Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 NOMINAL INDEX The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 NS Krishnamoorthi and Others v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 124 S Ramya v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 125 The...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
NOMINAL INDEX
The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
NS Krishnamoorthi and Others v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
S Ramya v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
Ma Subramanian and Another v. State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam v. The Teachers Recruitment Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Public Prosecutor, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
A Arunkumar v. The Home Secretary to Government and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
Gowdham v. The Director General and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
State v. S Kasimayan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K Bashiri and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
Kunal Kamra v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
Dr. R. Mathivanan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
South Indian Senguntha Mahajana Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
G Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
Chandru and Others v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
Ganesan Prabhu v. M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
J Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
V Kanagaraj v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
Ramasamy and Another v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
Mrs Sarikathu Nisha v. The Superintendent of Prison and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
Dr. S. Gurushankar v. The Chief Secretary to Government of TN, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
Baskar Vincent v. Director of Municipal Administration and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
State v. Durai Murugan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
Shanmugavel v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
State v. MRK Paneerselvam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
State v. I Periyasamy, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
Vijayakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
G Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
REPORTS
Case Title: The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
While reiterating that the UGC norms for the selection of Assistant professors and the Principal do not apply to minority institutions, the Madras High Court recently emphasised the need to protect the rights of minority institutions.
Justice Anand Venkatesh remarked that the Constitution had included provisions to safeguard the rights of the minority institutions, to protect the cultural and educational identity of the minority communities.
The judge added that when these rights are threatened, the Constitutional Courts have a duty to intervene and reaffirm their commitment to ensure that the foundational ideals of justice and equality are upheld.
Case Title: NS Krishnamoorthi and Others v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court has recently clarified that when a grama natham land (village house site) is occupied by an individual and such occupation has been recognized by the State through successive transfers, it becomes the private property of the occupant and such lands cannot be regarded as government lands.
While doing so, Justice Anand Venkatesh criticised an earlier order passed by the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar for taking a different view. The single judge remarked that the division bench's direction was directly in conflict with the declared law and the court had virtually directed the State to issue a fresh circular on the lines of an earlier circular that had already been declared unconstitutional by various decisions.
Though the single judge also pondered on the necessity of referring the matter to a larger bench, the judge further noted that since the division bench had failed to follow binding precedents, the decision itself was per incuriam.
Case Title: S Ramya v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court has asked the Union Government to consider the citizenship application of a woman, born in 1987 to a Sri Lankan couple settled in India, without insisting she return to Sri Lanka and come back to India with a visa.
Noting that it was a unique case, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that though the applicant could be considered a foreigner, she had not entered India without valid documents as she was born in the country. The court thus asked the authorities to take into account all parameters required under the Citizenship Act for granting citizenship without insisting on the sole requirement of returning to Sri Lanka and re-entering India as a legal migrant.
The court also noted that the applicant could not be considered an illegal migrant as an illegal migrant was a foreigner who had entered India without a valid passport and travel documents. The court noted that in the present case, the applicant had been under the impression that she was an Indian citizen, had an Indian passport and all relevant documents. The court also noted that the applicant never held a Sri Lankan passport or any document indicating she was a citizen of that country.
Case Title: The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the General Manager & Reviewing Authority of the Canara Bank against an order of the single judge quashing the disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Vadamalai noted that while disciplinary proceedings usually take a few months to conclude, the disciplinary proceedings in the present case were concluded within two weeks. The court thus said that the committee had shown undue hate for bringing the enquiry to a closure.
The court remarked that disciplinary proceedings are not like a bullet train journey and should be conducted in a manner with a possibility of “two roads diverging in the yellow woods”. While the court noted that the proceedings need not be slow, it had to be carried on with a reasonable speed. The court added that the proceedings should be permeated with fairness and the end result should not be premeditated.
Case Title: Ma Subramanian and Another v. State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash the charge sheet filed by the CB- CID against Health and Family Welfare Minister Ma Subramanian and his wife in a case of alleged land grabbing.
Though Subramaniam had argued that the complaint was filed due to political motive, Justice P Velmurugan noted that there were prima facie materials to proceed with the trial. The court added that when the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations, the malafide intention of the complainant was of no consequence.
The court added that while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC, the courts could not appreciate the evidence but only evaluate the materials to be prima facie satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial. The court added that the powers under the Section could not be used as an instrument for the accused to short-circuit the prosecution and bring it to a sudden death.
