Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 10 to March 16, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

S Shankar v. The Deputy Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

The Secretary and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

Arasu S v. The Tahsildar, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

REPORT

Madras High Court Orders CBCID Inquiry Against Law Firm For Alleged Involvement In Unlawful Activities In Land Transaction

Case Title: Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

The Madras High Court has directed the Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) to investigate the genuineness of a law firm and its associates after noting that the lawyers had been indulging in forum shopping, misrepresenting the court, and attempting to legalise their illegal activities.

Justice Jagadish Chandira thus ordered a special team to be formed for investigation headed by an officer above the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the genuineness of the police complaints filed against the parties. The court also directed the team to enquire into the role played by the law firm and its associates in the land case and details of any pending case against the firm and its people.

The court also directed all police personnel in the state to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures in registering complaints and issuing CSRs and to take necessary legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor if any complaint relating to immovable property had to be closed as one of civil in nature.

'Why Didn't ED Wait For Outcome Of Complaint?' : Madras High Court Stays ED Attachment Of Director Shankar's Property Over Copyright Dispute

Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crore of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba. Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had passed the order provisionally attaching the property.

State Can Acquire Temple Land For Public Projects Like Metro, No Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 25, 26: Madras High Court

Case Title: United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Chennai Metri Rail Limited proposing to acquire the property belonging to United India Insurance for construction of metro station in connection with the Phase-II project of CMRL.

Justice Anand Venkatesh held that it was open for the CMRL to acquire the property of a nearby temple, as per its original plan. Borrowing the words of the Kerala High Court in a recentdecision, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the almighty would show kindness and benevolence on all for the development of metro station, which would benefit lakhs of people.

The court also noted that lands belonging to religious institutions were not exempt from land acquisition and such acquisition of the temple lands would not be in violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Insurance Company Only Liable To Disburse Amount To Beneficiary Or Collector Nominee, Need Not Get Into Dispute Of Legal Heirs: Madras HC

Case Title: A Devika v. The Senior Branch Manager and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

The Madras High Court has recently held that while disbursing the amount under an insurance policy, the Insurance company was only expected to disburse the amount to the beneficiary nominee or collector nominee named in the policy and need not go into any dispute regarding the legal heirs.

Relying on an earlier order of the Madras High Court, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that when a person has been named a beneficiary nominee in the policy, they would be entitled to make a claim for the entire amount of the policy unlike a collecting nominee, who receives the amount in trust to be distributed to all legal heirs.

Pleadings In Civil Suit Not Document/Instrument, Cannot Be Registered By Authorities Or Entered In Encumbrance Certificate: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 100

The Madras High Court has clarified that pleadings in a civil suit is not a document or instrument to be registered under the Registration Act or the Stamp Act. The court added that authorities cannot entertain the pleadings or make entries regarding the same in the encumbrance certificate.

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observations noting that previously, the courts have ruled in favour of registering pleadings to ensure that an innocent purchaser is not put into distress. The court observed that though the earlier directions were well intended, it had a flip side to it and if allowed to continue, it would result in more confusion.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Allowing Ritual Of Devotees Rolling Over Plantain Leaves On Which Food Was Eaten By Others

Case Title: The District Collector and Others v. P Naveen Kumar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 101

The Madras High Court has set aside an order of a single judge allowing Angapradakshinam, a ritual of devotees rolling over the plantain leaves on which other devotees had consumed food.

The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan set aside an order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan in May 2024. The court noted that whether such a practice was against the public morality or order could not be decided by the High Court at this point since the Supreme Court was already seized of a similar issue arising from the Karnataka High Court.

At the same time, the court opined that the practice did not appear to directly offend the public order or morality. With respect to public health, the court noted that there was no proof, document or literature to suggest that the practice of rolling over the used leaves would be a health hazard. The court noted that when a particular group wanted to perform the ritual to fulfil their vow, believing that they would get the blessings of god, it could not be said to offend the public order. Agreeing that there was no scientific proof for such practices, the court observed that every religious practice was based on belief and scientific evidence could not be sought for the same.

Falsely Labelling Police Constable Husband As A Terrorist Cannot Be Ignored, Caused Severe Mental Torture: Madras High Court Grants Divorce

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

While granting divorce to a police constable, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's complaint against him alleging that he had an extra-marital affair and that he had a connection with terrorist organizations could not be ignored as the same would cause severe mental torture and would amount to mental cruelty.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima also noted that the wife had left the minor child with the husband without taking care of the child, which would show that she was not interested in saving the matrimonial relationship.

