Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORT
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Karur Stampede | Madras High Court Asks State To Frame SOP For Political Meetings Within 10 Days
Case Title: A Thirukumaran and Another and batch pleas
Case No: WP (MD) 28971 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the State government to formulate, within 10 days, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed when granting permissions for political parties to conduct public meetings.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivasthava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of pleas in connection with the Karur Stampede Tragedy that took place on September 27, claiming 41 lives.
The bench also told the State that it should consider the applications filed by political parties seeking permissions within a time frame, allowing the parties to make arrangements for complying with the directions imposed.
Case Title: Federation of Bar Association v. Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 27880 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Thursday questioned whether the constitutional validity of a central legislation can be challenged on the ground that there was no proper deliberation or discussion in the Parliament, at the time of passing the law.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
When the case was taken up last year, the bench of Justice SS Sundar (now retired) and Justice N Senthilkumar had questioned the need for bringing in the new laws and suggested that amendments could have been brought into the existing laws itself.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case NO: WP Crl 1227 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Friday questioned if the Enforcement Directorate, being an investigation agency, could file a plea seeking directions to another investigation agency (State) to register cases.
The bench of Chief Justice Maniindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking directions to the State of Tamil Nadu to cooperate with the investigation in connection with the sand mining case and further directions to the Director General of Police to register FIRs based on ED's communication.
Case Title: J Brezhnev v. The Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 41380 of 2025
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained Brigade Enterprises Limited, a real estate company, from carrying out any further constructions at the Pallikaranai marshlands, which has been alleged to be a RAMSAR site.
Ramsar sites are wetlands deemed to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing the writ petition filed by J Brezhnev, the Legal Wing District Secretary, Chennai Suburban District of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). The petition was filed to challenge the planning permission granted to the builders for constructing a high-rise residential building complex.