Madras High Court Monthly Digest - May 2025
Upasana Sajeev
6 Jun 2025 10:05 AM IST
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182NOMINAL INDEX M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 J Manohar Dass v. Komathi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 164 Bank of Baroda v. The Chairman and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 165 Dr Anita R Ratnam v. Meta Platforms, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 166S Nagarajan...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163 to 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
NOMINAL INDEX
M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
J Manohar Dass v. Komathi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
Bank of Baroda v. The Chairman and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
Dr Anita R Ratnam v. Meta Platforms, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
S Nagarajan v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
K V Venugopal v. Secretary to Government of TN, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
V Iyyappan v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
Sivakumar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
A Paramasivam and Another v. The Inspector of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
K Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
R Lalithambai and Another v. Anshul Mishra IAS, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Retailers Association of India v. The Department of Labour and Skill Development and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
K Mayakannan and Others v. The Managing Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Manel Amrithkala v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
Mohan Ravi v. Aarthi Ravi and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and Anr v. Union Bank of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
ABC v XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
Ashwani Kumar Bhatia v. The Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
REPORTS
Case Title: M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shamim Ahmed held that seasonal workers whose engagement was cancelled due to procedural irregularities, should not be punished for faults of the selection committee. The court ruled that while such temporary workers could not be reinstated, they must be permitted to participate in future recruitment processes, along with appropriate age relaxation.
The court explained that the selection committee made certain appointments without properly following the requisite guidelines, thereby resulting in disciplinary proceedings against these officers. Since the recruitment took place only for one season, the court held that the workers' suspension was procedurally valid.
The court noted that the irregularity in the appointment process was not the fault of the workers, and they should not be penalised for the selection committee's errors. The court also held that the termination should not adversely effect the petitioners' reputation. Considering the petitioners' prior experience as a seasonal employee, the court held that they should be granted an age relaxation for the forthcoming selection process.
Case Title: J Manohar Dass v. Komathi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that it was high time to effectively digitise every investigation agency and ensure that court orders are effectively complied with.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that though the Tamil Nadu police has implemented the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), the ground reality was that the citizens were being constrained approach the courts for registration of FIR, conducting fair investigation, filing final reports etc. The court added that it was even worse that the court directions were not being followed by the department, leading to a plethora of contempt petitions.
The court added that in this AI era, the investigating officers could digitise everything at every stage of the investigation. The court noted that at present, the Information & Technology wing of the Tamil Nadu police lagged behind and was still in a premature stage. Considering the same, the court directed the police to complete the CCTNS 2.0 project within 4 months which would facilitate the services offered through the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) platform. The court added that any delay would have to be reported with valid justification.
Case Title: Bank of Baroda v. The Chairman and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
The Madras High Court has asked the state government to ensure that required number of State Level Scrutiny Committees are constituted to effectively dispose pending enquiries in connection with community certificates and ensure that the certificates are issued after complete scrutiny.
The issue before the court was that many bogus Community Certificates had been issued by the revenue authorities, which is to be monitored by the Government, and in the event of issuing such bogus certificates, the Authorities issuing must be held responsible and accountable. It was brought to the court's notice that several persons who "secured public employment through bogus community certificates" and were not cooperating with the Committee for enquiry which leads to delay in taking final decision.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the guidelines issued by the State for issuance and verification of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificates should be scrupulously followed and in the event of any failure, disciplinary action would be initiated against the officer for dereliction of duty.
Case Title: Dr Anita R Ratnam v. Meta Platforms
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court has asked Meta and Telegram to take down social media accounts that have been unauthorisedly using photos and audio of dancer Anita Ratnam.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on prima facie assessment, opined that the social media accounts had misused Ratnam's celebrity status for their commercial purpose. Noting that the usage did not fall within fair use, the court directed Meta and Telegram to take down the accounts.
Case Title: S Nagarajan v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, who record statements of accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, are not police officers and such statements would not come under the Indian Evidence Act.
The court added that whether the statements were recorded voluntarily or under coercion could be decided only on trial and such a defence could not be brought in during the discharge stage.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima gave a split verdict in a criminal revision petition filed by a man charged under Section 4 of the PMLA. Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the order of discharge by the Special Court was virtually a non-speaking order and vitiated by non-application of mind and thus remitted the matter back to the Special Court for fresh adjudication. Justice Poornima, however found prima facie material to proceed against the accused and thus dismissed the plea.