State Minority Commission Cannot Call For Records From Minority Institutions To Verify Adoption Of Reservation Policy: Madras High Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 103

The Madras High Court has held that the State Minority Commission does not have any locus standi to call for records from a minority educational institution to verify its adoption of the reservation rule.

Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that minority educational institutions were exempt from the purview of Article 15(5) which gave power to the State to make special provisions of law for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes relating to admission to educational institutions, including private institutions.

Legal Heirship Certificate Can Be Issued Based On Affidavit Of Applicant & Persons Known To Family Like Neighbours And Relatives: Madras HC

Case Title: Arasu S v. The Tahsildar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

The Madras High Court has recently observed that while applying for a legal heirship certificate, if no proof is available to determine who the legal heirs are, the authorities may prepare a report based on the affidavit given by the applicant and five affidavits of persons knowing the family, like a neighbour or a relative.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that when there is no rival claim, each and every fact cannot be verified, and the authority was expected to make the best judgment based on the available materials.

Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Conviction And Sentence Of MLA In Case Involving Receipt Of Foreign Funds

Case Title: MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

The Madras High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed against the conviction of MLA MH Jawaharulla and other members of the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in a case involving the receipt of foreign funds. The court thus confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Jawaharulla.

Justice P Velmurugan, however, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) not to arrest Jawaharulla for a period of one month considering the holy month of Ramzan was ongoing and Jawaharulla, along with the other revision petitioners, was observing fast for Ramzan. The court made it clear that the agency would execute the order of the Magistrate Court after a period of one month if the petitioners had not obtained a stay on the sentence.

Unnecessarily Subjecting Child To Medical Exam Will Cause More Mental Stress: Madras HC Asks Hospitals To Examine Victims Based On Complaint In POCSO Cases

Case Title: Kajendran J v. The Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

Noticing the routine manner in which every child in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was being subjected to medical examination mechanically, the Madras High Court has asked the doctors and hospitals to conduct medical examinations based on the nature of the complaint.

A special bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which has been monitoring the implementation of the POCSO Act, observed that though Section 27 of the POCSO Act provided for medical examination of a child against whom 'any' offence had been committed, when the Section was read with Section 164A of the CrPC, it had to be understood that the medical examination was with respect to cases in which there was a penetrative sexual assault.

However, the court added that medical examination could not be done away with for all cases falling under Sections 7,9, and 11 of the Act. The court was conscious that there may be cases where though the offence was that of sexual assault, the child might have suffered injury that needed to be examined. Thus, the court asked the doctors examining the child to decide on the tests to be conducted based on the complaint of the child.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Closes Interim Application Against Usage Of BTS Footage From Dhanush's Film In Nayanthara's Documentary

Case Title: Wunderbar Films Private Limited v. Tarc Studios LLP and Others

Case No: OA 958 of 2024

The Madras High Court has closed an interim application filed by Dhanush's production company – Wunderbar Films, against using footages of his movie “Naanum Rowdy Dhaan” in Nayanthara's documentary movie “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy closed the interim application without any orders after noting the submission of Senior Advocate PS Raman, appearing for Dhanush, who said that the plaintiff was ready to proceed with the main suit itself. The counsel further informed the court that the suit summons would be served to the defendants in the main suit. The main suit was thus adjourned for hearing to April 9^th, 2025.

Madras HC Limits Tourist Vehicles Entering Nilgiris & Kodaikanal During Summer, Asks For PreferenceTo Be Given To Electric Cars

Case Title: G Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary and Others

Case No: WP 15120 of 2019

The Madras High Court has imposed a restriction on the number of vehicles plying to the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal this summer in an attempt to manage the congestion in the tourist places.

The forest bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the directions after taking note of the carrying capacity of the hill stations. The court thus directed that only 6000 vehicles be permitted to the Nilgiris and 4000 to Kodaikanal on weekdays. On weekends, this number increased to 8000 and 6000 respectively.

The court, however, added that the restrictions would not be applicable to government buses carrying tourists, government vehicles and vehicles involved in trade and business. The vehicles of local residents would also exempted from the daily limit. The court also asked the state to give priority to e-vehicles while issuing the e-pass. The court directed the system to be introduced by April and was to continue till June.