Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 NOMINAL INDEX P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28Thirumaran v...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
NOMINAL INDEX
P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
XX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
REPORT
Case Title: P. Anandasundaresan v. M/s. Akshaya Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court recently observed that a letter issued by a Panchayat President would not be equivalent to a completion certificate issued by the competent authorities under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act.
A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed that as per the Act, since there was no provision and procedure prescribed for projects under execution outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area, the same was to be intimated to the concerned Local Planning Authority or Regional Deputy Director of the Town and Country Planning Department within 15 days from the date of notification of the rules after which the same was made public in the RERA website. The court thus concluded that there was no provision to substitute a letter from the Panchayat President as a completion certificate.
Case Title: R Kathiravan v The Divisional Engineer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court had ordered all political parties, communal and other organizations in the State to remove permanent flagpoles erected by them on public places including national highways, lands belonging to the government, etc.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madurai bench directed the concerned parties to remove all permanent flagpoles within 12 weeks, failing which the authorities concerned shall take appropriate action after issuing notice to the parties. The court added that the authorities could, in such a case, recover the cost of removal from the concerned parties.
The court remarked that there was no law that permitted issuing licenses to install permanent flagpoles in public places. The court added that the police and the revenue authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue a No-Objection certificate allowing the erection of flag poles in public places. The judge also remarked that these flagpoles often caused inconvenience to the commuters and also affected traffic in some cases.
Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others.
Justice Abdul Quddhose also informed the parties that he would be hearing the interim injunction application filed by Wunderbar on February 5th, 2025.
Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some behind-the-scene footages from the movie was used unauthorisedly in the making of Nayanthara's documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Since Netflix India's office is in Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had moved an application seeking leave to sue the company in the High Court which was allowed.
Case Title: The Secretary TNPSC v R Saravanan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court recently observed that the proviso to Section 3(j) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 which prohibits an ex-serviceman once recruited from claiming concession for further recruitment, should be interpreted as applying to ex-servicemen who are already recruited on the date of the application. Thus, the court clarified that the proviso would not apply to an ex-serviceman who was not recruited at the time of the application but was subsequently recruited before the result of the recruitment for a higher post was published.
The Madurai bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that when an ex-serviceman has accepted employment in a lower post due to its immediate availability, he should not be held ineligible to claim the ex-serviceman concession for a higher post, especially when the disqualification was not expressly provided and when there was no fault on the part of the applicant. The court added that the concession given to ex-servicemen for their services to the nation should be reasonably interpreted in a manner that does not penalize them for procedural delays.
Case Title: Thirumaran v The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has observed that merely ventilating about the manner in which a particular religion is treated would not constitute an offence under Section 505 of the IPC. The high court also added that to constitute an offence under the Act, there must be incitement of feeling of one group against another.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that abusive language by itself was not an offence unless it was shown that the person making the speech had the intention or knowledge that the speech could provoke or break the public peace.
Case Title: XX v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
While allowing a minor girl's mother's application to permit termination of a 28-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court observed that the minor girl, who was 16 years old had domain over her body and had the autonomy to make a decision regarding continuing her pregnancy or otherwise.
Noting that the minor had clearly mentioned her willingness to terminate the pregnancy, Justice S Sounthar observed that while deciding cases of this nature, consideration must be in the interest of the minor. The court added that since the medical termination is concerned with the body of the minor girl, her wish should be given primary importance.
Case Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
While disposing of an undertrial prisoner's plea alleging mistreatment inside the Puzhal Central Prison, the Madras High Court emphasized that the education of a prisoner could provide scope for hope as it would help them lead a better life when they are out of the prison.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman observed that a prisoner was entitled to basic human rights and his right to education was a part of his fundamental right to personal liberty. The court also added that the Basic Principles for Treatment Of Prisoners 1990 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly specifically provided that all prisoners had the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court while upholding special court's order dissolving an inter-faith marriage, has held that in inter-religious marriages, persistently compelling a spouse to convert himself or herself to another religion to which the other spouse belongs to, amounts to cruelty.
A division bench of Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) and Justice Victoria Gowri further held that when a husband or a wife in a matrimonial life was subjected to persistent and consistent cruelty compelling them to convert to another religion, the same would also amount to curtailment of life and liberty ensured in Article 21 of the constitution. The bench further held that such cruelty would also amount to the denial of the fundamental right to profess religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.
The court observed that when a person is not allowed to profess and practice their religion, it would miserably affect the quality of their life and would result in a lifeless life without dignity. The court also held that when a man or woman in marriage is compelled to convert in the name of god and in the name of religion for the sake of securing matrimony, it would shatter the foundation of the matrimony itself.
Case Title: Matrimony.com Ltd v. People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court has held that a recent advertisement of the matrimonial company Shaadi.com giving money back guarantee if unable to find a bride/groom in 30 days is prima facie misleading and deceptive.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman observed that real terms of the offer, which is "contrary" to the promise made in the ad, are "tucked in fine print". As per the terms and conditions, the money back guarantee is triggered when a premium member sends at least 10 interests but doesn't get a single accept within first 30 days.
