Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284 NOMINAL INDEX GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278 Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279 Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280 KE...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
NOMINAL INDEX
GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
KE Kavin Kumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
REPORT
Case Title: GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an application seeking interim injunction to restrain actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vetrri Kazhagam party from using the party flag, over alleged infringement of a Trust's trademark.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy rejected the plaintiff's claim that the usage of the flag by Vijay's party amounted to copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off. The court, however, added that these were tentative observations and the matter would be dealt with in September.
The interim orders were passed in a petition filed by G.B. Pachaiyappan, trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to consider granting sanction for prosecuting a Resolution Professional for allegedly mismanaging funds of a company during a resolution process.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the resolution professional performed duties in connection with the administration of justice, was a person from whom a report was called for by the court of justice, and was performing a public duty. Thus, the court noted that the Resolution Professional would come within the definition of public servant as provided under Section 2(c)(v), 2(c)(vi), and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by the Greater Chennai Corporation's sanitation worker challenging the Corporation's resolution to outsource the sanitation work in two of its zones to private companies.
Justice K Surender noted that privatizing the sanitation work is a policy decision of the government and when the decision did not violate any provisions of law, it could not be quashed.
The court also noted that the change brought in by the government was to improve the quality of the sanitation and Solid Waste Management. The court also added that such economic policies were not amenable to judicial review unless it was contrary to the statutory policies or the Constitution.
The court made the observations in the plea made by Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam which was a General Workers Union organizing the unorganized workers throughout the State. The organization had challenged the resolutions made by the Greater Chennai Corporation through which a decision was taken to outsource the sanitation work in Zone 5 and 6 of Chennai to Hyderabad based company M/s. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd.
Case Title: Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court recently refused to transfer a trial in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court said that merely because the respondent was an MLA, it could not be said that the trial would be unjust and that by itself would not be a reason to transfer the trial.
Justice P Velmurugan held that the power to transfer a trial must be exercised carefully and only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice would not be done. The court noted that no materials had been produced to show that the Magistrate had made adverse orders or had acted in a biased manner. Thus, noting that the apprehension was vague and not based on any concrete materials, the court was not inclined to entertain the same.
Rithanya Dowry Death Case | Madras High Court Grants Bail To Husband & In-Laws
Case Title: KE Kavin Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Kavin Kumar, Annadhurai, and Chitra Devi, the husband and in-laws of 27 year old 27-year-old Rithanya, who committed suicide earlier in July this year in Tiruppur, over alleged dowry harassment.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that since the investigation was almost completed, including the examination of the witnesses, it was not necessary to keep the accused under custody. The judge thus granted bail on the condition that the accused appear before the jurisdictional police every day in the morning and evening, till further orders.
Case Title: Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
The Madras High Court has held that a second habeas corpus petition is maintainable against the same detention order if new grounds, that were not raised in the earlier habeas corpus petition, are available.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, had held that the concept of public police was entirely inapplicable in illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent writ of habeas corpus on fresh grounds. The court added that detenues should not take undue advantage of this finding and file habeas corpus petitions on the same ground.
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v The Chairman and Another
Case No: WP 31016 of 2025
The Madras High Court has decided to watch the Tamil movie “Manushi”, in a special screening on Sunday, after the Central Bureau of Film Certification refused to certify it, alleging that it portrayed the State in a bad light.
Justice Anand Venkatesh decided to watch the movie after its producer, and an acclaimed director Vetri Maaran, approached the court to quash the recommendations made by the Revising Committee, suggesting around 37 excisions/modifications in the movie.
Vetri Maaran had previously approached the court challenging the CBFC's refusal to certify the movie. CBFC had then informed the court that it would certify the movie if the objectionable content was removed.
Case Title: Sun TV Networks Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification
Case No: CMP 20583 of 2025 and CMA 133449/2025 (Filing No.)
Sun TV channel has approached the High Court after it was given an “A” certificate by the Board for allegedly portraying excessive violence in its recent movie 'Coolie', starring Rajinikanth, Nagarjuna Akkineni and Aamir Khan.
Justice TV Thamilselvi is likely to hear the matter on Monday (August 25).
Sun TV has submitted that its production house, Sun Pictures, being the producer of the movie, had applied for certification as per Rule 22 of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules 1983. After evaluation of the movie, the Examining Committee sent an email stating that the movie would be given an “A” certificate, provided certain cuts are made.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director and Others
Case No: Cont P 2708 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, issued a statutory notice to the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Vikas Kumar, in a contempt petition filed by film producer Akash Baskaran for continuing the probe in an alleged money laundering case despite a stay issued by the High Court.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan issued notice asking the Assistant Director to appear before it on September 17.
The bench expressed its displeasure after noting that the Assistant Director had issued a show-cause notice to the producer even after being aware of the interim order passed by the bench staying all further proceedings in connection with the PMLA case.
Madras High Court Declines Plea To Stall Anirudh Ravichander's Hukum World Tour Concert In Chennai
Case Title: Babu v The State
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to halt musician Anirudh Ravichander's “Hukum World Tour Concert", scheduled to be held at ECR, Chennai, on Saturday.
Though Justice Anand Venkatesh refused to halt the concert, the court decided to keep the matter pending to ensure that no conditions imposed for conducting the concert were violated. The court also suggested that designated places could be identified in the city to conduct such events, as was done in some foreign countries. The court added that it wanted to ensure no mishap took place and, if needed, issue necessary directions for the future.
The court was dealing with a petition filed by Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party's MLA Babu, who had approached the court asking the State and the police not to grant permission for the concert. Babu submitted that, following written representations from Village Presidents, public representatives, and the general public, he had inspected the venue at which the concert was to be held. He submitted that there were no visible safety or amenity arrangements at the venue, and neither were sanitation facilities set up to cater to the crowd.