plea, Ravi claimed that the election to the Chennai Central constituency was not free and fair and alleged that there were corrupt practices during the election. He thus sought to declare the election to the constituency null and void.

Madras High Court Upholds Order Directing Political Parties, Other Organisations To Remove Permanent Flagpoles From Govt Lands

Case Title: Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

A division bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the decision of a single judge directing all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places, including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc.

The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy dismissed an appeal filed against the single judge's order, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the same.

In January this year, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed all political parties in the State to remove the permanent flagpoles erected by them in public land within 12 months. The single judge also directed the concerned authorities to take appropriate action if the parties failed to comply with the orders of the court.

Madras High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On State Of Tamil Nadu For “Re-Agitating” Case Which Had Already Been Decided By Supreme Court

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing a writ appeal in a matter that had already attained finality through the order of the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the appeal was a “re-agitation” of a matter that had already been settled by a division bench of the Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the court imposed a cost directing the state to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the sanitary worker whose appointment was challenged and the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority.

Every Individual Has Right To Complain, Can't Be Dismissed From Service Merely Because Complaint Is Not Proved: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr S John William v. Loyola College (Autonomous)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

The Madras High Court recently observed that every individual has a right to complain of certain misdeeds, and merely because the complaint was not proved or not substantiated with materials, the individual could not be dismissed from service.

In doing so, Justice C Kumarappan modified the order of dismissal from service imposed on an Associate professor to that of compulsory retirement. The court also directed the college to pay all monetary benefits and other attendant benefits to the professor. The court noted that dismissing the professor from service at the fag end of his career when he had been serving the institution for more than 20 years was shockingly disproportionate.

Noting that the remedy should not be worse than the disease, the court emphasised that the punishment should always be commensurate with the gravity of the guilt. The court observed that in service jurisprudence, the Disciplinary Authority to always consider various factors, including the long period of service, promotions, period remaining for superannuation, etc.

Madras High Court Orders CBCID Inquiry Against Law Firm For Alleged Involvement In Unlawful Activities In Land Transaction

Case Title: Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

The Madras High Court has directed the Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) to investigate the genuineness of a law firm and its associates after noting that the lawyers had been indulging in forum shopping, misrepresenting the court, and attempting to legalise their illegal activities.

Justice Jagadish Chandira thus ordered a special team to be formed for investigation headed by an officer above the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the genuineness of the police complaints filed against the parties. The court also directed the team to enquire into the role played by the law firm and its associates in the land case and details of any pending case against the firm and its people.

The court also directed all police personnel in the state to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures in registering complaints and issuing CSRs and to take necessary legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor if any complaint relating to immovable property had to be closed as one of civil in nature.

'Why Didn't ED Wait For Outcome Of Complaint?' : Madras High Court Stays ED Attachment Of Director Shankar's Property Over Copyright Dispute

Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crore of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba. Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had passed the order provisionally attaching the property.

State Can Acquire Temple Land For Public Projects Like Metro, No Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 25, 26: Madras High Court

Case Title: United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Chennai Metri Rail Limited proposing to acquire the property belonging to United India Insurance for construction of metro station in connection with the Phase-II project of CMRL.

Justice Anand Venkatesh held that it was open for the CMRL to acquire the property of a nearby temple, as per its original plan. Borrowing the words of the Kerala High Court in a recentdecision, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the almighty would show kindness and benevolence on all for the development of metro station, which would benefit lakhs of people.

The court also noted that lands belonging to religious institutions were not exempt from land acquisition and such acquisition of the temple lands would not be in violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Insurance Company Only Liable To Disburse Amount To Beneficiary Or Collector Nominee, Need Not Get Into Dispute Of Legal Heirs: Madras HC

Case Title: A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

The Madras High Court has recently held that while disbursing the amount under an insurance policy, the Insurance company was only expected to disburse the amount to the beneficiary nominee or collector nominee named in the policy and need not go into any dispute regarding the legal heirs.

Relying on an earlier order of the Madras High Court, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that when a person has been named a beneficiary nominee in the policy, they would be entitled to make a claim for the entire amount of the policy unlike a collecting nominee, who receives the amount in trust to be distributed to all legal heirs.

Pleadings In Civil Suit Not Document/Instrument, Cannot Be Registered By Authorities Or Entered In Encumbrance Certificate: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

The Madras High Court has clarified that pleadings in a civil suit is not a document or instrument to be registered under the Registration Act or the Stamp Act. The court added that authorities cannot entertain the pleadings or make entries regarding the same in the encumbrance certificate.

