Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 to March 23, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

V. Samburanam v. District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

Kavitha Anand v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

ABC v. XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

REPORT

'Big Racket For Bogus Community Certificates In Tamil Nadu': Madras High Court Asks State To Take Action

Case Title: V. Samburanam v. District Collector

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 107

The Madras High Court has asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the issuance of bogus community certificates is stopped in the state, and action has to be taken to prosecute those who are involved in securing such bogus community certificates.

Noting that there was a big racket going on in the State, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if proper action were not taken, it would defeat the very object of bringing in reservation. The court thus asked the State to ensure that only genuine persons who belong to the community are entitled to avail the benefits of reservation.

The court noted that through the bogus community certificate, the persons were availing reservation and such other facilities under different government schemes. The court thus directed the government to ensure that the correctness of certificates is verified. The court added that when a reference certificate was given to the authorities, the authenticity of the same is verified and if found incorrect, action should be taken to cancel the reference certificate.

Madras HC Rejects Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of S.13 Family Courts Act Which Restricts Representation Of Party By Lawyer

Case Title: Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. Section 13 states that no party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner as a right.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran dismissed the plea noting that no further adjudication was required in the matter as the legal position was already settled.

The petitioner had argued that the section infringed the advocate's right to practice in court as provided under the Advocates Act 1961. It was argued that a legal practitioner's right was absolute under the Advocates Act and thus any prohibition on the same was unsustainable. It was also submitted that when advocates were not allowed to represent, the litigants would find it difficult to defend their cases.

Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court

Case Title: S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

The Madras High Court has stressed that courts should be slow to ignore delay once the limitation period for a particular suit expires and the action becomes time-barred.

Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the statute relating to limitation determines the life span of a legal remedy and as time passes, newer causes would come up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy. Remarking that time is precious, the court thus noted that if the life span of legal remedy was not followed, it may lead to unending uncertainty and anarchy.

Madras High Court Rejects NTK Chief Seeman's Plea To Club All FIRs Over His Alleged Comments On Periyar, Says Plea Seeks Omnibus Relief

Case Title: Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to club all FIRs registered against Naam Tamilar Katchi party chief Seeman for his alleged comments against Periyar.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after observing that the plea sought an omnibus relief without mentioning the details of the FIRs registered against Seeman, without impleading the police stations where the FIRs were registered, and without impleading the complainants. Wondering how the registry even numbered the petition without the details, the court dismissed the plea.

Upper Age Limit For Women To Avail ART Services Rational, Difficult For Mother To Support Child During Her Elderly Years: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kavitha Anand c. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

Justifying the upper age limit prescribed for women under the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021, the Madras High Court recently observed that a woman who uses ART services for begetting a child is duty-bound to take care of the child till he/she attains majority. The court thus held that the woman must be biologically and financially capable of supporting the child for 18 years.

Justice S Sounthar also noted that there was a higher risk in pregnancy after the age of 50 years and it was considering such factors, that the legislature decided to fix an upper age limit to apply for the ART.

"Would Change Rules Of Game": Madras HC Rejects Plea By Disabled Candidate Who Failed To Sign Answer Sheet Of Civil Services Exam

Case Title: Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant relief to a candidate with 60% locomotive disability who had failed to sign his answer sheet while attending the Combined Civil Services Examination-IV (Group-IV Services) examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the commission had provided clear instructions to the candidates and in such cases, the court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not modify or relax the conditions. The court added that "acceding" to the request of the candidate would be far exceeding the scope of the examination and changing the rules of the game.

The court further underscored that the rules could not be changed for a "particular candidate who had omitted to affix the signature". The court remarked that a different approach could not be taken as there would be other candidates who would have committed irregularities in answering the examination and allowing the plea would open gates for them to approach the court for consideration.

Notification Cannot Be Given Retrospective Effect To Deny Refund On Unutilised ITC Claimed Within Limitation Period: Madras HC Allows Gillette's Plea

Case Title: Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.

The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made during July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017, in time in terms of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.

Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that since Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which deals with “acknowledgement of refund claim”, was inserted with effect from May 18, 2021, vide Notification No.15/2021-CT, the same cannot be given retrospective effect for denying refund on unutilized ITC claimed within the limitation period.

Love & Affection 'Implied Condition' When Senior Citizen Transfers Property, Doesn't Need Express Mention In Settlement Deed: Madras HC

Case Title: S Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 114

The Madras High Court has recently observed that under the Senior Citizens Act, love and affection is an implied condition under Section 23(1) of the Act and it is not necessary to have an explicit mention of the same in the settlement deed.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran noted that the Act was meant to safeguard the security and dignity of the senior citizen. The court noted that when a senior citizen made a transfer of property, it was not just a legal act but an act made with the hope of being cared for in their old age. Thus, the court noted that when the transferee did not provide the promised care, the senior citizen could invoke Section 23(1) to have the transfer annulled.

The court held that the Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation was to be interpreted liberally to ensure that the intent of the legislation is fulfilled and the rights and dignity of senior citizens are effectively protected. The court added that when two or more views were possible, it was the duty of the court to interpret the provision to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning. The court emphasised that if the usual meaning of the language in the Act does not capture the legislature's objective, a broader interpretation may be applied, provided the words support the meaning.

Wife Watching Porn, Engaging In Self Pleasure Not By Itself Cruelty On Husband, Woman Retains Her Individuality Even After Marriage: Madras High Court

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

The Madras High Court has observed that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self pleasure by itself was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected the matrimonial relationship.

The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman's sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit, the court noted that even after marriage, the woman continued to retain her individuality and her fundamental identity could not be subsumed by spousal status.

The court also remarked that when self-pleasure among men was acknowledged universally, the same among women could not be stigmatized. From a biological perspective, the court also noted that while men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women. The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

'Can You Withhold Entire Office & Staff Under Your Control?' : Madras High Court Orally Asks ED To Halt Probe Against TASMAC Till March 25

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025

The Madras High Court on Thursday (March 20) orally asked the Enforcement Directorate not to proceed with its investigation against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) in an alleged money laundering case till the next date of hearing.

A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar directed the ED to file a counter to the petition filed by TASMAC challenging the recent searches by the agency conducted at the latter's headquarters. In the meantime, the court orally asked the ED to not proceed with the investigation and adjourned the case to March 25 (Tuesday).

The State had also filed a petition seeking for a declaration that ED's power to investigate into an offence of money laundering arising out of and within the territorial limits of the State, without state consent is violative of the basic structure of federalism and separation of powers. However, noting that the relief sought is wide, the court directed the State to modify its prayer. Advocate General PS Raman assured the court that the state would modify the prayer.