This prompted the bench to allow an interim injunction application filed by Shaadi.com's competitor Matrimony.com.
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a suit filed by PhonePe to declare its mark as a well known trademark and to grant permanent injunction against “BundlePe” and “LatePe”.
Justice P Velmurugan observed that the term “Pe” was not a unique or distinct one as claimed by PhonePe and was commonly used word in the payment services industry. The court noted that the word, which was a transliteration of the Hindi word “Pay”, was widely used by other prominent companies such as Google Pay, Paytm, and ApplePay. The court noted that given the widespread use of the word “Pe” in the payment sector, PhonePe could not be exclusively associated with the word.
Case Title: Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by Swami Nithyananda seeking to be appointed as the Madathipathi or Head of three Mutts - Sri Somanatha Swami Temple & Mutt at Thiruvarur, Sri Arunachala Gnanadesikar Swami Temple & Mutt at Vedaranyam, and Sri Po.Ka.Sathukal Madam at Vedaranyam.
Dismissing his appeal, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan orally remarked that Nithyananda was not even in India to be able to administer the temples. The court thus opined that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge.
Nithyananda had approached the court against the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board directing the Assistant Commissioner to appoint Executive Officers to administer the properties of the three temples as per Section 60 of the HR&CE Act.
Case Title: A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court recently allowed the construction of a Bible Study Centre by the District Secretary of the CSI Church Erichamamoottu Villai in the Kanyakumari District.
The bench of Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice N Senthil Kumar observed that the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution could not be curtailed or taken away on mere apprehension of law and order and there could no impediment for the Government authorities to deny permission to construct a Bible Study Centre.
Case Title: Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period.
The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for any default arising on or after 25.03.2020 for a period of six months.
In interpreting the proviso to Section 10-A, the court held that the bar on filing CIRP applications applies only to defaults that occur within the moratorium period. Thus, if a default persists beyond this period, the bar does not extend to such continuing defaults.
GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”
Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by Flipkart owners Sachin and Binny Bansal challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director, ED, and the subsequent show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority for violating provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India, [TISPRO] Regulations 2000.
While doing so, Justice S Sounthar observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of raising their objections before the adjudicating authority. The court noted that as per the Act, the petitioners had remedy not just before the civil court but also had an option for a second appeal before the High Court under Section 35 of the Act. thus, the court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the plea.
Case Title: M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The court held that the Executing Courts cannot suo motu dismiss the Execution Petition(s) solely on the ground of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.
The court held that the executing court cannot suo motu annul the award when a party to the agreement did not challenge the award on the ground of ineligibility of the arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “As long as there is no objection raised, it cannot be said that a mere unilateral appointment of arbitrator would vitiate the entire arbitral proceedings which culminated in an award”, the court stated.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Egwin Kingstley v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 1034 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Superintendent of Prison of Puzhal Central Prison to look into the allegations of foreign prisoners not being given breakfast and being kept in solitary confinement.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman remarked that all prisoners had to be treated properly and be given facilities as provided for in the prison manual. The bench also remarked that a lot of prisoners were lodged in Indian prisons and in many cases, they were not given proper treatment. The court added that the name of the country was involved in these cases and the prison authorities had to ensure that the prisoners are treated better.
Case Title: Porkodi v The Secretary to Government and Others
Case No: HCP 3134 of 2024
The Madras High Court has ordered steps to be taken to increase security inside the court campus in light of the allegation that the persons accused in connection with the murder of BSP leader Armstrong were handed over country bombs inside the court campus.
It may be noted that while the security of the High Court building is being looked after by the CISF, the security of the court premises which comprises of the city civil court, family court, tribunals, lawyers chambers, etc, is being taken care of by the Tamil Nadu State police.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman directed the state police to bring in security measures like baggage scanners, frisking equipment etc to increase security.
The court also suggested that the police department could increase the security at the entrances for lawyers, litigants, officials, and others to reduce any inconvenience that may be caused. The court added that mufti policemen could even be employed to collect information, conduct discreet checking, and take all appropriate action as per law. The court also said that CCTV cameras could be put up in strategic places inside the court complex which could further tighten the security.
Case Title: P Sundar v The Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl OP 2026 of 2025
The Madras High Court on Friday asked the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary to ensure that FIRs and Final Reports are filed by the police department promptly after following due procedures of law.
Justice P Velmurugan also dispensed with the appearance of Home Secretary Dheeraj Kumar whom he had instructed to appear personally. The court also told the Home Secretary that it did not intend to summon him but rather wanted the Home Secretary to be aware of the ground realities and the problems faced by the common people. The court added that not every person could approach the court seeking directions for prompt filing of the FIR and Final Report and it was upon the department to ensure that the public is not put to trouble.