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observations noting that previously, the courts have ruled in favour of registering pleadings to ensure that an innocent purchaser is not put into distress. The court observed that though the earlier directions were well intended, it had a flip side to it and if allowed to continue, it would result in more confusion.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Allowing Ritual Of Devotees Rolling Over Plantain Leaves On Which Food Was Eaten By Others

Case Title: The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

The Madras High Court has set aside an order of a single judge allowing Angapradakshinam, a ritual of devotees rolling over the plantain leaves on which other devotees had consumed food.

The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan set aside an order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan in May 2024. The court noted that whether such a practice was against the public morality or order could not be decided by the High Court at this point since the Supreme Court was already seized of a similar issue arising from the Karnataka High Court.

At the same time, the court opined that the practice did not appear to directly offend the public order or morality. With respect to public health, the court noted that there was no proof, document or literature to suggest that the practice of rolling over the used leaves would be a health hazard. The court noted that when a particular group wanted to perform the ritual to fulfil their vow, believing that they would get the blessings of god, it could not be said to offend the public order. Agreeing that there was no scientific proof for such practices, the court observed that every religious practice was based on belief and scientific evidence could not be sought for the same.

Falsely Labelling Police Constable Husband As A Terrorist Cannot Be Ignored, Caused Severe Mental Torture: Madras High Court Grants Divorce

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

While granting divorce to a police constable, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's complaint against him alleging that he had an extra-marital affair and that he had a connection with terrorist organizations could not be ignored as the same would cause severe mental torture and would amount to mental cruelty.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima also noted that the wife had left the minor child with the husband without taking care of the child, which would show that she was not interested in saving the matrimonial relationship.

State Minority Commission Cannot Call For Records From Minority Institutions To Verify Adoption Of Reservation Policy: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Secretary and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

The Madras High Court has held that the State Minority Commission does not have any locus standi to call for records from a minority educational institution to verify its adoption of the reservation rule.

Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that minority educational institutions were exempt from the purview of Article 15(5) which gave power to the State to make special provisions of law for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes relating to admission to educational institutions, including private institutions.

Legal Heirship Certificate Can Be Issued Based On Affidavit Of Applicant & Persons Known To Family Like Neighbours And Relatives: Madras HC

Case Title: Arasu S v. The Tahsildar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

The Madras High Court has recently observed that while applying for a legal heirship certificate, if no proof is available to determine who the legal heirs are, the authorities may prepare a report based on the affidavit given by the applicant and five affidavits of persons knowing the family, like a neighbour or a relative.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that when there is no rival claim, each and every fact cannot be verified, and the authority was expected to make the best judgment based on the available materials.

Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Conviction And Sentence Of MLA In Case Involving Receipt Of Foreign Funds

Case Title: MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

The Madras High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed against the conviction of MLA MH Jawaharulla and other members of the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in a case involving the receipt of foreign funds. The court thus confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Jawaharulla.

Justice P Velmurugan, however, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) not to arrest Jawaharulla for a period of one month considering the holy month of Ramzan was ongoing and Jawaharulla, along with the other revision petitioners, was observing fast for Ramzan. The court made it clear that the agency would execute the order of the Magistrate Court after a period of one month if the petitioners had not obtained a stay on the sentence.

Unnecessarily Subjecting Child To Medical Exam Will Cause More Mental Stress: Madras HC Asks Hospitals To Examine Victims Based On Complaint In POCSO Cases

Case Title: Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

Noticing the routine manner in which every child in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was being subjected to medical examination mechanically, the Madras High Court has asked the doctors and hospitals to conduct medical examinations based on the nature of the complaint.

A special bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which has been monitoring the implementation of the POCSO Act, observed that though Section 27 of the POCSO Act provided for medical examination of a child against whom 'any' offence had been committed, when the Section was read with Section 164A of the CrPC, it had to be understood that the medical examination was with respect to cases in which there was a penetrative sexual assault.

However, the court added that medical examination could not be done away with for all cases falling under Sections 7,9, and 11 of the Act. The court was conscious that there may be cases where though the offence was that of sexual assault, the child might have suffered injury that needed to be examined. Thus, the court asked the doctors examining the child to decide on the tests to be conducted based on the complaint of the child.

'Big Racket For Bogus Community Certificates In Tamil Nadu': Madras High Court Asks State To Take Action

Case Title: V. Samburanam v. District Collector

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

The Madras High Court has asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the issuance of bogus community certificates is stopped in the state, and action has to be taken to prosecute those who are involved in securing such bogus community certificates.

