Madras High Court Monthly Digest - September 2025 [Citation 293 to 329]
Upasana Sajeev
1 Oct 2025 5:41 PM IST
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
NOMINAL INDEX
Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (292)
S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
R Kannan and Others v. T.R Baalu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Adv V Venkata Sivakumar v. The Election Commission of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
R Varadaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
ST Sivagnanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
N Anand Bussi Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
D Chandirasegar and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
T Devanathan v. The State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
P Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
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
A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
REPORTS
Case Title: Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (292)
The Madras High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to Hindu Munnani workers in an alleged hate speech case.
Interestingly, the bail has been granted on the condition that the accused write the preamble of the Constitution, along with Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), Part IV-A, Article 51A which pertain to fundamental duties 10 times either in Tamil or Hindi and submit it before the Magistrate court.
Justice M. Jothiraman imposed the condition to make the accused understand the object and constitutional valued enumerated in the Constitution.
Case Title: S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 2) constituted a 'one-man commission' headed by retired high court judge Justice V Parthiban to probe into allegations of police violence during the detention of lawyers and law students who took part in the protest organised by the sanitation workers of Greater Chennai Corporation.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked the Legal Services Authority to provide assistance to the commission. The commission has been directed to probe into the allegations levelled by both parties and submit a report by the next date of hearing.
The lawyers and law students had alleged that the police had used excessive force while detaining them. The state, on the other hand, had argued that the protestors had caused damage to public and private property.
Case Title; Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court recently remarked that there should be a change in the mindset of the people so that there is no discrimination between communities in sharing public resources.
'In addition to the directions already given, it is suggested to all the stakeholders that there should be a change of mindset in the people in order to ensure that there is no discrimination arises between different communities of people in the sharing of public resources and in the use of public facilities,' the court said.
Justice RN Manjula appreciated the government's efforts to address the issues of discrimination in using public resources. Previously, the court had expressed shock over members of the Scheduled Caste community being made to wait for their turn till members from the other community fetch water from the common tap.
Case Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to reconsider an application filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris for recognition.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council's view, that only one association could be recognised in a district, was misconceived and contrary to the Welfare Fund Rules, which specifically provided that the Bar Council could recognise more than one Bar Association. The court also added that the rules did not prohibit recognising more than one bar association.
The court thus opined that the Bar Council's decision was not based on any intelligible differentia and was violative of Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules.
The Women Lawyers Association had approached the court after the Bar Council rejected their application under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1987 seeking recognition and registration of the association.
Case Name: K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Division Bench of Madras High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar, has held that in the absence of disciplinary proceedings pending against the professional, NCLT is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the applicant under sections 7 and 10 of the IBC, 2016.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. S Suriyamoorthy and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
The Madras High Court has recently allowed a civil revision petition filed by AIADMK head Edappadi Palanisamy against the dismissal of an application filed by him to reject a plaint filed by one Suriyamoorthy against the AIADMK leadership.
Justice PB Balaji noted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there was no embargo on the courts taking note of subsequent events to reject a plaint. In the present case, the court noted that the plaintiff had contested against the AIADMK candidate in the assembly elections which showed that he no longer treated himself as a member of the AIADMK party.
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the makers of Ajith starrer Good Bad Ugly movie from using three songs of musician Ilaiyaraja.
Justice N Senthilkumar granted the temporary injunction in a plea moved by the musician seeking to restrain Mythri Movie Makers, producers of the movie, from exhibiting, screening, selling, distributing, publishing, broadcasting the movie, along with the three songs of Ilaiyaraja.
Ilaiyaraja had argued that the songs "Otha Rubayum Tharen" from the movie "Nattupura Pattu", the song "Ilamai Idho Ido" from the movie "Sakalakala Vallavan", and the song "En Jodi Manja Kuruvi" from the movie "Vikram" had been used in the Ajith movie without obtaining express consent or permission from him and without paying royalties to which he is statutorily entitled.
