Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 – September 28, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

VP v. M, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

SGS and another v. NIL, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323

M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

RAP v. AM, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

REPORT

Photocopy Of Misplaced Cheque Can Be Accepted As Secondary Evidence In Cheque Bounce Cases: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal v. S Manonmanian

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

The Madras High Court recently observed that a Xerox copy of a cheque can be accepted as secondary evidence in cheque bounce cases, and such a request cannot be refused merely because there is no evidence to prove that the original cheque was lost.

Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that when the trial judge had recorded the sworn statement in which he had made an endorsement with respect to the original cheque before giving it back to the complainant, he should have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence.

No Maintenance Without Evidence Of Valid Marriage, Testimony Of Unreliable Witnesses Cannot Be Considered: Madras High Court

Case Title: VP v. M

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Family Court at Dindigul, which had directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, after noting that there was no evidence to prove the marriage between the parties.

The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the trial judge had only relied on the evidence of the witness on the plaintiff's side without considering the evidence of the defendant's witness, which gave an undue advantage to the plaintiff. The court noted that in the absence of any evidence, the court should not have placed complete reliance on the unreliable witness, and thus opined that the trial court's order was unsustainable.

Compelling Parties In Mutual Divorce To Wait For Cooling-Off Period To Expire Will Only Increase Their Agony: Madras High Court

Case Title: SGS and another v. NIL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

The Madras High Court recently observed that when parties to a mutual divorce have affirmed their decision to go their separate ways, the court should not insist on them waiting for the mandatory cooling-off period, as the same would only increase their agony.

Justice PB Balaji, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts regarding the issue, held as under,

“Independently, I also find that both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits even in this revision, affirming their decision to go separate ways. The interest of any children is also not involved in the present case, since the parties were not blessed with any issues and both the petitioners have categorically asserted that the relationship has become irreconcilable and distressing. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to wait for the mandatory period to expire would only further increase their agony. The petitioners have also stated that their decision is voluntary and only based on their free will and there is no fraud, collusion or undue influence brought upon them to file the mutual consent divorce petition,” the court said.

Interim Stay On Govt Order Doesn't Create Right Of Appointment Against Abolished Post: Madras High Court

Case Name : Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V.Karthikeya and Justice R.Vijayakumar held that an appointment cannot be made to a post abolished by a Government Order, and a stay order in a different matter does not confer any right to appointment or its approval.

It was noted by the court that an order of stay granted in W.A.(M.D).No.816 of 2023 was restricted to Sweepers and Scavengers. It was held by the court that the stay order granted by the Court was only to protect the interest of the parties to the proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition. If the respondent had been appointed prior to G.O.Ms.238, then he could have taken advantage of the stay order. It was further held by the court that the right to get an appointment or its approval should be traceable to a statute or a Government Order. It cannot be traced through an interim order passed by the Court.

It was concluded by the court that the Single Judge had erred in directing the approval of the appointment based on an interim stay in a different matter. Hence, the order of the writ court was set aside and the writ appeal filed by the Education Department was allowed by the court.

Tax Exemption Cannot Be Claimed For Inter-State Purchases Without Segregating Local Purchases: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

The Madras High Court has held that if the assessee has purchased goods both within the State and from other States, then to claim exemption for inter-State purchases, the purchases made within the State must be segregated from those made from others.

Justices S.M. Subramaniam stated that when the facts are established in clear terms that the goods were found mingled during the course of physical verification/inspection, the decision of the assessing Authority and the appellate Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled for exemption, is correct and in consonance with the provisions of the exemption Order.

Scope Of Appeal Is Limited U/S 28KA Customs Act; Advance Ruling Binding Unless Arbitrary: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

The Madras High Court has held that the scope of appeal is limited under Section 28KA of the Customs Act and an advance ruling is binding unless it is palpably arbitrary or irrational.

Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited, as the ruling obtained is binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962. Unless the ruling of the Authority is palpably arbitrary or irrational or without any proper reasoning, they cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Madras High Court Transfers Probe In BSP Leader Armstrong's Murder Case To CBI

Case Title: K Immanuvel @ Keynos Armstrong v. Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 323

The Madras High Court has transferred the investigation into the death of Bahujan Samaj Party leader Armstrong to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Allowing a petition filed by Armstrong's brother, Justice P Velmurugan has directed the CBI to file the chargesheet within 6 months.

The court noted that the investigation carried out by the State police did not inspire much confidence, and to ensure justice and to maintain public confidence, it was to transfer the investigation to the CBI for a free, fair, and impartial inquiry.

Provisions Of Right To Education & RPWD Act Don't Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court

Case Title: M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

The Madras High Court recently held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act are not applicable to Sainik Schools since it is administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus found no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling, for the year 2025, which had prescribed eye standards for children seeking admission to the Sainik School.

