Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393 NOMINAL INDEX The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332 N Sathish Kumar v....
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
NOMINAL INDEX
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
N Sathish Kumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
PH Dinesh v/s Home Secretary State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
N ANAND ALIAS BUSSY ANAND VS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
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
P v. S, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
Palraj v. Inspector Of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
M v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Manager v. Aron K Thiraviaraj, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
General Manager, Southern India Region v. P Sundarapariporanam, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
TRULIV Properties and Services Private Limited Vs C.Ravishankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Sally Thermoplastic India Limited Vs. Learning Leadership Foundation, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
M/s.AL TIRVEN STEELS LTD Vs. M/s.IVRCL Assets and Holding Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
T. Gangeswari v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
X v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Sureshbabu and Others v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
M Muventhan v. The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
N Anand @ Bussy Anand v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
A Vignesh v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
M. Maher Dadha v. Mr. S. Mohanchand Dadha and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
Kamaraj v. State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
All India Defence Employees Federation (AIDEF) v. Government of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
M. Gajendran & Anr. v. R. Munirathinam & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
Ganesan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
M/s GAIL (India) Limited v M/s Coromandal Electric Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
P. Pushpam v/s The Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
G Sampath Kumar v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
Srinivasan v. The Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
REPORTS
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a person who borrows a vehicle from its owner would step into the shoes of the owner and such a person cannot claim compensation similar to a third party.
Justice R Poornima of the Madurai bench took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, where the court had held that a claim petition under Section 163A was not maintainable by a borrower/permissible user of a vehicle against the owner/insurer of the vehicle.
Case Title: The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently held that members belonging to the Railway Protection Force would not be governed by the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that Rule 801 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, had specifically excluded any member of the Railway Protection Forces from the applicability of the rules. The bench thus noted that any disciplinary action or punishment against a member of the force would be under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and the Rules prescribed therein.
Case title: SENTHILKANNAN v/s THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE With Related Petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday (October 3) rejected a bunch of pleas seeking CBI probe into the Karur stampede which occurred on last Saturday, claiming 39 lives.
Meanwhile, the State government also informed the high court that until SOPs are framed for holding of public meetings by political parties, no permissions will be given to any political party to hold such meetings.
A division bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice M Jothiraman also disposed of PILs seeking framing of SOPs, noting that the principal bench has already asked the State Government to frame SOP. Petitioners have been given liberty to file impleading petition in that plea.
Case Title: N Sathish Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Namakkal District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party, N Satish Kumar in connection with a violence that took place on September 27th, allegedly involving party cadres.
Justice N Senthilkumar, while dismissing the plea for anticipatory bail, held that as the District Secretary of the party, Kumar should have kept the cadres of the party under control and prevented them from causing any damage to the public property.
Case title: PH Dinesh v/s Home Secretary State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court on Friday constituted a SIT headed by Inspector General (IG) of Police Asra Garg to investigate into the Karur Stampede which occurred on September 27 claiming the lives of 41 people.
Justice N Senthilkumar also orally condemned the 'attitude' of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, in 'abandoning' the place after the incident. The court said that the party did not express remorse.
The court further said that it cannot close its eyes and shirk responsibilities. "The entire world has witnessed the events," it added.
The court passed the order in a plea moved by a man who had sent a representation to the state authorities for framing guidelines for road shows and conducting proper investigation into the incident.
Karur Stampede: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To TVK Party Functionaries
Case title: N ANAND ALIAS BUSSY ANAND VS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas moved by two functionaries of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party apprehending arrest in connection with the stampede that took place during the party's rally in Karur last Saturday.
Justice M Jothiraman denied anticipatory bail to party's General Secretary N. Anand @ Bussy Anand and Joint Secretary CTR Nirmal Kumar.
The duo were apprehending arrest for offences under Section 105 [Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder], 110 [attempt to commit culpable homicide], 125(b) [act endangering life or personal safety of others], 223 [disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant] of BNS along with Section 3 [punishment for committing mischief in respect of property] of Tamil Nadu Public Property (prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.
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.
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.
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, and any notice that should be served to them must be through the address provided by the State Counsel.
Case Title: K v. M
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recently refused a man's application seeking a DNA test of his child, alleging that the child born to the couple during their marriage was not his.
