Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 NOMINAL INDEX 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....
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORT
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v S Vimala IPS
Case No: Cont P 2012 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Monday, criticised the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for the delay on its part to obtain sanction from the Union Government to prosecute two IAS officers in connection with a case over alleged irregularities in awarding contracts by the Greater Chennai Corporation and the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation when former Minister SP Velumani was handling the department.
Justice Anand Venkatesh remarked that the court intended to show more seriousness in the matter since it involved corruption at a higher level. The court added that the cases against former ministers, IAS officers, etc., had to be dealt with in an expeditious manner to bring public faith in the system.
Case Title: G Sampath Kumar v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Others
Case No: OSA 326 of 2025
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on 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.
The suit was filed over alleged defamatory content against Dhoni in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman reserved the order after hearing the counsel for the retired officer and the cricketer.
Central Government Notifies Transfer Of Justice Nisha Banu To Kerala High Court
The Central Government has notified the transfer of Justice NIsha Banu from the Madras High Court to the Kerala High Court.
A notification issued by the Central Governemnt on 14th October 2025, read as under:
"In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Smt. Justice J. Nisha Banu, Judge, Madras High Court, to be a Judge of Kerala High Court and to direct her to assume charge of her office in the Kerala High Court,".
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others
Case No: Cont.P(MD)No.371 of 2024
The Madras High Court has summoned the officers of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department for their alleged failure to remove the encroachment at the Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswamy Temple in Karur District.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the officers of the department had not taken steps to remove the encroachment and restore the temple lands.
Perusing the reports submitted by the department, the court noted that the lands were being encroached by influential persons with the connivance of the revenue officials and temple trustees. The court remarked that the department, which is the statutory guardian of the temple properties, had failed to discharge its duties, forcing the devotees to approach the court.
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Case No: OA 889/ 2025 AND C.S(COMM DIV).226/2025
The Madras High Court on Thursday (October 16) has extended the interim order restraining the makers of the Tamil movie Good Bad Ugly from using the three songs of Ilaiyaraaja.
When Justice N Senthilkumar took up the plea today, some of the music companies informed the court that they had filed impleading petitions, but the same were yet to be numbered. Taking note of this, the court adjourned the plea to October 23, 2025. Meanwhile, the court extended the interim order previously granted.
Though the defendant requested the court to vacate the interim stay, saying that they were being affected, the court was not inclined to vacate the same.
The wife of BSP leader K Armstrong who was murdered in 2024, has approached the Madras High Court seeking to cancel the bail granted to two accused persons.
On October 13, the Principal Sessions Judge Chennai, granted bail to two accused, Siva and Sathish. Armstrong's wife has now approached the High Court seeking to cancel the bail granted to the accused persons.
Porkodi stated that the chargesheet filed by the police was still under operation and that the trial court ought to have considered the role attributed to the two accused. it was argued that the order was passed without application of mind, and the same is cryptic, illegal, and liable to be set aside.
Porkodi has stated that the Sessions Judge failed to take into account the order of the Supreme Court, and there was no change in circumstances to entertain the bail application. It has been submitted the order has been obtained without placing the necessary facts.
Karur Stampede | Actor Vijay'sTVK Party Not Recognised Political Party: ECI Tells Madras High Court
Case Title: C Selvakumar v. Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Case No: WP (MD) 28978 of 2025
The Election Commission of India, on Friday, told the Madras High Court that Actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party was not a recognised political party.
The submissions were made before a bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan in a plea seeking to derecognise the party along with other relief. Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal informed the bench that TVK party was not recognised and hence, the prayer would not stand.
The bench has directed the Registry to place all matters, in connection with the Karur Stampede, before the administrative side of the High court, to constitute a bench for dealing with the cases, except those that are pending before the Supreme Court.
Though the petition was filed in the madurai bench of the Madras High Court, it was transferred and listed before the bench headed by the Chief Justice since the first respondent in the case was the Chief Election Commissioner.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director and Others
Case NO: Cont P 2708 of 2025
The Madras High Court, on Friday, issued a statutory notice to the Chairperson and Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA for continuing to adjudicate a case despite a stay ordered by the High Court.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan issued notice to Chairperson Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay and Registrar/Administrative Officer Nasreen Siiddiqui in a contempt petition filed by film producer Akash Bhaskaran.
“We do not appreciate the manner in which the petitioner is summoned for final arguments. Issue statutory notice to R4 and R5,” the bench said.
It may be noted that the court had, in August, issued notice to the Assistant Director of Enforcement, asking them to appear before the court. The court had also fined the Directorate Rs. 10,000 each in three petitions filed by film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran against the ED's search conducted at their residence and office. The fine was imposed after the Directorate failed to file a counter affidavit despite being given a last opportunity by the court.