Case Title: Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam v. The Teachers Recruitment Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court recently observed that that the one-year LLM programme was approved by the UGC and could not be held to be invalid for getting appointed into public departments or Universities. The court thus asked the Teachers Recruitment Board to include the name of a woman whose name was withheld merely because she had done a one-year LLM course.
Justice RN Manjula observed that the notification for appointment did not prescribe that one of the requirements for the appointment was only a two-year LLM degree. The court observed that while the employer could demand the educational requirement for a post, the qualification contemplated could not be arbitrary and bring in discrimination between similar courses.
Case Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
While quashing a criminal case registered against AIADMK's C. Ve Shanmugam for his comments about the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court underscored the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to dissent.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that in a democracy, the opposition has a role to point out the failures of the government. The court added that Article 19(1)(a) was a vehicle through which dissent could be expressed, and thus, Shanmugam's speech could only be construed as a dissent and criticism against the current government.
The court also highlighted that the free speech of the citizens could not be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases unless the speech had a tendency to affect the public order.
Works Contract For Track Doubling & Infrastructure Under RVNL Is Liable To 12% GST: Madras HighCourt
Case Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”
Case Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court while referring sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause.
The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”
One of the parameters to determine priority of one legislation / provision over the other, is as to which was the later provision and the general understanding is that the later would prevail. However, in the case, the provisions of Section 40(A)(7), particularly clause (b) are specific to a claim of deduction based on a provision for payment towards an approved gratuity fund, stated the bench.
Case Title: B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man under the NDPS Act, holding that in absence of evidence other than confession of co-accused, the fact that the man had arranged a job for the co-accused would not amount to harbouring the latter.
Justice P. Dhanabal reiterated that a confession statement of the co-accused by itself could not be a reason for implicating a person in a crime unless there were other materials to connect him in the crime. In the present case also, the court noted that except the statement of the co-accused, there was no other material to implicate him the crime.
The court also noted that though the petitioner had arranged a job for one of the accused, there was nothing to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about the involvement of accused in the NDPS case. The main accusation against the petitioner was that he harboured Accused No. 3 (A3) knowing that A3 was involved in a drugs case. The prosecution had relied upon A3's confession statement and impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused.
CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee.
In this case, the respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The assessee has availed CENVAT Credit for the capital goods used in establishing a captive power plant of the assessee.
Case Title: A Arunkumar v. The Home Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court has allowed the members of Indu Makkal Katchi to garland the statue of Dr. Ambedkar situated at the Ambedkar memorial Hall in Chennai in connection with Ambedkar Jayathi on certain conditions.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan gave permission to the party on the condition that the party members would not raise any slogans or speech against anyone, that they would not play any instrument, that they would not cause any hindrance to the traffic or general public, and that they would not wear “Kavi Dhoti” or Sandal Thilagam or Kum Kum or Vibhuti to the Statute
Noting that the court had granted permission previously in similar circumstances based on undertaking, the court was inclined to permit the party to garland the statute since the party had agreed to abide by any condition imposed by the police.
Corruption Rampant In Every Organ Of Govt, We Are Helpless In Curbing It: Madras High Court
Case Title: Gowdham v. The Director General and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a woman who was asked to get re-validated certificates for compassionate appointment.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that asking the woman to get fresh certificates would only pave way for the officers in-charge to get illegal gratification once more. Acknowledging that corruption was rampant in every organ of the government, the bench also expressed its helplessness in curbing the menace of corruption.
The court noted that in the present case, the mother's application for compassionate appointment was unduly delayed and the authorities had adopted a pedantic approach in seeking fresh certificate which could not have been obtained without a reasonable expense.
Case Title: State v. S Kasimayan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Setting aside an order of the Special Court for CBI cases, the Madras High Court recently convicted a recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and others for making illegal gains by undervaluing a property during auction proceedings. The court thus sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and a fine.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the recovery officer was guilty of conscious misconduct as he had flagrantly violated all the norms and legal requirements and acted contrarily to the norms, conducting the auction without fixing proper upset price.
The court added that the recovery officer was a public officer and a trustee for the public. Thus, the court remarked that the officer was duty bound to protect, preserve the property entrusted with him. However, in the present case, the court said that the officer had entered into conspiracy and committed the offence of breach of trust.
Case Title: Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court stated that goods imported exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under respective enactments.