While doing so, Justice Shamim Ahmed made it clear that DNA tests could not be used as shortcuts to prove alleged infidelity that may have taken place decades ago. The court added that the necessity of DNA tests should be determined through the prism of the child and not that of the parents.
The court further held that the child should not be used as a pawn to show that the child's mother was living in adultery. The court also observed that the husband can always bring in other evidence to establish the adultery of the wife, and the child's identity should not be sacrificed for such claims.
Case Title: Krishnan v. The State
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court recently observed that in most cases under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the police seizure usually ends up being barely above the commercial quantity of contraband specified under the Act.
Justice S Srimathy added that when the commercial quantity was given as 1 kg, the police seizure would usually be 1.1kg, being just above the commercial quantity.
The Court made the observations while granting bail to a man accused under the Act. The court noted that there was no material other than the confession against the man. Noting that there were no previous cases against him, the court relied on the second limb of Section 37 and concluded that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Case Title: Raja Lakshmi v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently criticised filing of habeas corpus petitions in cases of missing persons, without establishing a prima facie case of illegal detention.
The Madurai bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima noted that though the police department had sufficient infrastructure to deal with missing cases, they were not using it properly and often ignoring the guidelines which resulted in filing of the HCPs invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts.
The court added that constitutional courts across the country have condemned invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts in man-missing cases without prima facie case. The court added that habeas corpus plea was a speedy remedy available only in case of an illegal detention.
Case Title: Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam v. A.T.S.V.S.Siddha Medical College & Hospital
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court recently held that courts cannot run the administration of a Society or any Institution infinitely, by appointing an interim administrator.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that the appointment of interim administrator must always be a temporary corrective measure because of the factual exigencies. The bench also remarked that after appointing interim administrators, the courts should ensure that elections are conducted swiftly.
The court remarked that it was not primarily intended to run administrations and the court's jurisdiction must be only to resolve dispute and ensure lawful governance. The court added that appointment of interim administrators should be resorted to only in situations where democratic governance is rendered impossible due to factual exigencies.
Case Title: P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court stated that the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) penalty under Section 50 is not applicable for export shortfall below 10%; the exporter can write off unrealised bills.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that even otherwise, since Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is to be read along with Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as admittedly the Appellants/Exporters had failed to realize approximately 5.45% of the export proceeds.
Case Title: Visalakshi v. Secretary to Government
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
The Madras High Court, on Friday, has ordered a postmortem of Nagendran, the prime accused in the murder of Bahujan Samaj Party leader Armstrong. Nagendran had died on 9th October, 2025, while under police custody.
Since Nagendran's family had raised allegations of poisoning by the police, Justice Satish Kumar has also ordered five visceral samples to be collected and sent to the Forensic Department. The court has also ordered that the postmortem be conducted by two government surgeons and overseen by Dr.B.Santhakumar, Dean (Retd.), Government Thoothukudi Medical College, Thoothukudi.. The court has also asked the entire procedure to be video recorded.
Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary to the Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to constitute a Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission, as per the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, within four weeks.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar remarked that even though one and half years had passed since the passing of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, no action had been initiated by the State to constitute the commission, which was necessary to give advice with respect to development, restoration, preservation, etc of huge buildings, including temples and temple related structures.
Case Title: Prakasam v. The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to issue directions/circulars stating that appropriate disciplinary action against any officer who grants sanction for constructing public buildings/institutions on water bodies. The court said that action should be taken to recover the monetary loss that is caused to the State exchequer through such sanctions.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a public interest litigation in connection with the construction of new Primary Health Centre and Panchayat office buildings on land which had been reserved as waterbody/canals.
Case Title: S Paramasivam v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The third judge of the Madras High Court, appointed to resolve the split verdict in connection with pleas against animal sacrifice at the Thiruparakundram Hills, on Friday, ruled against allowing such practice at the hills.
While Justice Nisha Banu had refused to interfere with the practice of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy had taken a different view and said that the Dargah should approach the civil court to establish their right to practice the Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals.