Madras High Court Orders Interim Stay On Declaration Of 2025 NEET UG Results
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and others v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court has stayed the declaration of results for the NEET UG 2025 examination.
Justice V Lakshminarayan on Friday ordered an interim stay on the declaration of results on the plea filed by a group of students seeking re-examination. Noting that the students must be given an opportunity to present their case, the court ordered interim stay.
The plea was filed by a group of students who had appeared for the examination in May 2025 at the PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF, Avadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The grievance of the students was that their examination was disrupted due to the heavy rainfall and poor management by the center and that a re-examination be conducted for them.
Case Title: K V Venugopal v. Secretary to Government of TN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
While rejecting a plea for appointing temple trustees from a particular caste, the Madras High Court recently noted that before god, all persons are human beings and that there could not be any discrimination based on caste.
“Before God, all persons are human beings and therefore, there cannot be any discrimination based on caste. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court and cannot be countenanced, this writ petition is dismissed,” the court said.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy referred to one of his judgments earlier this year where the court had held that any prayer which has the effect of perpetuating caste was not just unconstitutional but also against public policy.
Case Title: V Iyyappan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court recently held that when a person voluntarily submits himself/herself for conducting marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, the person would be considered Christian thereafter and their native religion is renounced automatically.
Justice L Victoria Gowri thus held that the incumbent Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari was disqualified from holding the post reserved for SC community— as she had solemnized marriage as per Christian rites and was thus deemed to have renounced her original social identity of Hindu Scheduled Caste Pallan.
The court added that to retain the socio-religious identity after inter-religious marriage, the only possible way was to have a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
Case Title: Sivakumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
The Madras High Court recently acquitted a father and a priest who were accused of molesting a minor girl under different circumstances. While acquitting the petitioners (accused) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the court noted that the date of birth certificate issued by the headmistress was not in the nature of any public or official register.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the certificate did not fulfil the requisites of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and was not a birth certificate issued by the school. Thus, the court held that the certificate was not sufficient to prove the age of the victim girl. Noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim girl in accordance with Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court held that the offences under the POCSO Act could not be attracted.
Case Title: A Paramasivam and Another v. The Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
The Madras High Court recently highlighted the shortcomings of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act and emphasised that the government has to take steps to evolve mechanisms to ensure that victims get their money back and that the object of the Act is achieved.
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench noted that even though the object of the Act was to ensure that the depositors, who have been cheated, get their money back, only 10% of the amount has been disbursed to the victims. The court thus noted that the government had a moral responsibility to ensure that the victims get their money back.
Case Title: K Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed the amendments brought in by the Tamil Nadu government, taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to State-run Universities.
The State amendments were made pursuant to the recent Supreme Court judgment defining the powers of the Governor.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan passed the interim order on a plea filed by an advocate challenging the series of legislative amendments passed by the State of Tamil Nadu, transferring the powers of appointing the Vice-Chancellor from the Governor to the State Government.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court recently observed that a wife prioritizing her career and academics and refusing to go to husband's place of work would not be cruelty.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed as under,
“The petitioner is not ready to sacrifice his career, and wants the respondent / his wife to come and live with him. Similarly, the respondent wants to focus on her academics and career as well. Both are not ready to compromise on each other's priorities and consequently, have some spousal conflicts. Since both are equally qualified and educated and pursuing their careers as they desire, this Court cannot find fault with act of the respondent in prioritizing her academics or career. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage has not been made out in this case.”
Case Title: R Lalithambai and Another v. Anshul Mishra IAS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Anshul Mishra to one month simple imprisonment for “civil contempt” by failing to follow an earlier order of the court in a land case. The court however suspended his sentence to allow him to file an appeal.
Justice P Velmurugan also asked the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an elderly duo) from his personal salary. The court asked the Government to deduct the compensation from his salary.
Emphasizing that public service was not a privilege but a trust, the court said that the citizen's confidence on the justice delivery system rests on the assurance that court orders would be implemented promptly. The court thus remarked that repeated defiance by public officials would challenge the fundamental principles of justice that the rule of law is meant to uphold.
Case Title: Retailers Association of India v. The Department of Labour and Skill Development and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to not take any coercive action against shopkeepers for failing to display their shop names in Tamil language primarily and then in English language.
Justice V Lakshminarayan has also directed the GCC Commissioner to consider a representation made by the retailers seeking an extension of time to change the already existing boards, in compliance with the Government decision mandating that the names of the shops be first displayed in Tamil and then in English and then, if needed, in any other language.