Case Title: R Kannan and Others v. T.R Baalu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
The Madras High Court has stayed an order of the single judge directing the Editor, Publisher, and the Printer of the Tamil weekly “Junior Vikatan” to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as damages to DMK's TR Balu for publishing malicious and defamatory content against him.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Saravanan passed the interim order in an appeal preferred by the magazine and adjourned the hearing for 2 weeks.
Case Title: Annadhurai Ramasamy v. The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, to monitor the investigation in connection with the death of 27-year-old Rithanya, who committed suicide earlier in July this year, over alleged dowry harassment.
Justice Satish Kumar disposed of the petition filed by Annadhurai, Rithanya's father, seeking to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating officer from the State Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired judge.
Noting that a substantial progress had already been made in the investigation, the court was not inclined to order an independent probe in the case. However, since allegations had been raised regarding lapses in the investigation, the court directed the Superintendent to monitor the probe.
Case Title: Tarigonda Surya Maheedhar v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the office of Medical Counselling Committee, the National Medical Commission, and the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to permit a physically disabled candidate to attend the counselling for NEET PG 2025-26 based on the rank secured by him in NEET PG 2024.
Justice C Kumarappan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kabir Paharia vs National Medical Commission and others, in which the court had observed that the constitutional mandate of substantive equality demands that person with disabilities and PwBD be afforded reasonable accommodations rather than subjected to exclusionary practices based on unfounded presumptions about their capabilities.
Case Title: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The Madras High Court has set aside an unusual order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, remanding a Deputy Superintendent of Police and externing other accused persons.
Calling the trial court judge's order "unwarranted", Justice N Satish Kumar directed the high court's Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry into allegations of bias and misuse of power by the trial court judge. The high court opined that such a probe was necessary to uncover the truth.
The court noted that before passing the order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act there must be either a complaint or a Police report. In the present case, the court noted that except for the FIR, there were no other police reports.
The court observed that the order of externment is to be passed when there is a real atrocity committed on the members belonging to the SC/ST communities. In the present case, the court noted that the case was based on mere altercations and it might not have been possible for the persons to know the caste of the opposite party.
Case Title: Adv V Venkata Sivakumar v. The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation asking the Election Commission of India to clarify its position regarding the allegations raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, regarding large-scale voter list manipulation in the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the plea lacked materials and only referred to the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties. The court also noted that the plea was in the nature of asking the court to conduct a roving enquiry into the issue.
Case Title: R Varadaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer challenging the appointment of IPS officer R Venkataraman as the ad-hoc Director General of Police/Head of Police Force in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan orally remarked that some arrangements had to be made when the DGP demitted office following his superannuation in August 31st 2025. The court also noted that the Supreme Court, on September 8, had directed the UPSC to expeditiously consider sending recommendations for the appointment of the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the present petition was baseless.
Case Title: Vignesh D v. The Health and Family Welfare Department and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University to constitute a university-level committee as per Rule 10(8) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules 2020. As per this rule, all educational institutions shall have a committee which shall be accessible for transgender persons in case of any harassment or discrimination, with powers to ensure that transgender students do not affected by the presence of the persons bullying them, including teachers.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan issued the direction in a transgender student's plea claiming that the medical college where they were pursuing their medical degree had withheld their original documents and made an arbitrary fee demand.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Violation Of Pollution Norms At Isha Foundation
Case Title: ST Sivagnanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking direction to the authorities to take appropriate action against discharge of sewage and effluents by the Isha Foundation into the neighbouring lands.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of a subsequent petition filed by the same petitioner raising the same concerns, in which the pollution control board had conducted an inspection and had submitted a satisfactory report. The bench thus opined that nothing survived in the petition and dismissed the same.
Case Title: N Anand Bussi Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court has stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against the general secretary of actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for allegedly causing an unlawful assembly and obstructing the police from doing their duty.
Justice Sunder Mohan ordered an interim stay in a petition filed by N Anand alias Bussy Anand, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy.
Case Title: D Chandirasegar and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation restricting the exempted establishments from amending their Trust Rules with retrospective effect so as to bring it in consonance with the Supreme Court's orders. The court also set aside an order of the EPFO rejecting an application for joint option request by employees to avail the benefits of higher pension.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the organisation was exempted under the Provident Fund Scheme and was governed by its Trust Rules. The court also noted that the establishment was governed under the Statutory Pension Scheme and the benefits under the scheme could not be denied to the employees citing the Trust Rules.