Justice R Vijayakumar, who was appointed after the split verdict by a bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy, concurred with the views taken by Justice S Srimathy and noted that the practice of animal sacrifice was not being performed in all dargahs/mosques and was thus, not an essential religious practice to claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution
Case Title: Navanitha v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that women, especially in rural areas, are often the worst victims of moral policing and such moral policing infringes their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice L. Victorial Gowri added that the courts could not be oblivious to the dangers of moral policing, as these practices often lead to social ostracisation of women and sometimes even drives them to commit suicide.
The court highlighted that the dignity of women is protected by way of Article 21 of the Constitution, and any act of moral policing, particularly targeting women, would be a direct assault on this constitutional guarantee.
Case Title: Uma Maheshwari v. The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a special training session for judges presiding over the special courts dealing with offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar made the request after noting that many special courts were not complying with the mandate under Section 35 of the Act, which required the courts to examine the victim child within 30 days from the date of taking cognisance of the chargesheet.
The court told the Judicial Academy that the training session should sensitise the officers about the statutory requirement and the importance of promptly taking cognisance of chargesheets.
Visitation Right Of Parents Should Not Affect Development Child: Madras High Court
Case Title: P v. S
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has stressed that while deciding the visitation rights of the parents, it should be noted that the child's schooling and the child's physical, moral and emotional development should not be affected.
Justice M Jothiraman reiterated that while dealing with cases pertaining to visitation rights, the court's paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. The court added that though the parents had a visitation right, it should not disrupt the child's development.
Case Title: Palraj v. Inspector Of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court has asked a Judicial Officer to be sent to the State Judicial Academy to attend training programs to understand the fundamentals of criminal law.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima gave directions to the registry after noting that the judge, who was presiding over the Special Court for POCSO cases, had found a man guilty based on the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.
Case Title: Magudapathi v. The District Magistrate cum District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court recently observed that getting a license to bear arms is a privilege however, once the license is granted, the privilege becomes a right and an application for renewal of gun license would stand on a better footing.
The court added that an application for renewal of license cannot be denied unless the authority establishes the grounds for rejection.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that while the onus is on the applicant to make out a case for the grant of a license, onus will shift to the authorities at the time of renewal. The court added that the reason assigned by the authority for refusing to grant a license will be subjected to greater scrutiny, and it will be tested whether the authority has discharged the burden cast on it.
Case Title: M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, disposed of a petition filed by the Indian Oil Corporation against the strike conducted by the LPG transport owners' association.
Justice M Dhandapani disposed of the plea after taking note of the submissions made by Assistant Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, informing the court that the existing tenders will be allowed to continue the work till 31st March 2026. Since the Southern regional Bulk LPG Transport Owners Association, who were also the respondents in the case, accepted the proposal, the court disposed of the plea.
Case Name : A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that dismissal for abusive and threatening conduct against a superior is not disproportionate when the employee has a history of similar past misconduct.
It was observed that previous misconduct of similar nature on two occasions necessarily had to be taken into account while determining the appropriate punishment for the repeated offences involving abusive and threatening conduct against the Branch Manager. It was held by the court that the Labour Court duly considered the issue of proportionality of the punishment and held that the punishment was not disproportionate under the circumstances.
Case Title: M v. M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court recently refused to order maintenance to a woman noting that her husband, who was a senior citizen could not be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the husband had been neglected by his family despite his medical needs. The court noted that the husband also had a right to be protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that it had to strike a balance between the rights of both parties to be maintained.
Case Title: The Manager v. Aron K Thiraviaraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of a single judge setting aside the departmental proceeding against a man for pasting the information related to the party on the notice board.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the information, that was disclosed under the Right to Information Act would not be an “official document” of the company, or that relating to the company's internal operations. The court added that the information was already available in the public and was lawfully disclosed and pasting such information in the company's notice board would not be violative of the standing orders.
Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Who Sexually Abused, Impregnated Daughter's Friend
Case Title: Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man for sexually assaulting and impregnating his daughter's friend, who was a minor and belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the case was yet another example of how children from the vulnerable sections of society were placed in unfortunate positions.
Case Title: General Manager, Southern India Region v. P Sundarapariporanam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Madras High Court has directed Air India Limited to pay a compensation of Rs. 35,000 to a man, who had found a hair in the food packet served to him on flights.