The retailers submitted that they had made substantial investments for creating and installing name boards. It was submitted that these name boards may also contain the recognised trademark of the shop, follow a uniform global branding format and incorporate carefully crafted elements such as colour, font, and design. It was submitted that forcing immediate redesign would disrupt the brand uniformity and cause confusion among the customers.
Case Title: K Mayakannan and Others v. The Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court recently set aside the suspension of three employees of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) for speaking in the media about alleged illegalities in TASMAC.
Perusing the materials produced to the court, Justice B Pugalendhi commented that there was something wrong with the department. The court further noted that since the department was being run by the government, it should not allow any corruption.
Considering the materials, the court remarked that something was wrong with the department and that the complaint of the petitioners was not addressed properly. Though the court agreed that the petitioners had acted against the circular, considering the manner in which the issue was handled, the court set aside the suspension order and gave liberty to the department to initiate disciplinary action against the employees.
Case Title: Manel Amrithkala v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court has held that Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card and booklet can be accepted by the authorities as valid identification documents for issuing Legal Heirship Certificate.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus gave relief to a woman whose husband had passed away in March 2025. The court noted that the Government of India had clearly directed the State Governments to treat OCI registration booklets as their identification for any services rendered to him.
The court noted that as per the Government order, wherever proof of residence was required, the Overseas Citizen of India may give an affidavit attested by a notary public stating that a particular address may be treated as their place of residence in India.
Case Title: Mohan Ravi v. Aarthi Ravi and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
The Madras High Court has restrained the media from sharing or discussing the details of the matrimonial dispute between cine actor Mohan Ravi and his wife Aarthi Ravi.
Passing a “John Doe order”, Justice GR Swaminathan noted that though the matrimonial dispute between the parties had no public element in it, since he was a celebrity, every information was magnified and distorted in a sleazy manner. Thus, considering the necessity to protect the privacy of the children of the couple, the court thought it fit to retrain the media.
The court wondered if it could pass an injunction order against the media or unknown defendants who were not present before the court. The court noted that there was no impediment against passing a John Doe order, which was an exparte order issued against unidentified persons preventing them from indulging in activities breaching the copyright of applicants. The court added that John Doe ordered could be issued not to uphold copyright but also to protect right and reputation.
Case Title: All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and Anr v. Union Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently observed that transfer orders which disregard the family, health, or safety concerns of an employee is against human dignity and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice CV Karthikeyan said that while issuing transfer orders, there must be a balance between the administrative requirements and the familial responsibilities of the employee.
The court also highlighted that women were always tied to their family and could not be expected to move around frequently. The court thus asked Union Bank of India to reconsider their existing transfer policy which mandated transfer of employees after 9 years of service at particular place and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employees when they failed to join the new place immediately.
The court said that the policy disproportionately affected women and caused considerable hardship. Thus, the court thought it fit to put forth safeguards, to prevent the indirect discrimination meted out to the women working in the bank.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Family Courts do not have the inherent power to grant a decree of judicial separation in a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that while Hindu Marriage Cat empowers the family court to grant a decree of judicial separation in a plea for divorce, no such power existed in a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Bhatia Versus The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court bench of Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy has held that the circular issued by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 21.12.2023 under section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), allowing the creditor to recommend the name of a Resolution Professional in an application filed under Section 95 of the Code cannot be deemed ultra vires the provisions of the Code, particularly Section 97, which states that in creditor-initiated insolvency proceedings, the insolvency professional is to be nominated by the IBBI. This circular enhances the efficiency of the entire process.
The court observed that the main issue is whether the procedure outlined in the circular contradicts the intent of Section 97, especially since the statute mandates the adjudicating authority to request the IBBI, which is empowered to nominate the name.
It further opined that the IBBI scrutinizes and empanels Resolution Professionals, and once empaneled, it nominates one from the panel. Since the creditor can only nominate from this panel, the nomination effectively comes from the IBBI. Therefore, the circular serves as a practice direction and a pragmatic tool, fulfilling the objectives of the IBC by saving time and enhancing efficiency.
The court also observed that the debtor has the right to inform the adjudicating authority of any adverse circumstances, including potential conflicts of interest or other valid grounds that could disqualify someone from serving as a facilitator. The adjudicating authority holds the final power under Section 97(5) of the IBC, and its order is also subject to appeal.
Based on the above, it concluded that therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners or personal guarantors. Consequently, the impugned circular dated 21.12.2023 is neither ultra vires nor in violation of the provisions of the Code.