“The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such additional duty” stated the bench comprising of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
The bench further stated that under the Customs Act, duties of custom shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on goods imported into or exported from India. Therefore, the Customs Tariff Act specifies the rate at which duties of customs shall be levied.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K Bashiri and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court has held that the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) qualification is mandatory for all educational institutions, including the minority institutions.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy held that the Government had powers to prescribe the minimum educational qualification for the appointment of teachers and the government had prescribed the TET qualification under such power. Thus, the court held that the qualification was mandatory.
Case Title: Kunal Kamra v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court on Thursday (April 17) has disposed of the transit anticipatory bail petition filed by comedian Kunal Kamra in connection with the FIR lodged against him in Mumbai over his alleged remarks against Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
Justice Sunder Mohan closed his petition after Kamra's Advocate V Suresh informed the court that the Bombay High Court had granted interim protection from arrest to the comedian on Wednesday while reserving orders in his plea for quashing the FIRs registered against him. In the previous hearing, the Madras high court had extended the interim anticipatory bail granted to him till April 17.
Case Name : Dr. R. Mathivanan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima held that the re-employment of faculty retiring mid-academic year is mandatory, but if there are pending disciplinary proceedings and further the 'no work, no pay' principle applies, then the re-employment is not allowed.
It was observed by the court that it is mandatory to re-employ a teaching faculty who retire in the middle of the Academic year till the end of the said academic year. It was observed by the court that the College Management refusal to engage the appellant citing disciplinary proceedings was bad in law. Further, during the period there are evidence to show that the appellant was engaged by the University for examination work. The appellant was ordered to be re-employed up to May 31st, 2014 in the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, dated 16.04.2014. Therefore, the single Judge should not have dismissed the appellant's writ seeking salary for the period, he worked.
It was further observed by the court that the contention of the appellant was not sustainable as there was no record to show that the Management re-employed the appellant after he attained superannuation. The records relied by the appellant were self-serving documents or letter from the University which had sought his assistance as Examiner. It was observed by the court that on the date of superannuation, the appellant was facing disciplinary proceedings.
Case Title: South Indian Senguntha Mahajana Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court has asked the Inspector General of Registration to ensure that no society is registered with a caste name or for the purpose of perpetuating caste in the State.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy added that if such societies are running schools, colleges, or other educational institution, it should be ensured that the institution does not display caste names either directly or indirectly. The court said that the caste names should be removed within 4 weeks and the names should be changed. The court added that if the institutions failed to comply with the orders, steps would be taken to de-recognise the institution and the students would be transferred to other recognised institutions. The court added that the same action could be taken with respect to educational institutions run by trusts or other individuals.
The court also asked the State government to remove any prefixes associated with caste from the school names, referring to them only as Government schools, followed by their location. The court said that if the donor's name is to be mentioned in the school's or hostel's name, the caste prefix or suffix will have to be removed.
Madras High Court Bans 28 Plastic Items In Kodaikanal And Nilgiris
Case Title: G Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court has banned the manufacture, storage, supply, transport, sale, and distribution of 28 items of plastic throughout the Western Ghats, sanctuaries, and tiger reserves, starting from the Nilgiris up to the Agathiyar Biosphere in Kanyakumari District, which includes the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal hill areas.
The forest bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has banned the items. Prohibiting the transport of the plastic items to the area, the court also asked the state government to issue notification under Section 67(3) [Power of State Government to control road transport] and to add a condition to the permit mandating that no vehicles shall be used for transport or distribution of banned items along the Western Ghats and sanctuaries. The court added that vehicles found transporting the banned items should be detained and action be initiated against the persons.
The court also suggested that the shop owners, vendors and other persons involved in the distribution of consumables packed in non-biodegradable packaging should open the packets, transfer the contents to biodegradable paper covers or may use natural products like leaf products, kora grass products, earthen products etc.
Case Title: Chandru and Others v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
The Madras High Court has recommended the formation of a Special Committee with statesmen, scholars, psychoanalysts, and representatives from the Departments of Human Resource Development, Higher Education, School Education, and Police to identify and address behavioral issues among youngsters.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said that the issue required urgent intervention by Educational authorities. The court added that there was a need for long-term solutions starting from schools with regular parent teacher meeting and studies.
Case Title: Ganesan Prabhu v. M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court has raised attachment of property belonging to late actor Sivaji Ganesan that was attached by the court in March 2023 in a plea seeking execution of an arbitral award against his grandson Dushyanth Ramkumar and their production company Eshan Productions.
Justice Abdul Quddhose ordered lifting the attachment on a plea filed by Ganesan Prabhu, the actor's elder son, who argued that the property was wrongly attached and that he was the absolute owner of the property. Finding merit in his argument, the court allowed his application and raised the earlier attachment. The court permitted Prabhu to communicate the order to the concerned authorities who could then act accordingly.
Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case.
Considering that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future, Justice Sunder Mohan opined that further incarceration would violate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the court was inclined to grant bail on certain conditions to ensure that the duo would be available to face trial.
The court thus ordered them to be released on bail upon executing a bond for the sum of Rs. 5 lakh each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for CBI cases. The court also directed the parties to surrender their passport before the Special court if it is not already seized by the ED. The court directed the duo to appear before the trial judge regularly and gave liberty to the ED to seek cancellation of bail if their absence was not justified.
Case Title: J Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court has asked the police to take stern action against lawyers who are hand in gloves with litigants and are indulging in land grabbing activities.
Justice Sunder Mohan directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to extend full cooperation to the police. The court also asked the Bar Council to conduct an enquiry into the alleged involvement of lawyers in the land grabbing cases
Noting that junior lawyers often engaged in these kind of activities due to financial constraints, the court asked the junior lawyers who had no bad antecedents and were engaged by the administrators of the WhatsApp groups to appear before the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu omnce a month for an year and file monthly report detailing their professional work. The court also directed the Bar Council to assist the lawyers if they wish to join a senior's office and asked senior lawyers to consider training the young lawyers by accommodating them in their office.
Madras High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging ED Search Of TASMAC Headquarters
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (April 23) dismissed pleas by State Government and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation challenging the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and March 8.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar while pronouncing the verdict observed that in money laundering cases, a few inconvenience in the procedure when equated against the economic justice, the latter prevails. The court also gave liberty to the ED to proceed with the investigation.
Also rejecting State's contention that the searches were politically motivated, in view of the upcoming assembly elections, the Court said it cannot examine such allegations.
Will Register FIRs Against Those Unauthorisedly Sub-Letting Property: DGP Informs Madras High Court
Case Title: V Kanagaraj v. Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
The Director General of Police has informed the Madras High Court that FIRs will be registered against persons who fraudulently sublet property without the authorisation or consent of the house owner and thus cheat the house owner and third parties.
The submission was made before Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, who had asked the police authorities to bring in awareness about the issue. The DGP informed the court that circulars have been issued to register FIRs in such cases and to give utmost priority to such cases.
The DGP also informed the court that Deputy Commissioners of Police in cities and Superintendents of Police in Districts have been directed to monitor investigations in these cases and to conduct quarterly review meetings to review the progress in the investigation. The court was also informed that all unit officers have been directed to sensitise the public by posting awareness videos online. The court was told that for this purpose, an awareness video had also been made.
The court noted the submissions and asked the video containing the alert message to be circulated in all social media and news channels so that it reaches the entire public and would deter them from falling prey to such fraudulent persons.
Case Title: M/s. Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that service of notices and orders through Common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 149 of the GST Act.
The bench rejected the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved.
“Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act. Service is complete when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal,” stated the bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
The bench further opined that the common portal is a designated computer resource for both Department as well as taxable person inasmuch as the taxable person is given a unique login ID and password to enable them to have access to the portal. The common portal would thus constitute a “designated computer resource” for the taxable person as well.
Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved.
The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal is “sufficient” service, it is not “effective" service”.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If anyone notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.”
Case Title: Ramasamy and Another v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man and his mother under Section 498A of the IPC, the Madras High Court noted that the Section was not limited to dowry harassment and included any cruelty meted out to the wife by the husband and his family.
Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup noted that in the present case, the husband and his mother had forcibly administered some medicine to the wife to abort the child in her womb. The court also noted that the husband and the mother-in-law did not allow the wife to enter the matrimonial house when she came with the child. Thus, the court noted that the facts attracted the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: Mrs Sarikathu Nisha v. The Superintendent of Prison and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has asked the State and the Prisons Department to grant temporary leave to undertrial prisoners, allowing them to attend the cremation/funeral of their relatives without forcing them to approach the High Court to get interim bail.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar asked the Principal Secretary to issue necessary circulars to all prison authorities communicating the order, enabling them to act accordingly. The court said that the temporary permission could be granted by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services or the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services or the Superintendent of Police as the case may be.
The court passed the directions after noting that the judicial process was causing great hardship to the undertrial prisoners, especially those belonging to economically weaker sections who often found it difficult to arrange for interim bail or secure permission from the High Court in a short time to attend the funeral of their close ones.
