June 30 to July 6, 2025
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. E. Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
XXX v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
ML Ravi v. Director Basic of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
P Kishore v. The Secretary to Authorities and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
M/s. Adyar Gate Resort Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and One other, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
REPORT
Case Title: Dr.E.Krithikaa v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras Excessive Court docket has dominated that maternity go away availed by a physician whereas rendering necessary service at Authorities Hospital needs to be counted in the direction of their bond interval.
The bench of GR Swaminathan and Justice Ok Rajasekar famous that maternity go away is integral to maternity profit and varieties a part of Article 21. The courtroom thus held that the physician, although was not within the service of the authorities as an everyday worker, could be entitled to the identical remedy as any authorities worker.
Case Title: XXX v. The Inspector of Police
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras Excessive Court docket just lately ordered a re-investigation in a POCSO case after noting that the police had didn’t conduct additional investigation when the DNA check of the accused gave a unfavourable end result. The courtroom mentioned {that a} additional investigation was essential to search out the precise perpetrator within the case.
Justice Ok Murali Shankar mentioned that POCSO offences are critical in nature stressing that it was excessive time for the prosecution to make sure a correct investigation.
“POCSO offences are critical in nature, attracting extra extreme punishments and warrant meticulous investigation to make sure justice. Sadly, some instances exhibit informal and mechanical investigation, disregarding penalties. It’s excessive time for the prosecution to make sure thorough and correct investigation upholding the gravity of the instances,” the courtroom mentioned.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director Basic of Police and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras Excessive Court docket on Tuesday (July 1) dismissed a plea in search of to interrogate BJP chief Annamalai in reference to the proof allegedly in his possession with respect to the Anna College sexual assault case.
In a current interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had supplies connecting increased officers with the Anna College Case. He mentioned that he knew who the accused had known as “Sir” on the time of the offence.
Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan mentioned that politicians would carry on making such feedback on a mic and the Courts mustn’t waste its time on such issues.
Case Title: P Kishore v. The Secretary to Authorities and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras Excessive Court docket has held that an particular person’s cellphone can’t be tapped in a secret operation to detect the fee of against the law, and the identical would violate the person’s elementary proper to privateness.
Justice Anand Venkatesh famous that cellphone tapping could be justified solely on two situations: the prevalence of a public emergency or within the curiosity of public security. The courtroom additionally highlighted that these conditions/ contingencies needs to be obvious to an affordable man.
The courtroom additionally added that orders permitting cellphone tapping ought to specify the necessity of the identical within the curiosity of sovereignty, integrity, safety of the state, pleasant relations with overseas nations, public order, and for stopping incitement to the fee of an offence.
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Resort Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras Excessive Court docket acknowledged that customs division sure by DGFT’s classification of capital items below EPCG scheme (export promotion capital items scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar noticed that “there isn’t any justification within the Division having made the assessee litigate the problem needlessly regardless of the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Division should align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in issues of imports by accommodations. The licence the place the imports have been labeled as ‘capital items’ has not been revoked or withdrawn and it’s no person’s case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent foundation.”
Madras High Court Upholds Global Prior Use In MediaMonks Trademark Dispute
Case Title: M/s Media Monks Multimedia v. Pachala Murali Krishna
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras Excessive Court docket has allowed a rectification petition for removing of trademark filed with the title “MEDIA MONK LABEL” and “MEDIA MONK” registered and being utilized by the respondent. The petition was filed by a world digital promoting firm of the identical title. The one bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, permitting the petition, held that the social gathering that makes use of the mark on a worldwide scale, even when not utilized in India, shall be recognized because the prior consumer.
Case Title: S. Sai Priya and Others v. Union of India and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras Excessive Court docket has rejected the attraction most popular in opposition to a single bench decision refusing to order re-examination of NEET UG 2025, over problem of energy outage at some examination centres in Chennai.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the attraction filed by a gaggle of scholars, claiming that their efficiency was hindered as a result of heavy rainfall and poor administration by the middle.
The courtroom perused the order of the Nationwide Testing Company, which was handed after conducting a discipline verification of the examination centres. The courtroom mentioned it has to uphold the integrity of the academic assessments in conducting examinations and it couldn’t sit in attraction over the choice of the NTA, except it was manifestly arbitrary, particularly since a re-examination would have an effect on greater than 2 million different college students.
Thus, the courtroom noticed that there was no cause to intervene with the determination of the only choose and, dismissed the attraction.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) v. The Commissioner of Police and One other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras Excessive Court docket disposed of a petition filed by actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) social gathering to carry a protest over the custodial loss of life of 1 Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga District. The courtroom requested the social gathering to submit a contemporary illustration to the state police in search of permission for the protest. The social gathering had initially deliberate to conduct the protest on July sixth (Sunday).
Justice P Velmurugan mentioned that the social gathering ought to give satisfactory time to the State to think about its illustration. The courtroom made the remark, noting that the illustration for permission was made by the social gathering on July 1, and the social gathering had approached the courtroom on July 4th. The courtroom orally remarked that the police have a whole lot of different work and couldn’t be anticipated to deal solely with the social gathering’s illustration.
“Why are you in a lot hurry? The police have a whole lot of different work. They cannot be anticipated to solely deal along with your work. You need to at the least give them 15 days to determine on the illustration,” the choose orally remarked.
The choose then requested the social gathering to submit a contemporary illustration with a brand new date for conducting the protest and requested the police to determine on the brand new illustration.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: E Marees Kumar v. The Chief Secretary to the Authorities of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP(MD) 17949 of 2025
Criticising the police brutality within the alleged custodial loss of life of Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga, the Madras Excessive Court docket at the moment (July 01) orally remarked that the incident was a “police organised crime” the place the State was killing its personal folks.
The judges lamented the brutal killing of the 29-year-old temple safety guard, including the incident had shocked the conscience of the folks of your complete State.
Whereas it appreciated the short response from the State in arresting the 5 constables who had been concerned within the case, the Court docket added that the motion needs to be extra stringent and no police officer needs to be concerned in such acts sooner or later.
The courtroom additionally directed the IVth Further District Decide (Madurai), S John Sundarlal Suresh to conduct an enquiry into the custodial loss of life and submit a report by eighth July. The courtroom additionally requested the State to provoke all acceptable motion in opposition to the upper officers who had been concerned within the case and to submit a standing report by eighth July.
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. Director Basic of Police and One other
Case No: WP Crl 1/2025
The Madras Excessive Court docket on Friday orally remarked that it might order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) if the Tamil Nadu police didn’t take motion on complaints in opposition to former Minister Ok Ponmudy for his current remarks on Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Justice P Velmurugan expressed dissatisfaction with the authority’s inaction and mentioned that he would take a closing name on the case on July 8.
The courtroom had beforehand issued discover to the Director Basic of Police and the Commissioner of Police (Higher Chennai) on a suo motu case, initiated on an order of Justice Anand Venkatesh. The choose had directed the Registry to provoke suo motu writ proceedings in opposition to the Minister and place the matter earlier than the Chief Justice for additional motion. Following this, the matter was posted earlier than Justice P Velmurugan.