Justice PB Balaji noted that the airlines were negligent and had mischievously attempted to shift the liability to the caterer. Though the court interfered with the order of trial court imposing a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, the court directed the airline to pay the cost of the suit and the court fee expenses.
The court noted that while, on the one hand, the company claimed that the passenger had not made any complaints on board, on the other hand, the company had also said that the oral complaint of the passenger was radioed to the senior catering manager who also talked to the passenger after arrival.
Case Title: TRULIV Properties and Services Private Limited Vs C.Ravishankar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
The Madras High Court held that declaring earlier proceedings non est, even when no objections were raised regarding the recording of the undertaking in those proceedings, constituted a perverse finding. The Court observed that such proceedings, which merely recorded an undertaking, could not fall within the ambit of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) as they did not amount to an order. Raising this issue suo motu was held to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court further noted that the arbitrator's final award contradicted his earlier findings under Section 17 of the Act, thereby rendering the award patently illegal.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “the finding that was rendered at the time of passing the interim order and the finding that was rendered at the time of passing the final award are mutually contradictory. The above perverse finding is also irrational, since the same Arbitrator could not have rendered one finding at the time of passing the interim order and a completely conflicting finding at the time of passing the final award.”
Case Title: SALLY THERMOPLASTIC INDIA LIMITED Vs. LEARNING LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained supra. Thereafter, there is no question of filing an application seeking for extension of time for a non-existent Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present application is not maintainable”.
Case Title: M/s.AL TIRVEN STEELS LTD Vs. M/s.IVRCL Assets and Holding Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that arbitration proceedings cannot continue after commencement of liquidation, any order passed thereafter is not legally sustainable. However, considering that continuation of arbitration proceedings would be futile and that the petitioner had not been informed of the commencement of the liquidation, the court allowed the petitioner to file its claim before the liquidator.
The court observed that since moratorium under section 14 of the IBC had come into operation even before the termination of arbitration proceedings, the continuation of arbitration proceedings would be futile. It held that “even if this Court permits the arbitration proceedings to continue and an award is also passed in favour of the petitioner, it is not certain what subsequent remedy can the petitioner seek even after obtaining the award".
Case Title: T. Gangeswari v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court recently observed that State, as an employer, should conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner and give an opportunity to all candidates to fulfil their aspirations of securing a government job.
Justice T Vinod Kumar highlighted that the State should not show favouritism and bias in favour of any candidate by altering the records. Noting that the State had altered the records of the employment exchange to give employment to a candidate, the court opined that such employment could not be given the stamp of approval.
Case Title: N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Madras High Court has granted bail to N Venkatesan, Salem District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Party for allegedly assaulting an ambulance driver in the aftermath of the Karur Stampede last month.
Justice S Srimathy ordered Vebkatesan to be released on bail by executing a surety for Rs. 10,000 on the condition that he report before the Karur Town Police Station daily at 10:30 a.m. for one week and thereafter when required.
Venkatesan was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on October 9, 2025, for offences under Sections 191(2) [Rioting], 296(b) [obscene acts and songs], 115(2) [voluntarily causing hurt], 127(2) [wrongful confinement], 351(2) [criminal intimidation] of the BNS read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.
Case Title: K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court recently said that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would prevail over the muslim personal laws, and an adopted child will have the same status as that of a biological child.
Justice GR Swaminathan also highlighted administrative delays in adoption procedures and said that such delays deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory. The court thus highlighted that the authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act are obliged to speed up the adoption process.
Case Title: Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that the interest of the litigant should not be affected due to the errors or mistakes committed by the lawyers.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq added that the courts should normally take a lenient view while setting aside ex parte decrees. The court added that ex parte decrees must be awarded only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the party is totally indifferent.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a YouTuber, Joe Micheal Praveen, against the order of a judge refusing to set aside an order directing him to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as compensation to Apsara Reddy, AIADMK sportsperson, for making derogatory statements against the latter.
Case Title: X v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, closed a plea filed by a young woman lawyer to take down her intimate photos and videos that her former partner had posted without her consent.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of the Standard Operating Procedure that was submitted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for curtailing the dissemination of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery Content. Previously, the court had asked the Ministry to explain the steps to be taken by a victim girl when her intimate photos/videos are posted online without consent.
