Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 NOMINAL INDEX Dr. E. Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221 XXX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222 ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224 M/s. Adyar Gate...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. E. Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
XXX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
REPORT
Case Title: Dr.E.Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court has ruled that maternity leave availed by a doctor while rendering mandatory service at Government Hospital should be counted towards their bond period.
The bench of GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms part of Article 21. The court thus held that the doctor, though was not in the service of the government as a regular employee, would be entitled to the same treatment as any government employee.
Case Title: XXX v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court recently ordered a re-investigation in a POCSO case after noting that the police had failed to conduct further investigation when the DNA test of the accused gave a negative result. The court said that a further investigation was crucial to find the actual culprit in the case.
Justice K Murali Shankar said that POCSO offences are serious in nature stressing that it was high time for the prosecution to ensure a proper investigation.
“POCSO offences are serious in nature, attracting more severe punishments and warrant meticulous investigation to ensure justice. Unfortunately, some cases exhibit casual and mechanical investigation, disregarding consequences. It is high time for the prosecution to ensure thorough and proper investigation upholding the gravity of the cases,” the court said.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 1) dismissed a plea seeking to interrogate BJP leader Annamalai in connection with the evidence allegedly in his possession with respect to the Anna University sexual assault case.
In a recent interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had materials connecting higher officials with the Anna University Case. He said that he knew who the accused had referred to as “Sir” at the time of the offence.
Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan said that politicians would keep on making such comments on a mic and the Courts should not waste its time on such matters.
Case Title: P Kishore v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court has held that an individual's phone cannot be tapped in a secret operation to detect the commission of a crime, and the same would violate the individual's fundamental right to privacy.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that phone tapping would be justified only on two conditions: the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The court also highlighted that these situations/ contingencies should be apparent to a reasonable man.
The court also added that orders allowing phone tapping should specify the necessity of the same in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, and for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT's classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as 'capital goods' has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody's case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Madras High Court Upholds Global Prior Use In MediaMonks Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court has allowed a rectification petition for removal of trademark filed with the name "MEDIA MONK LABEL" and "MEDIA MONK" registered and being used by the respondent. The petition was filed by an international digital advertising company of the same name. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, allowing the petition, held that the party that uses the mark on a global scale, even if not used in India, shall be identified as the prior user.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court has rejected the appeal preferred against a single bench decision refusing to order re-examination of NEET UG 2025, over issue of power outage at some exam centres in Chennai.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the appeal filed by a group of students, claiming that their performance was hindered due to the heavy rainfall and poor management by the center.
The court perused the order of the National Testing Agency, which was passed after conducting a field verification of the exam centres. The court said it has to uphold the integrity of the educational assessments in conducting examinations and it could not sit in appeal over the decision of the NTA, unless it was manifestly arbitrary, especially since a re-examination would affect more than 2 million other students.
Thus, the court observed that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge and, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party to hold a protest over the custodial death of one Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga District. The court asked the party to submit a fresh representation to the state police seeking permission for the protest. The party had initially planned to conduct the protest on July 6th (Sunday).
Justice P Velmurugan said that the party should give adequate time to the State to consider its representation. The court made the comment, noting that the representation for permission was made by the party on July 1, and the party had approached the court on July 4th. The court orally remarked that the police have a lot of other work and could not be expected to deal only with the party's representation.
"Why are you in so much hurry? The police have a lot of other work. They can't be expected to only deal with your work. You should at least give them 15 days to decide on the representation," the judge orally remarked.
The judge then asked the party to submit a fresh representation with a new date for conducting the protest and asked the police to decide on the new representation.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: E Marees Kumar v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP(MD) 17949 of 2025
Criticising the police brutality in the alleged custodial death of Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga, the Madras High Court today (July 01) orally remarked that the incident was a "police organised crime" where the State was killing its own people.
The judges lamented the brutal killing of the 29-year-old temple security guard, adding the incident had shocked the conscience of the people of the entire State.
While it appreciated the quick response from the State in arresting the 5 constables who were involved in the case, the Court added that the action should be more stringent and no police officer should be involved in such acts in the future.
The court also directed the IVth Additional District Judge (Madurai), S John Sundarlal Suresh to conduct an enquiry into the custodial death and submit a report by 8th July. The court also asked the State to initiate all appropriate action against the higher officials who were involved in the case and to submit a status report by 8th July.
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. Director General of Police and Another
Case No: WP Crl 1/2025
The Madras High Court on Friday orally remarked that it would order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) if the Tamil Nadu police failed to take action on complaints against former Minister K Ponmudy for his recent remarks on Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Justice P Velmurugan expressed dissatisfaction with the authority's inaction and said that he would take a final call on the case on July 8.
The court had previously issued notice to the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police (Greater Chennai) on a suo motu case, initiated on an order of Justice Anand Venkatesh. The judge had directed the Registry to initiate suo motu writ proceedings against the Minister and place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action. Following this, the matter was posted before Justice P Velmurugan.