Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 to March 30, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

B Kavitha v. The Registrar General, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

State v. Govindaswamy and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

Marudhu Pandi v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

REPORT

Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Case Title: B Kavitha v. The Registrar General

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Criticizing the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal and the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur for denying maternity benefit to an Office Assistant, the Madras High Court has held that when there was no dispute regarding the marriage, the employer should not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt for granting the maternity benefit.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the action of the Magistrate was wholly unwarranted and inhumane. The bench added that when prima facie evidence was available, the Magistrate seemed to have fished for reasons and rejected the maternity leave application. Thus, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the woman for the mental agony suffered by her due to the respondents' actions.

"Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction": Madras High Court Dismisses Ex-Serviceman's Plea Seeking Inquiry Into Havana Syndrome In India

Case Title: Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 117

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an ex-serviceman who claimed that the Defence Space Agency was targeting him with the help of 'radiation' which caused severe health conditions and sought an inquiry into the 'Havana Syndrome' in India.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the man did not produce any medical records to establish such reactions in his body.

The court was hearing the plea of B Boopalan, who claimed that due to high-frequency microwave radiation used by the Defence Space Agency against him, he is suffering from health issues. He submitted that he could feel the unknown high-frequency microwave radiations across his body including hitting on spinal area, harming on eyes, tongue and nose and brain, headache chilling and severe aches in his body.

Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC

Case Title: South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred.

The court observed that while deciding a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the law is now well settled that the referral court will have to look only into the prima-facie existence of the arbitration clause and once the court is satisfied that there exists an arbitration clause, necessarily, the court will have to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Unimaginable Rate Of Corruption In Country, If Anyone Accepts Bribe His Family Will Be Ruined: Madras HC Sets Aside Acquittal Of Customs Officer

Case Title: State v. Govindaswamy and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

While setting aside the acquittal of a customs officer for amassing wealth disproportionate to his income, the Madras High Court recently remarked that corruption in India has gone into unimaginable ratio.

Quoting the prophecies of Jesus, Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that the philosophy of life should be not to take bribes.

The court found the officer's wife guilty of the offences and refused to quash the case against her. The court added that corruption starts from home, and when the homemaker herself becomes a party to the corruption, there would be no end. The court also emphasised the need to fight corruption from home.

Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Murder Conviction, Finds 'Wordy Quarrel' With Deceased Insufficient To Show Accused Was Provoked

Case Title: Marudhu Pandi v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120

While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man for murder, the Madras High Court held that wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased could not prove that there was grave and sudden provocation for bringing in an exception.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima held that to prove grave and sudden provocation, the individual, due to extreme emotional distress caused by provocative action or circumstances, should lose self-control and commit a wrongful act, potentially leading to death. The court added that to prove an offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it must be shown that the accused was provoked by an act of the deceased. In the present case, though the court agreed that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased, there was no proof that the deceased had provoked the accused to commit murder.

“Insensitivity To Settled Law”: Madras HC Criticises Special Bomb Blast Court For Arbitrarily Denying Exemption From Appearance To Accused

Case Title: Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

The Madras High Court recently criticised the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases for rejecting applications filed by accused persons under Section 317 CrPC on the ground that the accused had already filed such petitions. The court thus recalled an NBW issued by the special court.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the trial courts should not issue NBWs without application of mind and have held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally when facts and circumstances require such an exemption. The bench thus noted that the special court was being consistently insensitive to the settled proposition of law.

Madras High Court Asks Police Not To Harass Rippling Co-Founder Prasanna S In Enquiry Over Alleged Matrimonial Dispute With Wife

Case Title: Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu state police not to harass Rippling co-founder in connection with an enquiry into his alleged matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the police not to harass the petitioner in a complaint filed by his wife.

Prasanna has alleged that the police authorities had been conducting a roving enquiry into his whereabouts and were visiting his mother's house. He also alleged that the police had illegally arrested his friend, in an attempt to know his location and were threatening to register an FIR against him. He also informed the court that the police had raided his vacation home in Chennai and seized the phone of the caretaker, along with the CCTV cameras. Thus, citing urgency, he sought for directions to the police not to harass him in connection with the enquiry.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Bench Which Questioned ED Action Recuses From Hearing Plea Against TASMAC Raids

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025

Two judges of the Madras High Court have recused from hearing the petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government and the TASMAC against the searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate in the latter's headquarters on March 6th and March 8th this year.

On Tuesday (25th March) division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar informed that it was recusing from hearing the petitions.

On March 20, while hearing the petitions, the bench had orally asked the ED to not proceed with the investigation till the next hearing. The bench wondered if the ED had the power to detain the entire office based on materials available against some persons. The court also pointed out that while the ED argued that it had enough materials, the TASMAC's grievance was that such materials were not made available to them.

Kunal Kamra Gets Interim Anticipatory Bail From Madras High Court In Mumbai Police FIR Over Satire Video

Case Title: Kunal Kamra v. State

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.9768 of 2025

The Madras High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail till April 7 to Kunal Kamra in connection with the FIR lodged against him at Mumbai over his alleged remarks against Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde. Kamra has been asked to execute the bail bond before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Justice Sunder Mohan said he is prima facie satisfied that Kamra is unable to approach the courts in Maharashtra for protection. The court was thus inclined to grant interim anticipatory bail. The court has allowed private notice to the Khar Police Station (2nd respondent in the case).

"If An Adult Wants To Ruin His Life, It's His Choice": Online Gamers' Association Argues Before Madras High Court In Plea Against Night Ban

Case title: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited And Anr Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors & Connected Matters

Case No: WP 6784 of 2025

In a challenge to the State government's regulations on online gaming, an association for the welfare of online gamers argued before the Madras High Court on Friday (March 28) that it was the personal choice of the gamers to 'ruin their life' and the State could not act as a 'step father' to tell the players how to live their life.

A division bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar were hearing a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022 along with the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations 2025.