Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 3 - February 9, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41

M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42

R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43

TR Balu v R Kannan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44

V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45

Abbas Manthiri v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46

Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai), 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49

Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50

Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51

M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52

REPORT

Ex-Parte Orders Can Have Disastrous Consequences, Should Be Passed Only In Case Of Real Emergency: Madras High Court

Case Title: Anugraha Castings v. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 41

The Madras High Court recently emphasized that courts should refrain from passing ex-parte orders in a routine manner and must only pass such orders when there is a real emergency which was shown through the plaint and averments.

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that ex-parte orders can have disastrous consequences and could possibly bring a party's business to a halt. The court added that by the time the party is heard and the ex-party order is vacated, the party and its customers may have faced a huge loss.

Pointing to the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, in which the court enunciated the principles relating to granting or refusal of injunction, the High Court highlighted that the courts in the State should always bear the directions in mind and ensure that ex-parte orders are passed only in case of grave emergency.

Thiruparakundram Hill Row | Madras High Court Allows Hindu Munnani To Protest Against Alleged Encroachment

Case Title: M.Murugan v. The District Secretary (and connected cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 42

The Madras High Court has allowed the Hindu Munnani to carry out demonstrations against alleged encroachment in the Thiruparakundram Hills where a Kasivishwanathar temple and a Sikkandar dargah have been coexisting.

Noting that the entire issue could have been handled in a better way, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima allowed the protests to be conducted by the organization today (4^th February 2025), at Palanganatham junction between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The court added that proper arrangements should be made for the protests and both the organisers and the police must ensure that no law and order issues arise due to the protests. The court also asked the organizers to ensure that only one megaphone be carried to the protest site and the entire protest be video graphed.

Prisoner Cannot Be Denied Access To Minimal Facilities Required To Deal With His Physical Condition: Madras High Court

Case Title: R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 43

The Madras High Court recently observed that prisoners have a right to access minimal facilities that are required to deal with their physical condition and the government could not shirk its responsibility for providing better facilities to prisoners.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima noted that in some cases a prisoner's physical or medical condition may require certain facilities which should be provided to him. The court added that a prisoner, either convicted or undertrial did not cease to become a human being and continued to enjoy all fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.

The court thus observed that prison justice could not be confined to a rigid framework and must be expanded taking into consideration the physical or medical condition of the prisoner.

Freedom Of Press Can't Be Used To Tarnish Reputation Without Verifying News: Madras HC Orders Tamil Weekly To Pay ₹25 Lakh To DMK's TR Balu

Case Title: TR Balu v R Kannan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44

The Madras High Court has ordered the Editor, Publisher and the Printer of Tamil Weekly 'Junior Vikatan', to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as damages to DMK's TR Balu for having published malicious and defamatory content against him without verifying the same.

Justice AA Nakkiran remarked that the freedom of press was to be used for publishing news to the people backed by solid proof and could not be used to tarnish the image and reputation of a person without verifying the veracity of the news. The court added that Junior Vikatan, being a renowned magazine should have been more cautious before publishing the news.

Anna University Sexual Assault Case | Madras High Court Asks SIT Not To Harass Journalists, Orders Return Of Seized Electronic Devices

Case Title: V Ramkumar and Others v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 45

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 4^th) slammed the Special Investigation Team probing the sexual assault of a 2^nd Year Engineering Student at Anna University in Chennai in December last year.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan questioned the SIT for sending summons repeatedly to the journalists grilling them with questions touching upon their personal lives and even seizing their electronic devices alleging that the journalists had shared the FIR containing details of the victim girl. The court asked the SIT why it had selectively questioned the journalists when it had not made attempts to question the officers who were responsible for the FIR leak.

Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Transporting Cattles, Says Their Safety And Well-Being Should Be Ensured

Case Title: Abbas Manthiri v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 46

The Madras High Court has issued guidelines to be followed during the transit of cattle from one place to another. The court emphasized that the rules should be strictly followed to ensure the safety and well-being of the cattle during transportation.

Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that transporting cattle was a careful process that required strict adherence to the Animal Welfare Regulations, proper vehicle equipment, and ensuring the cattle's health and safety during the journey.

The court directed the transporters to ensure that there is adequate space to stand, lie down and turn around. The court also stated that the safety of the cattle should be ensured while loading and unloading the cattle, in order to prevent injury and stress. For this, the court said that the ramps and loading docks should be designed to prevent the cattle from slipping or falling

Normal For Newly Married Person To Wear Gold: Madras HC Criticises Customs Officer For Seizing Srilankan Citizen's 'Thalikodi, 'Annihilating Hindu Customs'

Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.

