A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 336 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORT
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: T Rangaraj v. Joy Crizildaa
Case No: OA 948/2025 and C.S (Comm Div) 250/2025
Justice N Senhtilkumar of the Madras High Court, on Monday (October 05), orally remarked that even judges are not being spared on social media and that they are often trolled for the orders passed by them.
He said that sometimes, even the past of the judges is pulled in along with their families and it becomes a point of discussion in social media.
It may be noted that recently, there has been a surge in social media posts criticising a recent order passed by the judge and linking him to the ruling political dispensation.
The judge added that these things should not be taken seriously, as it is unavoidable when one reaches a position of power.
Case Title: D. Duraimurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP 36218 of 2025
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Water Resources, Durai Murugan challenging a Government Order through which the investigation in connection with a disproportionate asset case against him was transferred from the file of Subordinate Judge, Vellore, to the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan has issued notice to the State and the case has been adjourned to October 22. Previously, Justice Dhandapani had directed the registry to list the matter before another bench as he had previously appeared as a counsel for Durai Murugan.
Case Title: G Kartheeban v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP-159209/2025 (Filing No)
A member of the Tamilaga Vettri Kashagam party has approached the Madras High Court seeking departmental action against the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the Inspector of Police in Karur for alleged failure of duty in connection with the Karur Stampede Tragedy.
The petition has been filed by G. Kartheeban, who is also an advocate practicing in the Madras High Court.
In his plea, Kartheeban stated that the Karur stampede during the political campaign of actor turned politican Vijay's party was due to the mismanagement of law and order.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others
Case No: WP (MD) 27700 of 2025
A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court calling upon the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to ensure that the bills issued by petrol/diesel outlets and the display board in the outlets contain the details of the tax levied.
When the petition came up before the Madurai bench of Justice Anita Sumant and Justice C Kumarappan, the court issued notices to the respondent authorities. The court has also asked the petitioner to implead the Central and State tax authorities in the case.
The petition, filed by Advocate B Ramkumar Adityan, stated that knowing the tax on a product was a part of the consumer's right to information and protection against unfair trade practices, as per the Consumer Protection Act. it has been submitted that the consumers should have all the necessary details to make informed decisions and should not be misled or exploited by sellers.
TVK's Aadhav Arjuna Approaches Madras High Court For Quashing FIR Over Social Media Post
Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State
Case No: Crl OP 83281/2025 (Filing No)
The General Secretary of Election Campaign Movement of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party, Aadhav Arjuna, has approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash an FIR filed against him for allegedly inciting violence.
In his plea, Arjuna stated that the post could not be said to be provocative or inciting rebellion against the sovereignty and integrity of India or endangering the security of the state or as inciting breach of public order. he submitted that the post was in response to the police violence meted out to the cadres of the TVK party following the Karur Stampede.
It has also been stated that mere criticism of the police brutality in the country or the State does not constitute any offence under the BNS and such criticism is protected under the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.