- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Monthly Digest:...
Madras High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025
Upasana Sajeev
6 Sept 2025 10:00 AM IST
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291 NOMINAL INDEX Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
NOMINAL INDEX
Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
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
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
S Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
SN Sathishwaran v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
REPORTS
Case Title: Davidson Devasirvatham v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber Savukku Shankar from making allegations against IPS officer Davidson Devasirvatham, implicating him in the recent custodial death of Ajith in Sivaganga.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the statements made by Shankar were prima facie derogatory and defamatory, which would affect the reputation of the officer. Thus, considering the restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, the court was inclined to restrain Shankar temporarily from making the allegations.
Case Title: MP Ranjan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu Congress SC Wing to conduct a hunger strike demanding special laws against caste based honor killings.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of the State's submission that it was willing to permit the hunger strike if the same was to be conducted in a designated area. Since the party agreed to conduct the hunger strike in the earmarked place, the court directed it to make a fresh submission, which was to be permitted by the State with conditions that the Commissioner may deem fit.
The court noted that, as far as Chennai was concerned, some areas had been earmarked for conducting protests. Since the state also expressed willingness to permit the hunger strike if conducted at these places, the court directed accordingly.
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: Dr. M Sathya Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the recent appointment of 4 IAS officers as Government Press Spokesperson.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan said that the IAS officers were appointed as the State Government's spokesperson and not as the ruling party's spokesperson. The court also noted that no laws had been violated at the time of making the appointments and thus, was not inclined to entertain the plea. The court thus dismissed the plea with Rs. 1 Lakh costs.
Case Title: Malliga v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court has set aside the detention order passed against 14 persons who have been accused to be involved in the murder of BSP Leader Armstrong in July 2024.
While setting aside the detention order, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Laksminarayanan noted that the detaining authority, while passing the detention orders, appeared to have scrutinised 14,000 pages in a day, which was an impossible task for any human being. The court thus observed that the detaining authority did not apply its mind, while passing the detention order.
Case Title: SSI Production v. The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police to provide protection to movie-theatres screening the Vijay Devarakonda starrer “Kingdom”.
The direction assumes significance amid backlash from Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman, who took offence to the manner in which the Tamil Ellam issue is allegedly portrayed in the movie.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that in a democracy, the movie-makers have a right to express their views and a third party cannot threaten the theatre owners or prevent the screening of the movie if they disagree with the views expressed in the movie.
The court reiterated that screening of a movie, which had been duly certified by the censor board, could not be halted merely because there was difference of opinion.
Case Title: P Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has recently remarked that the depiction of Hindu gods in a disrespectful manner could not be justified. The court added that depicting Gods in such a manner had the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, and affect the communal harmony.
Justice K Murali Shankar added that, considering the respect that was given to the religious symbols and deities, such actions of depicting the Gods should be dealt with sensitively. The court added that the Government should ensure that freedom of expression does not hurt the religious feelings of the people. In doing so, the court set aside the trial court order closing the case.
Case Title: S Sunil v. Senthamarai and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
A Madras High Court division bench has stayed the operation of a single judge order asking the Director General of Police to suspend a Deputy Superintendent of Police for failing to file final report in a case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan ordered interim stay in a Letter Patent Appeal filed by the DySP challenging the order passed by Justice P Velmurugan, directing the DGP to take action.
When a question was raised as to the maintainability of a Letter Patent Appeal against an order by a judge exercising criminal jurisdiction, the court noted that the LPA would be maintainable against that part of the order, wherein the judge was not exercising criminal jurisdiction.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi party, through its General Secretary against the public meeting convened by former Party president Anbumani Ramadoss.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the entire issue was an unfortunate ego clash between Dr. S. Ramadoss, the party's founder and his son Anbumani Ramadoss. Noting that a writ petition was not maintainable in case of private dispute, the court was not inclined to order the relief.
The court added that the argument of whether the party's bye-laws had been violated by calling the meeting could not be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings, and at best, it could only be a subject of civil proceedings.
Case Title: Murugesan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
The Madras High Court recently observed that though pulling the hands of a woman by a man would shock her sense of decency, it would not amount to outraging the modesty of the woman if there was no criminal intention.
Justice RN Manjula added that without any clear evidence about the intention of the man, vague or generalised statements would only earn a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused with respect to his criminal intention.
The court thus set aside the conviction of a man, sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
Case Title: Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking to forbear retired judges from issuing public letters, appeals, or statements allegedly intended to influence pending judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving allegations against sitting Judges.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan called the plea a “publicity interest litigation” and remarked that judges are not affected by such statements made against them. The court thus dismissed the plea and imposed cost.