The court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities under the SOP for removing any further images/videos of the lawyer that may be uploaded, and closed the plea.
Case Title: Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court was recently surprised to note that the summons in a criminal case was served 12 years after the case was taken on file.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the delay was attributable to both the police and the court registry. The court said that while the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service.
The court also took note of the proceedings of the Director General of Police who had instructed all police personnel to utilise the e-summon mobile application. The court directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary to the Government (Home Dept), the DGP, the Registrar General and the Registrar General (IT) to work in tandem and ensure strict compliance of e-summons.
Case Title: Sureshbabu and Others v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in 2024, against a group of men for alleged unlawful assembly, noting that the men had gathered to watch the live telecast of the Ayodhya Ram temple ceremony.
Justice N Satish Kumar noted that whenever some religious functions are conducted, there would be some grievances by other groups. The court added that merely because the people had gathered to watch the function, it could not be said to be an unlawful assembly to attract the offences under the IPC.
The court remarked that the mere launching of the FIR was not sufficient to conclude that the offences had been made out. The court also observed that continuing the prosecution on shaky grounds or without materials would amount to abuse of process of law.
Case Name : K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima held that the departmental proceedings against a retired government servant cannot be instituted for an event that took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge memo.
It was observed by the court that a departmental proceeding is deemed to be instituted only on the date the statement of charges is formally issued to the government servant or pensioner, as defined under Rule 9(6)(b).
It was further observed that Rule 9(2)(b) imposes a limitation that proceedings not instituted while in service shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.
Case Title: M Muventhan v. The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court recently observed that there was no legal right to conduct a cock fight as the Statute expressly prohibits an animal fight organised by humans.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 11(1)(n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act penalise any person who entices any animal to fight any other animal or who organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting. Thus, noting that there was a statutory bar, the court was not inclined to grant the relief.
The court added that though cock fights were prevalent and well known, it could not be given a cultural status. The court added that the petitioner may have a legal right if the State decides to bring an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, similar to one brought in 2017 following the Jallikattu issue.
Case Title: The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court has set aside the order acquitting Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa for planning a bomb attack on former Home Minister LK Advani during his Rath Yatra in Madurai in 2011.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice L Victoria Gowri noted that though the trial court had pointed out certain contradictions for acquitting the accused, the contradictions were not material to go to the root of the prosecution case. The court noted that the contradictions were only minor.
The court was hearing an appeal by the Special Investigation Division, CB-CID wing, against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, acquitting the accused. The prosecution's case was that while the case against the accused was pending for attempting to attack former Home Minister LK Advani through a planted bomb, the accused absconded at the preliminary stage. Following this, a non-bailable warrant was issued.
Madras High Court Recognises Cryptocurrency as Property, Says It Can Be“Held in Trust”
Case Title: Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court on Saturday recognized cryptocurrency as a form of property that can be owned, enjoyed and held in trust, while granting protection to an investor whose digital assets were frozen on the WazirX exchange after a massive cyberattack.
In an order passed by Justice N Anand Venkatesh in an arbitration plea seeking interim relief, the court relied on two Supreme Court rulings, Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, which broadly define the concept of “property,” and observed that these principles apply equally to cryptocurrencies
It held “Judging from the above two decisions, there can be no doubt that “crypto currency” is a property. It is not a tangible property nor is it a currency. However, it is a property, which is capable of being enjoyed and possessed (in a beneficial form). It is capable of being held in trust.”
Case Title: N Anand @ Bussy Anand v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party's general secretary N Anand @ Bussy Anand, on Monday (October 27) withdrew an anticipatory bail petition filed by him in the Madras High Court in connection with the Karur Stampede.
Anand's counsel informed a bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan that he intended to withdraw the plea, since the investigation had been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following the orders of the Supreme Court. Taking note of the same, the court allowed his request and dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
Case Title: M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.
The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed with knowledge in this regard, that would not count for the purpose of limitation. It is the date of receipt of the offence report that is material. Such an interpretation alone would be in consonance with the text of Regulation 17."
Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated that an offence report need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Any official communication or proceeding or order, or notice setting out the misconduct committed by the customs broker in any customs station would qualify to be an offence report. The offence report need not be in any particular format. The only requirement is that the offence report has to emanate from an official source.