The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy further noted that the officer had seized the thali without even considering its importance and the officer's acts amounted to annihilation of the customs of the Hindu religion and the culture of the country. The court also went on to state that the officer seemed to have worked with an ulterior motive to distract the attention of the other officials for the benefit of someone else and thus directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) to conduct an inquiry against the officer and take appropriate action as per law.

No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.

The court noted that 'section 29A' of the Arbitration Act does not prohibit multiple applications for extending the mandate of the Arbitrator. The only requirement is that sufficient cause must be demonstrated for seeking extension of the mandate of the tribunal.

It further added that when there are no restrictions as to the number of times an application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal can be filed, the court cannot prohibit parties from filing such applications provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.

Family Courts Must Be Empathetic To Litigant's Distress, Not Insist On Personal Appearance: Madras HC Proposes Online Mediation In Family Matters

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49

The Madras High Court recently observed that the procedure adopted by the Family Courts in the State insisting on the personal appearance of the parties in a family case for every hearing resulted in procedural delays and inefficiency. The court noted that such insistence often lead to significant delays and affected the performance of the court.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan also pointed out that it was inhuman to expect that the litigant was available at every beck and call of the court. The court emphasized that Family Courts were expected to approach family matters in a humane and reasonable manner. The court added that the courts had to be more empathetic to the physical, emotional, and financial distress of the litigants.

The court further added that Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and Rule 41 of the Family Court Rules do not prevent the litigants from being represented by advocates but only state that the parties are not entitled to be represented as a right. The court added that the intention behind bringing such provisions was to ensure that the procedure does not become adversarial. The court added that the legal provisions did not intent to affect the rights of the parties.

Provisions Against Arrest Of Women At Night Are Directory, Not Mandatory: Madras HC Sets Aside Departmental Proceedings Against Police Officers

Case Title: Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50

The Madras High Court recently observed that Section 46(4) of CrPC and Section 43(5) of the BNSS Act which prevents the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise is directory and not mandatory.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman explained that the provisions did not provide the consequences of non-compliance of the requirement. The court observed that if the legislature intended the provision to be mandatory, it would have set out the consequences for non-compliance. The court also added that while effecting arrest, the police officer was performing a public duty and the victim could not be allowed to suffer for the neglect of duty by the police officer.

The bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar Vs The State of Bombay, in which it was held that a statute creating a public duty was directory and those conferring private rights were imperative. The court noted that holding the acts done in neglect of duty as null would cause serious inconvenience to the persons who are have no control over those entrusted with duty and would be against the main object of the Act.

Arbitral Award Can't Have Specific Format; Reasoning Must Be 'Proper', 'Intelligible' And 'Adequate': Madras High Court

Case Title: Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles.

The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The court further observed that reasoning of the award must be 'proper', 'intelligible' and 'adequate'.

Arbitral Award Can Be Set Aside As 'Patently Illegal' If View Taken By Arbitrator Is Not A Plausible One: Madras High Court

Case Title:M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 52

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a plausible view, an award passed by such an arbitrator can be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration act on the ground of patent illegality.

The court noted that a plain reading of clause 13.16.5 shows that when price variation formula in CPA 32 is adopted, then the respondents cannot be entitled to claim any additional costs, unless there is a claim falling under the three exceptions, namely customs duty, excise duty and output TN VAT which also is again subject to the rider that it will be paid to the extent that it is not covered by the price variation formula.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

"Shows Your Mindset": Madras HC Orally Criticises National Medical Commission For Terming Gender Identity As "Disorder"

Case Title: S Suhma v Director General of Police And Others

Case No: WP 7284 of 2021

The Madras High Court, on Monday (February 3)', orally criticized the National Medical Commission (NMC) for its proposed medical curriculum prepared by the body pertaining to gender and sexuality.

Justice Anand Venkatesh, who has been issuing a slew of directions concerning the rights of persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ orally observed that the NMC's curriculum, which continued using the word “Gender Identity Disorder” would only negate the efforts taken by the court to bring about a change. The court stressed that the persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community could not be said to have a disorder and were created by nature in such a way.

“Efforts are actually being taken to water it down. The fact that you've used the word gender identity disorder shows the mindset. If you call it a disorder, then everything is a disorder. The nature has created them in such a way,” the court remarked.