Noting that there was a big racket going on in the State, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if proper action were not taken, it would defeat the very object of bringing in reservation. The court thus asked the State to ensure that only genuine persons who belong to the community are entitled to avail the benefits of reservation.

The court noted that through the bogus community certificate, the persons were availing reservation and such other facilities under different government schemes. The court thus directed the government to ensure that the correctness of certificates is verified. The court added that when a reference certificate was given to the authorities, the authenticity of the same is verified and if found incorrect, action should be taken to cancel the reference certificate.

Madras HC Rejects Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of S.13 Family Courts Act Which Restricts Representation Of Party By Lawyer

Case Title: Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. Section 13 states that no party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner as a right.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran dismissed the plea noting that no further adjudication was required in the matter as the legal position was already settled.

The petitioner had argued that the section infringed the advocate's right to practice in court as provided under the Advocates Act 1961. It was argued that a legal practitioner's right was absolute under the Advocates Act and thus any prohibition on the same was unsustainable. It was also submitted that when advocates were not allowed to represent, the litigants would find it difficult to defend their cases.

Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court

Case Title: S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

The Madras High Court has stressed that courts should be slow to ignore delay once the limitation period for a particular suit expires and the action becomes time-barred.

Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the statute relating to limitation determines the life span of a legal remedy and as time passes, newer causes would come up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy. Remarking that time is precious, the court thus noted that if the life span of legal remedy was not followed, it may lead to unending uncertainty and anarchy.

Madras High Court Rejects NTK Chief Seeman's Plea To Club All FIRs Over His Alleged Comments On Periyar, Says Plea Seeks Omnibus Relief

Case Title: Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to club all FIRs registered against Naam Tamilar Katchi party chief Seeman for his alleged comments against Periyar.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after observing that the plea sought an omnibus relief without mentioning the details of the FIRs registered against Seeman, without impleading the police stations where the FIRs were registered, and without impleading the complainants. Wondering how the registry even numbered the petition without the details, the court dismissed the plea.

Upper Age Limit For Women To Avail ART Services Rational, Difficult For Mother To Support Child During Her Elderly Years: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kavitha Anand c. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

Justifying the upper age limit prescribed for women under the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021, the Madras High Court recently observed that a woman who uses ART services for begetting a child is duty-bound to take care of the child till he/she attains majority. The court thus held that the woman must be biologically and financially capable of supporting the child for 18 years.

Justice S Sounthar also noted that there was a higher risk in pregnancy after the age of 50 years and it was considering such factors, that the legislature decided to fix an upper age limit to apply for the ART.

"Would Change Rules Of Game": Madras HC Rejects Plea By Disabled Candidate Who Failed To Sign Answer Sheet Of Civil Services Exam

Case Title: Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant relief to a candidate with 60% locomotive disability who had failed to sign his answer sheet while attending the Combined Civil Services Examination-IV (Group-IV Services) examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the commission had provided clear instructions to the candidates and in such cases, the court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not modify or relax the conditions. The court added that "acceding" to the request of the candidate would be far exceeding the scope of the examination and changing the rules of the game.

The court further underscored that the rules could not be changed for a "particular candidate who had omitted to affix the signature". The court remarked that a different approach could not be taken as there would be other candidates who would have committed irregularities in answering the examination and allowing the plea would open gates for them to approach the court for consideration.

Notification Cannot Be Given Retrospective Effect To Deny Refund On Unutilised ITC Claimed Within Limitation Period: Madras HC Allows Gillette's Plea

Case Title: Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.

The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made during July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017, in time in terms of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.

Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that since Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which deals with “acknowledgement of refund claim”, was inserted with effect from May 18, 2021, vide Notification No.15/2021-CT, the same cannot be given retrospective effect for denying refund on unutilized ITC claimed within the limitation period.

Love & Affection 'Implied Condition' When Senior Citizen Transfers Property, Doesn't Need Express Mention In Settlement Deed: Madras HC

Case Title: S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Senior Citizens Act, love and affection is an implied condition under Section 23(1) of the Act and it is not necessary to have an explicit mention of the same in the settlement deed.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran noted that the Act was meant to safeguard the security and dignity of the senior citizen. The court noted that when a senior citizen made a transfer of property, it was not just a legal act but an act made with the hope of being cared for in their old age. Thus, the court noted that when the transferee did not provide the promised care, the senior citizen could invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled.

The court held that the Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation was to be interpreted liberally to ensure that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled and the rights and dignity of senior citizens are effectively protected. The court added that when two or more views were possible, it was the duty of the court to interpret the provision to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning. The court emphasised that if the usual meaning of the language in the Act does not capture the legislature's objective, a broader interpretation may be applied, provided the words support the meaning.