Case Title: Sarootham Padmanabhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court has upheld the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed committee, declaring as null and void the land bought by the resort owners in the Segur plateau, in the Western Ghats area that had been declared as an Elephant corridor.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed with most of the findings of the committee except that the land that was purchased subsequent to the declaration of the elephant corridor be handed over to the Government.
Case Title: T Devanathan v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court has granted interim bail to financier Devanathan Yadav till October 30 in the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case wherein he had been accused of swindling funds to the tune of Rs. 619 crores.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that keeping the accused in jail for long would not yield any benefits
The court thus directed Yadav to be released on interim bail till 30th October and asked him to mobilise a sum of Rs. 100 Crore, to be deposited before the court dealing with cases under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, closed the suo motu case initiated against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his remarks against Vaishnavism, Saivism, and women. The court noted that the complainants were at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints.
While closing the suo motu case, Justice N Satish Kumar orally remarked that Ponmudi, while holding the public office, should not have made such comments which would hurt the sentiments of persons.
"If an ordinary person had uttered this, we could've avoided it. But a person in responsibility should not have uttered this. He should've asked for some advice before making such statements...It's not good for persons at the helm of affairs to speak like this. Everybody has rights under the Constitution. Sentiments should not be hurt like this," the court orally remarked.
The court also expressed displeasure in the manner in which the police had closed the complaints and filed their report before the Magistrate's court. The court orally remarked that instead of following their political bosses, the investigating officers should have conducted a proper inquiry.
Case Title: P Ayyakannu v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court recently held that the railway authorities cannot de-board a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because his travel was for conducting a protest.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that, as per the Railways Act 1989, a person could be de-boarded only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, having an infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts. The court added that if a person with a valid ticket was de-boarded for other reasons, it would amount to an offence for which action could be taken against the officials.
Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police in Karur District of Tamil Nadu for failing to prevent caste discrimination in two temples there.
Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasised that equality for all in temple worship is non-negotiable and that the officers in charge are expected to ensure that the temple is remained open for all devotees, including persons belonging to the scheduled caste community.
The bench observed that the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police of Karur had not shown neutrality but had in fact displayed an utter abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The court said that instead of defending rights, the officers had defended violations and had shown that they were unfit to discharge their official duties.
Case Title: R Sathish v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a man against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, refusing to register a complaint against a woman, who had allegedly blackmailed the man and fraudulently taken money from him.
Finding no merit in the plea, Justice Shamim Ahmed said that the plea was only a calculated attempt to defame a woman. The court added that entertaining such petitions could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman. The court said that it would not allow such misuse of legal process and wanted to protect the dignity and reputation of the woman.
Case Title: A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court has directed the authorities of Stanley Medical College to give appropriate treatment for renal transplantation to a minor boy without insisting on the consent of his father, who had abandoned the family.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of the submissions of the hospital's counsel, who informed the court that it would conduct a meeting and take an appropriate decision in this regard.
Case Title: Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has observed that the jurisdictional Jamath is obliged to issue a No-Objection Certificate to an applicant for conducting Nikha, if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the non-issuance of an NOC to an eligible applicant would violate the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that, as per the Islamic tradition, an NOC had to be obtained by the jurisdictional Jamath for the solemnisation of the Nikkah. Thus, the court said that when the custom stood thus, the Jamath had a duty to issue NOC unless the applicant was otherwise disqualified.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 10th 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.
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.
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.
Case Title: A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court has quashed a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation against former IPS officer Ponmanickavel, who was heading the idol theft wing of the CID in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Justice RN Manjula observed that the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet did not disclose any allegations committed by Ponmanickavel and were non est and redundant. The court also noted that the FIR had been registered in excess of authority without getting any permission from the High Court. In an earlier proceeding, while disposing of a petition alleging excess use of force by the officer, the court had ordered that any future case against the officer in connection with the case should be after getting the High Court's approval.