The plea was filed in light of the recent letter written by retired judges of the Madras High Court to sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan, after the latter called for an explanation from a lawyer for raising caste bias allegation against the judge.
Case Title: D Thenmozhi v The Inspector of Police (law and Order) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the workers could protest only at authorised places. Since the rippon building was not an authorised place for protest, and since no permission had been taken to conduct the protest, the court ordered them to be removed from the place.
The court also added that it would be open for the protesting workers to make applications to the concerned authorities seeking permission for conducting the protest, which could be considered appropriately.
Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement.
While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion.
Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action.
The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement.
Case Title: S Vijay v. Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 14) directed the release of four lawyers and two law students who were detained by the police at midnight in connection with the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers protest.
A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the interim orders in a habeas corpus petition against the detention of lawyers and law students who joined the protest yesterday.
Incidentally, on Wednesday a coordinate bench had directed the State to take action to remove the Greater Chennai Corporation sanitation workers who have been protesting at the Rippon Building for almost 12 days demanding a reversal of the Corporation's decision to privatise solid waste management in some zones.
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."
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of a Family Court asking a husband to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife till the pendency of a divorce petition filed by him.
Justice PB Balaji noted that the object of awarding interim maintenance, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was to ensure that the wife had sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not merely survival but also allows her to lead a comfortable lifestyle that she would have otherwise had at the matrimonial home.
In the present case, the court noted that the wife had immovable properties in her name, and had substantial income through dividends. Thus, the court opined that the wife did not require any further interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
Case Title: Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Noting that several recreational clubs were only engaged in selling alcohol, the Madras High Court has issued directions to ensure that the licenses are issued only after verification and to take appropriate action.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that these clubs were becoming a nuisance for the people living near them. The bench also noted that the government was not taking any action against the clubs since in many instances, the clubs were owned by influential persons.
The bench has directed the Inspector General of Registration Department to ensure that the clubs selling liquor have a specific clause in their byelaws for selling of liquor by obtaining FL2 licence, which must be approved by due verification and in accordance with the law. The bench said that if a specific clause was not available in the byelaws, the registration of the club could be cancelled.
Case Title: S Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Disposing of a batch of pleas seeking permission to install idols of Lord Ganesh in connection with Vinayaka Chaturthi celebration, the Madras High Court remarked that most of the requests were driven by ego clashes and a desire to show dominance.
Justice B Pugalendhi deprecated the practice of using divinity to settle personal scores and remarked that God was a symbol of unity, not a tool for rivalry.
The court also observed that most of the temples at street corners were neglected throughout the year but during the time of Vinayaka Chaturthi, elaborate efforts were made to install giant idols. Calling this a paradox, the court said that the devotees must introspect and understand that true devotion was not about grandeur but consistent reverence and upkeep of places of worship.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 28) dismissed a plea challenging the 'A' certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification for the movie “Coolie” starring Rajnikanth, Nagarjuna, and Amir Khan, among others.
Justice TV Thamilselvi while pronouncing the order said that the "petition does not have any merits".
The high court passed the order on a petition moved by production company Sun TV Network.
Case Title: SN Sathishwaran v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has set up a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct investigation into the allegations of human organ transplantation racket in the State, including kidney transplants.
Noting that the State's response was "disappointing", the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan has said that the SIT will be monitored by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court. The court has directed the SIT to submit reports before the Registrar (Additional Registrar General) or the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madurai bench periodically.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a Government Order by which the State had granted permission for the construction of marriage halls by utilising the temple funds belonging to five different temples situated at different places.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the State's decision was violative of provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and the Rules and did not fall within the definition of “religious purpose”.
The court noted that as per Section 66 of the HR & CE Act, surplus funds could not be diverted for commercial or profit making ventures but must be confined to religious or charitable purpose. The court also noted that Hindu marriages, though considered sacrament, was a union bound by contractual terms and hence could not be considered a religious purpose.
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
The Madras High Court on Friday (August 29) directed acclaimed Director and Producer Vetri Maaran to carry out certain cuts and modifications in his upcoming Tamil movie 'Manushi'.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who had earlier decided to watch the movie, said that the exercise had to be done keeping in mind the principles of proportionality and to ensure that freedom of speech and expression is not unduly curtailed on surmises and conjectures.
The court, however, asked the members of the Central Board of Film Certification to deal with matters of artistic freedom broadly.