Wife Watching Porn, Engaging In Self Pleasure Not By Itself Cruelty On Husband, Woman Retains Her Individuality Even After Marriage: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

The Madras High Court has observed that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self pleasure by itself was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected the matrimonial relationship.

The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman's sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit, the court noted that even after marriage, the woman continued to retain her individuality and her fundamental identity could not be subsumed by spousal status.

The court also remarked that when self-pleasure among men was acknowledged universally, the same among women could not be stigmatized. From a biological perspective, the court also noted that while men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women. The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Case Title: B Kavitha v. The Registrar General

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Criticizing the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal and the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur for denying maternity benefit to an Office Assistant, the Madras High Court has held that when there was no dispute regarding the marriage, the employer should not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt for granting the maternity benefit.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the action of the Magistrate was wholly unwarranted and inhumane. The bench added that when prima facie evidence was available, the Magistrate seemed to have fished for reasons and rejected the maternity leave application. Thus, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the woman for the mental agony suffered by her due to the respondents' actions.

"Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction": Madras High Court Dismisses Ex-Serviceman's Plea Seeking Inquiry Into Havana Syndrome In India

Case Title: Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an ex-serviceman who claimed that the Defence Space Agency was targeting him with the help of 'radiation' which caused severe health conditions and sought an inquiry into the 'Havana Syndrome' in India.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the man did not produce any medical records to establish such reactions in his body.

The court was hearing the plea of B Boopalan, who claimed that due to high-frequency microwave radiation used by the Defence Space Agency against him, he is suffering from health issues. He submitted that he could feel the unknown high-frequency microwave radiations across his body including hitting on spinal area, harming on eyes, tongue and nose and brain, headache chilling and severe aches in his body.

Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC

Case Title: South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred.

The court observed that while deciding a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the law is now well settled that the referral court will have to look only into the prima-facie existence of the arbitration clause and once the court is satisfied that there exists an arbitration clause, necessarily, the court will have to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Unimaginable Rate Of Corruption In Country, If Anyone Accepts Bribe His Family Will Be Ruined: Madras HC Sets Aside Acquittal Of Customs Officer

Case Title: State v. Govindaswamy and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

While setting aside the acquittal of a customs officer for amassing wealth disproportionate to his income, the Madras High Court recently remarked that corruption in India has gone into unimaginable ratio.

Quoting the prophecies of Jesus, Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that the philosophy of life should be not to take bribes.

The court found the officer's wife guilty of the offences and refused to quash the case against her. The court added that corruption starts from home, and when the homemaker herself becomes a party to the corruption, there would be no end. The court also emphasised the need to fight corruption from home.

Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Murder Conviction, Finds 'Wordy Quarrel' With Deceased Insufficient To Show Accused Was Provoked

Case Title: Marudhu Pandi v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man for murder, the Madras High Court held that wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased could not prove that there was grave and sudden provocation for bringing in an exception.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima held that to prove grave and sudden provocation, the individual, due to extreme emotional distress caused by provocative action or circumstances, should lose self-control and commit a wrongful act, potentially leading to death. The court added that to prove an offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it must be shown that the accused was provoked by an act of the deceased. In the present case, though the court agreed that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased, there was no proof that the deceased had provoked the accused to commit murder.

“Insensitivity To Settled Law”: Madras HC Criticises Special Bomb Blast Court For Arbitrarily Denying Exemption From Appearance To Accused

Case Title: Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

The Madras High Court recently criticised the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases for rejecting applications filed by accused persons under Section 317 CrPC on the ground that the accused had already filed such petitions. The court thus recalled an NBW issued by the special court.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the trial courts should not issue NBWs without application of mind and have held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally when facts and circumstances require such an exemption. The bench thus noted that the special court was being consistently insensitive to the settled proposition of law.

Madras High Court Asks Police Not To Harass Rippling Co-Founder Prasanna S In Enquiry Over Alleged Matrimonial Dispute With Wife

Case Title: Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu state police not to harass Rippling co-founder in connection with an enquiry into his alleged matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the police not to harass the petitioner in a complaint filed by his wife.

Prasanna has alleged that the police authorities had been conducting a roving enquiry into his whereabouts and were visiting his mother's house. He also alleged that the police had illegally arrested his friend, in an attempt to know his location and were threatening to register an FIR against him. He also informed the court that the police had raided his vacation home in Chennai and seized the phone of the caretaker, along with the CCTV cameras. Thus, citing urgency, he sought for directions to the police not to harass him in connection with the enquiry.