Case Title: M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award.
The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Limited wherein it was observed that where the party fails to take advantage of an opportunity duly accorded to, it cannot later invoke that ground. The Court observed that the ground under Section 48(1)(b) of the Act will not be available to a party, which makes a conscious and deliberate decision not to participate in the arbitral proceedings after receiving due notice of their commencement. A written communication made by a party refusing to participate in the proceedings constitutes a waiver of their own right to present their case.
Case Title: A Vignesh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court has directed three police officers who entered an "unholy alliance" to secure conviction of a man under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act using false evidence, to pay Rs. 10 Lakh as compensation.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the man was in custody since the date of his arrest, without bail.
The court reiterated that a fair investigation and trial are the fundamental rights of an accused and the officers should always present true facts of the case. The court thus directed the Director General of Police to conduct an independent enquiry against the officers.
Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court
Case Title: National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act.
The Court further clarified that Customs authorities may issue Public Notices only to explain or implement provisions and procedural changes under the Customs Act, and that such powers do not extend to matters governed by other statutes, including the GST laws.
Case Name: M. Maher Dadha v. Mr. S. Mohanchand Dadha and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court, while setting aside an arbitral award, has observed that despite the arbitral Tribunal comprising elder family members, who are lay persons and not well-trained legal minds, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. If an award is passed without giving an opportunity to either of the sides to present their case, the same would violate Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while hearing a challenge under Section 34 of the A&C Act, observed that the arbitral Tribunal did not give an opportunity to Mr Maher Dadha (“the Petitioner”) at a very crucial stage of the arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not reply to the Petitioner's letter dated 01.10.2005, wherein an accommodation to reschedule the hearing from 05.10.2005 was sought.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
Justice SM Subramaniam of the Madras High Court recently refused to recuse from a case initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Madras Race Club.
The Club had sought Justice Subramaniam's recusal citing his "adverse findings" in another case involving the Club.
The judge said that if such requests were allowed, it would pave the way for forum shopping or bench hunting and would be initiating a wrong practice.
Sitting in a division bench with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the judge observed that it was common for the judges to express opinions during the hearing, but it would not always mean that the case had been prejudiced. The court further said that if every remark of a judge were to be construed as one indicating prejudice, most judges would fail to pass the exacting test.
Case Title: Kamaraj v. State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court has quashed a case against a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, for allegedly committing sexual assault on a minor girl.
Justice N Sathish Kumar relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, where the court had laid down guidelines that must be taken into consideration by the courts while quashing non-compoundable offences. As per the principles, if the crime is purely against society with overriding public interest, it cannot be quashed even if the parties have entered into a settlement.
In the present case, the court noted that the offence was purely personal and involved the future of two young persons in their early twenties. The court added that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings and it would only cause mental agony to the accused, victim and their parents.
Case Title: Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
The Madras High Court recently held that a presenter of a document for registration cannot seek its return without paying the deficit stamp duty decided by the registering authority or the collector.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq noted that, as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the registration Rules, when a document or instrument is presented for registration, it would be scrutinised for the correctness of the stamp duty paid. If it is found that the stamp duty paid is insufficient, the Registering Authority is duty-bound to impound the document and send it to the Collector for the determination of stamp duty.
The court noted that after the stamp duty is determined by the Collector, it is sent back to the registering authority, who then issues a notice to the presenter, who then decides whether to continue with the registration process or seek the return of the document. The court thus pointed out that execution of the document would be sufficient for recovering the deficient stamp duty.
Case Title: A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court recently held that in case of adoption of an unmarried woman's child, an adoption deed executed by the grandparents would be valid, when it is shown that the mother had concurred to such adoption.
Justice Dhandapani highlighted that the concept of adoption is to facilitate the permanent care and protection of the child. The court added that so long as the interests of the child are met, the authorities should not focus on the intricacies of the process, hampering the welfare of the child.
Case Title: All India Defence Employees Federation (AIDEF) v. Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed against the decision of the Union Government's decision to convert production units of Ordnance Factory Board into seven Defence Public Sector Units.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar rejected the argument put forward by the employees' association that the decision was made even before the conciliation failure report was received by the Governemnt. The court held that when such policy decisions were taken by the government for the security of the country, it should not be stalled on hyper-technical objections.