Case Title: Dr. S. Gurushankar v. The Chief Secretary to Government of TN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
While directing the State Government to make Bone Marrow Facilities available in the Government Hospitals, the Madras High Court recently observed that the government had a constitutional obligation to ensure that medical facilities are available in government hospitals and they reach the poor, downtrodden, and underprivileged citizens of the country.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that when the constitutional obligation was neglected, the court was within its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue positive directions.
Case Title: Baskar Vincent v. Director of Municipal Administration and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 75,000 on a litigant for misusing the jurisdiction of public interest litigation and approaching the court for stalling a revenue collection process by the Kodaikanal municipality.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice S Srimathy noted that the litigant had attempted to project his private interest as a public interest and attempted to stall the collection of revenue.
Case Title: Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
The Madras High Court stated that Article 304 of the Constitution applies only to goods imported from other states or union territories and not to goods imported from outside India.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq looked into the case of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and other, (2021) 11 SCC 705 and observed that the goods imported after having been released from customs barriers are not immune from any kind of State taxation. The States are free to levy taxes on goods imported into the State.
Article 304 of the Constitution empowers states to impose taxes on goods imported from other states, provided similar goods within the state are also taxed.
Case Title: Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “in the juxtaposition of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act with Section 34 of the RDB Act, it is Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act that will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favour of the Financial Institution, as Section 34 of the RDB Act is, by comparison, only a general provision.”
Case Title: State v. Durai Murugan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan in a disproportionate asset case.
Justice P Velmurugan noted that the Special Court had simply allowed a discharge petition filed by the Minister without framing charges or without giving an opportunity to the Prosecution to put forward the case. The court also noted that the special judge had interpreted the facts in his own way and the reasons put forward by the Special Judge was perverse.
The court directed the Special Court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. Noting that the case was regarding the check period of 1996-2001, the court directed the Special Court to dispose the case within a period of 6 months from the date of order.
Case Title: Shanmugavel v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
The Madras High Court has issued suggestions to relook and revamp the manner in which the CBI investigations are being conducted in the country to regain the lost image of the investigation agency in the eyes of the common people.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the manner of CBI's working, in arraying unwanted accused, continuing unwarranted investigation, deleting important accused, not examining material witnesses, etc showed that the CBI officers thought themselves to have sky-high powers and could not be questioned by anyone. The court added that the common people have been feeling that the working culture of the CBI had been plummeting down.
Case Title: State v. MRK Paneerselvam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare Minister MRK Paneerlsevam in two disproportionate asset cases.
Justice P Velmurugan set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Cuddalore in 2016, discharging the Minister from the case filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The case was registered alleging that while serving as a Minister for Health and Family Welfare during 2006-2011, he had acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties far beyond his known sources of income.
The court noted prima facie materials to proceed against the Minister and his family, who had abetted him in amassing the wealth. The court also remarked that the trial judge had traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 CrPC and thus set aside the order of the Special Judge.
Case Title: State v. I Periyasamy
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court has set aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periysamay in a disproportionate asset case.
Justice P Velmurugan set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Dindigul, discharging the Minister and his family. The court directed the special court to frame charges against the accused person and complete the trial within 6 months.
The allegation against Periyasamy was that, while serving as the Minister for Revenue and Prisons between 2006 and 2011, he had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. As per the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the Minister was in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 2.01 crore and thus registered the case in 2012 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
While reversing the acquittal of a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the Madras High Court recently held that the defence of subsequent marriage between the victim and the accused does not take away the offence committed by the accused while the victim was a child.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that the offence under the POCSO Act was an offence against the society and not just the individual. He added that if the defence of subsequent marriage is accepted and the accused is acquitted, it would defeat the whole purpose of enactment of the Act and would lead to disastrous consequences.
Though the accused prayed for a lesser sentence saying that the victim was pregnant and there was no elder to take care of her, the court noted that it did not have any authority to give a punishment lesser than the one prescribed under the Special Act. The court thus sentenced the accused to undergo minimum sentence of 10 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.
Case Title: G Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court has ordered the formation of a committee comprising of District Revenue Officer, Municipal Commissioner and the District Tourism Officer to carry out inspection in Nilgiris and Kodaikanal districts to crack down on illegal home stay and cottage operators.
The forest bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy asked the committee to ensure that inspection is carried out throughout the hills and to check whether the home stays and cottages were operating with a license.
The court added that wherever illegal homestays were identified, the same would be closed down by the committee. The court asked the committee to conduct a detailed inspection and file the action taken report by the next hearing.