Husband, Children Have Legal And Moral Duty To Maintain Wife/Mother: Madras High Court

Case Title: RAP v. AM

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a Family Court in Madurai asking a husband and his sons to pay Rs. 21,000 as monthly maintenance for their wife/mother.

Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked that a man had a legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/wife during her lifetime, and this duty was to ensure that the mother/wife is supported and cared for during their old age.

The court also added that by fulfilling this duty, the individual was demonstrating respect and gratitude towards their mother who had devoted herself to nurture and care for the family. The court called this a fundamental aspect of familial responsibility and remarked that it allowed the mothers to live their later years with dignity and care.

No Tax Exemption On Bakery Products Sold At Snack Bar: Madras High Court

Case Title: Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

The Madras High Court held that there is no tax exemption for bakery products sold in a snack bar.

Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan were addressing the issue of whether bakery products sold in a snack bar are covered under the notification G.O.P.No.570 dated 10^th June 1987 and exempted from tax.

The bench looked into Sl.No.9 to I Schedule and observed that the bakery products are not included and thus would not fall under the exemption notification. In fact, the bakery products are stated in I Schedule of Part B of Sl.No.11.

The said Sl.No.11 of part B of I Schedule has not been exempted under the notification. Therefore, the assessee's case would not fall under the exemption notification, added the bench.

The bench concluded that the Original Authority and the appellate Tribunal have rightly interpreted the exemption notification and the scope of its applications.

Court Must Conduct Independent Inquiry Under Order 33 CPC To Determine Indigency Of Person: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

The Madras High Court recently observed that for determining the indigency of a person under Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code, the court has to conduct an independent inquiry by itself or by appointing an officer of the court.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq said that the certificate obtained from the Government Authorities showing that a person is indigent can only be relied on for establishing the indigent circumstances and cannot be conclusive proof for to conclude whether the person is indigent.

Parties Can Compound Offence U/S 138 NI Act At Any Stage, Even After Dismissal Of Revision/Appeal: Madras High Court

Case Title: K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

The Madras High Court recently observed that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act would override the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita since the former was a special law.

Justice Shamim Ahmed added that the offences under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act were compoundable at any stage, even after the dismissal of the revision/appeal. The court noted that even a convict undergoing imprisonment could compound the offence.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Issues Notice On TN Minister Panneerselvam's Plea Challenging Proceedings In Disproportionate Asset Case

Case Title: MRK Panneerselvam and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: Crl OP 24021 of 2025 and Crl OP 24028 of 2025

The Madras High Court has issued notice to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore, in the pleas filed by Tamil Nadu Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare Minister, MRK Panneerselvam, challenging the proceedings initiated against him in connection with disproportionate asset cases.

Justice N Satish Kumar has ordered notice in the plea and dispensed with the appearance of the Minister before the Special Court.

The case against the Minister is that he had allegedly accumulated disproportionate wealth while serving as the Minister for Backward Classes and Welfare from 1996 to 2001 and later as the Minister for Health and Family Welfare from 2006 to 2011.

Madras High Court Calls For Action Against District Judge After Vigilance Inquiry Confirms Misuse Of Powers

Case Title: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.24853 & 24866 of 2025

The Madras High Court has ordered for an inquiry report into a judicial officer to be placed before the High Court's Vigilance Committee after it revealed that the judge had misused his powers to settle personal scores.

An enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance), upon the orders of the Madras High Court, had confirmed the allegations against the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

Justice N Satish Kumar, who had earlier set aside an order passed by the District Judge externing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has directed the registry to place the inquiry report before the Vigilance Committee, comprising senior judges of the High Court, for appropriate action. The court has also directed the report to be placed before the Transfer Committee for taking immediate action against the District Judge.

TN Minister Duraimurugan Approaches Madras High Court Challenging Transfer Of Disproportionate Case Against Him From Vellore To Chennai

Case Title: D. Duraimurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP 36218 of 2025

Tamil Nadu Minister for Water resources, Durai Murugan has approached the Madras High Court 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.

When the matter came up before Justice M Dhandapani, the judge asked the matter to be posted along with another petition filed by the Minister challenging the criminal prosecution— which is pending before another judge.

It may be noted that in April this year, the Madras High Court had set aside the discharge of the Minister and his wife from the disproportionate asset case. The court had also directed the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate to frame charges against the Minister and his wife and complete the trial within a period of six months.

Many People Being Affected By Damage Taking Place During Political Party Meetings; Must Be Compensated: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Director General of Police

Case No: WP Crl 884 of 2025

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, said that many people were being affected by the damages that were taking place during the public meeting of the political parties, and steps had to be taken to compensate them effectively.