Case Title: M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court set aside an arbitral award passed against M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (“the petitioner”) on the ground that since the arbitral tribunal was constituted without obtaining the consent of a Joint Venture Partner, it lacked jurisdiction. The court further held that the appointment cannot be validated merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to a party.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “the Tribunal did not go into this issue and the Tribunal straight-away went into the issue of prejudice. The issue of prejudice will not really matter when it touches upon the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to conduct the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Whether the petitioner will be prejudiced or not becomes irrelevant, when the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was not done with the consent of the petitioner.”
Case Title: M. Gajendran & Anr. v. R. Munirathinam & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
The Madras High Court held that filing of a petition with deficit court fee does not amount to proper presentation. If the entire court fee is not deposited within the limitation period under section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the court is divested of its power to condone the delay.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that "filing of a petition with deficit Court fee cannot be construed as proper presentation of the petition. If such presentation of the petition has to be regularized, the deficit Court fee must be paid within the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of A and C Act. If the same is not done, the Court is divested of its power to condone the delay in the light of mandate prescribed under Section 34(3) of A and C Act.”
Case Title: Ganesan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madras High Court has held that the definition of Ganja does not include the stem and stalk, but only includes the flowering or fruiting top.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan emphasised that when a contraband is accompanied by stems and seeds, the weight of the flowering or fruiting top alone is to be considered for ascertaining the commercial quantity.
It may be noted that as per Section 2(iii)(b) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act Ganja has been defined as “ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated”.
The court noted that when the Act itself has excluded seeds and leaves, there is a burden on the prosecution to prove that the contraband seized comes under the definition of Ganja, considering the rigidity of the procedure.
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a student with chronic schizophrenia to write Semester Exams
Justice Anand Venkatesh was hearing a plea by the student seeking exemption from paying the tuition fee as a person with disability. While allowing the student to write the exam as an interim measure, the court made it clear that it would not enure any right to the student for seeking the relief claimed for. The court asked the University to keep the answer papers in a sealed cover until further orders are passed in the plea.
Case Title: M/s GAIL (India) Limited v M/s Coromandal Electric Company Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
In an important ruling for the natural gas sector, the Madras High Court Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar denied appeals by GAIL (India) Limited against five natural gas supplier companies in arbitrations aggregating to Rs. 246 crores, observing that natural gas transactions are commercial and GAIL could not invoke the public trust doctrine to escape limitation.
The Court held that pricing policy and clarificatory letters did not provide any consumer subclassification and rejected the allegation of misrepresentation. The plea of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable as the Buyers generated energy and sold at fixed prices. It observed that public trust doctrine would not apply to this transparent commercial transaction and that concluded contracts could not be reopened by importing new terms. Entertaining GAIL's stance would create perpetual uncertainty against public policy.
Case Title: P. Pushpam v/s The Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court has held that Aadhaar card holder has the fundamental right to seek alteration of their details in the Aadhar card.
Justice GR Swaminathan in his order observed that the Central Government had introduced the Aadhaar regime and the statute confers right on the Aadhaar number holder to seek alteration.
Referring to the Aadhaar Act the court said that the law was originally intended to ensure that the targeted constituency of the welfare schemes receive the benefit.
Case Title: G Sampath Kumar v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by retired IPS officer G Sampath Kumar against a single judge order refusing to reject a defamation suit filed by cricketer MS Dhoni against the IPS officer and others.
Dhoni had filed the defamation suit for content made by the respondents in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by the former IPS officer.
Case Title: K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court recently held that the right to conduct Annadhanam (offering food to people during temple festival) would form part of a person's fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution. The court added that the local administration is duty-bound to uphold this fundamental right and deal with the law and order problem that may arise.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that if a public land, belonging to the State, was available for use by the general public, a particular section should not be prevented from using the same on the sole ground of religion and the same would be violative of the Constitution.
Case Title: Srinivasan v. The Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court has held that recently held that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not one affecting the future conduct of a person and such a conviction could not be taken as a ground for denying pension.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises out of a contractual dispute between the parties. The court noted that as per the Pension Rules, a person who failed to have good future conduct would be disentitled from receiving a pension. The court observed that the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act would affect the person's good conduct.