Justice N Sathish Kumar noted that usually, when some incident takes place during the public meetings resulting in damage to public property, an FIR is registered and the case goes on for a long time. The court added that in many cases, the people who actually suffer the loss are not properly compensated.

The court has now impleaded the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary in furtherance of its earlier order directing the State to bring in rules asking all political parties to deposit a fixed amount while seeking permission for public meetings, which could be used towards payment of compensation in case of damage to public property.

Two Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Appointed As Permanent Judges

The central government has appointed two additional judges of the Madras High Court as permanent judges.

In a gazette notification issued on September 24, the Department of Justice said that President, in exercise of powers under Article 217(1) has appointed Justice N Senthilkumar and Justice G Arul Murugan as permanent judges of the Madras High Court.

'Not Made Statements Against Commercial Activities Of Company': Joy Crizilda Tells Madras High Court In Plea By Madhampatty Pakasala

Case Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v Joy Crizildaa

Case No: OA 904 of 2025 and CS (Comm Div) 231 of 2025

Celebrity stylist Joy Crizilda, on Wednesday submitted before the Madras High Court that she had not made any damaging statement against Madhampatty Pakasala, the catering company owned by Madhampatty Rangaraj.

The submissions were made before Justice N Senthilkumar. The court was hearing an application filed by Madhampatty Pakasala seeking a permanent injunction restraining Crizilda from making the allegations against the company and tarnishing its reputation. After hearing the parties, the court has now reserved its orders on the applications.

Madras High Court Asks Sony Music To Give Details Of Revenue Obtained From Broadcasting Ilaiyaraaja's Songs

Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraaja v Sony Music Entertainment India Private Ltd and Others

Case No: OA 946 of 2025 and C.S (Comm Div) 249 of 2025

The Madras High Court has asked Sony Music Entertainment to give details of the revenue generated by the company on a day-to-day basis from the broadcasting/telecasting of songs composed by music composer Dr. Ilaiyaraaja.

Justice N Senthilkumar issued the directions in a plea filed by the Music Composer seeking to declare that Sony had no rights, title or interest in music works of Ilaiyaraaja. The latter has also sought to restrain the music company from continuing the telecast/broadcast of his works.

Madras High Court Issues Notice To Actor Vijay & TVK In Appeal In Trademark Infringement Case Over Party Flag

Case Title: GB Pachaiyappan and Another v. Tamilaga Vetrri Kazhagam and Another

Case No: O.S.A (CAD) 102 of 2025

The Madras High Court has issued notice to Actor Vijay and his party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam in an appeal filed against a single judge order refusing to restrain the party from using its flag in connection with a trademark infringement case.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar issued notice to Vijay and his party and adjourned the case by 6 weeks.

In August this year, a single judge of the High Court had dismissed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the usage of the party flag following alleged trademark infringement. The court had rejected the claim that the party's continued usage of the flag amounted to copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off.

TVK Approaches Madras High Court Seeking Independent Probe Into Karur Stampede, Alleges Conspiracy

The Madras High Court has allowed an urgent mention made by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party seeking a suo motu cognisance into the stampede that took place in Karur District of Tamil Nadu during a political rally organised and headed by Actor Vijay yesterday.

Justice Dhandapani has accepted the urgent motion made by the party's counsels. The case is likely to be taken up tomorrow at the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court. It may be noted that the High Court is closed for the week for Puja holidays.

The party has alleged that there are some conspiracies in connection with the incident that took place and is seeking a suo motu probe or a probe by an independent agency.

Karur Stampede Tragedy | Madras High Court Calls Off Urgent Hearing Against Grant Of Permission For TVK Rallies

The Madras High Court has called off an urgent Sunday hearing into the tragic events at Karur, which killed multiple people attending a TVK party rally.

A victim of the stampede approached the High Court against granting any permission for the political rallies organised by actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party in the future.

Senior Advocate G Sankaran had sought permission from Justice N Senthilkumar to urgently hear the case on Sunday(September 28). Though the court allowed a special Sunday hearing, the plea could not be heard today as the petition was not formally filed or numbered.

Karur Stampede | Plea In Madras High Court Calls For Deregistration Of Vijay's TVK Party For Misconduct

A petition has been filed in the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court seeking derecognition/ deregistration of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam following the recent stampede that occurred in Karur during the party's political rally.

The petitioner, an advocate practicing before the Madurai bench argued that during the political rally that took place in Karur on 27th September, a large number of people, including children, infants, women and elderly persons had gathered in a congested venue and due to the gross negligence, mismanagement, and violation of lawful permissions, 40 people had died and many had been injured. It has been stated that the organisers of the meeting had grossly violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution, along with Directive Principles under Articles 39(e) and 39(f).