Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 9
NOMINAL INDEX
Lyca Productions Private Limited v Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
V Easwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
G Devarajan V The Special Tahsildar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
H Santhosh v The District Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Google India Pvt Ltd and Another v. Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
REPORT
Case Title: Lyca Productions Private Limited v Vishal Krishna Reddy
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court has directed Actor Vishal to pay Rs. 30 Crore due to entertainment company Lyca Productions.
Decreeing a suit filed by Lyca, Justice PT Asha also remarked that Vishal’s conduct had been evasive from the beginning of the suit. Thus, the court noted that it was a case where cost could be imposed on Vishal.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court has disposed the plea filed by Youtuber Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe into the alleged misappropriation of funds in connection with the implementation of the Annal Ambedkar Scheme. Though the court has refused to order a CBI probe, the court has directed the authorities to recheck the list of tender awardees and ensure that only those who fulfill the criteria have been awarded contracts under the scheme.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan reserved the plea for orders during vacation court in May after taking note of an undertaking given by the President of the Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (DICCI) assuring the court that all the beneficiaries identified under the scheme will be made part of Gen Green Logistics, thus ensuring that they get shares and benefits under the Scheme.
The court has directed the authorities to verify the list following the principles of natural justice and delete persons who do not fulfill the requisite criteria. The court added that the outcome of the exercise must be informed to Shankar, who had alleged that even advocates had been made beneficiaries under the scheme.
Case Title: V Easwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
Observing that the funds payable by the Central Government to the States under the Right to Education Act need not be linked to the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP), the Madras High Court urged the Centre to consider releasing the Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds payable to the Tamil Nadu government.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan was disposing of a petition seeking directions to the State to initiate the admission process under the Right to Education Act, 2009 for the academic year 2025-2026 immediately. The bench had reserved the orders in the petition during its vacation sitting.
The court also noted that since the State Government has filed a suit in the Supreme Court against the withholding of funds, it could not issue any binding directions. The court thus urged the central government to consider delinking the RTE component.
Case Title: G Devarajan V The Special Tahsildar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court has asked the committee, constituted by the Government, to initiate action against theatre owners who overprice the tickets for customers. The court has also asked the committee to ensure that the excess amount collected by the theatres are refunded to the customers.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that when the government itself had fixed rates, which was being revised from time to time, the theatre owners could not fleece the movie-goers by charging excess amount from them.
Considering the submission made by the state and noting that the committee has been taking care of excess fee collection, the court disposed the plea and asked the committee to act against the theatre owners.
Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a foreign national cannot be forced to stay in India indefinitely in connection with a criminal case when he is not even named as an accused in the case.
The court thus directed the investigating agencies to complete the probe against a Seychelles citizen within a year and to revoke the look out circular issued against him, if no case was established.
Noting that the investigation cannot remain pending indefinitely, the court directed the CBI to complete the investigation within an year and to revoke the look out circular, if no case was established against the petitioner. The court added that if a case was established against the petitioner, he would have to face trial and thus there would be a justification in keeping the look out circular pending.
Case Title: H Santhosh v The District Collector
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court recently directed the Government to pass necessary Government Orders empowering revenue authorities to issue a “No Caste No Religion: certificate.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar lauded the intent of a father to get a government certificate stating that he and family did not belong to any religion or caste. The court added that such an object would help in prohibiting caste-based discrimination and would be an eye-opener for citizens.
The court was hearing an appeal against a single judge order which had dismissed the father’s petition stating that revenue authorities were not empowered to issue “no caste no religion certificate”. The division bench however observed that the single judge was misguided with the objections put forth by the Government Pleader and had not considered the object of Article 25 of the Constitution. The court added that as per Article 25, the state had a constitutional obligation to implement the object of Article 25 and recognize the freedom of conscience of an individual to choose their own religious beliefs.
Madras High Court Suspends One-Month Imprisonment Imposed On IAS Officer In Contempt Case
Case Title: Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court has suspended the sentence of one-month imprisonment imposed on IAS officer Anshul Mishra for “civil contempt” by failing to follow an earlier order of the court in a land case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan suspended the sentence imposed by the judge. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the IAS officer seeking to set aside the order of the single judge.
On April 28, Justice P Velmurugan had found the IAS officer guilty of the offence under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him. The judge had asked the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an elderly duo) from his personal salary and directed the Government to deduct the compensation from his salary. The sentence was suspended, allowing the officer to go for appeal.
Case Title: The Tahsildar v. T Elumalai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court has clarified that no person can claim ownership of a grama natham land (village house sites) by occupation and such lands were meant to be allotted to the landless poor or used for public purpose.
In doing so, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar took a view different from that taken by a single judge holding that when an occupation of natham land is accepted by the State, it would become private property and there would be no encroachment.
The bench observed that if title on the natham land was to be conferred on mere occupation of a person, some greedy individuals would alone occupy the lands illegally for their unjust gains. The court emphasised that natham lands were meant for dwelling and should be allotted to the poor or used for public purpose.
Case Title: Google India Pvt Ltd and Another v. Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has dismissed an application filed by Google India Private Limited and Google India Digital Services Private Limited to reject a plaint filed by Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited challenging Google’s new billing policy.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that Testbook’s plaint was different from the earlier plaints filed by other startups on the same issue, which were rejected by the High Court. The court noted that the arguments raised by Testbook were not just related to the superior bargaining position of Google but also with respect to the bilateral contracts between the parties.
The court thus noted that such in personam disputes could not be adjudicated by the Competition Commission of India, which was empowered only to examine whether an enterprise had abused its dominant position and not whether the contract was violative.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Celebi Ground Services Chennai Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India
Case No: OA 531 of 2025
Tukey-based Celebi’s subsidiary has approached the Madras High Court challenging the cancellation of the concession agreement by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) following the cancellation of its security clearance by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) under the Ministry of Civil Aviation of India. On May 26th, Chennai Airport had cancelled its contract with Celebi Ground Services Chennai Private Limited.
While seeking an interim injunction before Justice Abdul Quddhose, Senior Advocate PS Raman submitted that the company had invested huge amounts of money for its equipments and software and that the AAI was attempting to appoint third parties who would exploit these instruments. Raman also argued that the sudden cancellation has caused huge financial loss to the company and that it was done due to complete vendetta. He thus sought for an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from creating any third-party rights that would adversely and irretrievably impact the rights of the Applicant, pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings.
Madras High Court Registrar General Receives Mail With Bomb Blast Threat
The Registrar General of the Madras High Court, on Monday received a mail threatening of bomb blasts in the high court premises, CBI court premises and the residence of Opposition Leader Edappadi Palaniswami. It has been informed that the bomb squad is thoroughly scouring the premises.
The mail further threatened of suicide bombing using IEDs and gave the authorities time till 6:45 pm to evacuate all concerned.
Case Title: V. Nithya v. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and Others
Case No: W.P.Nos.2621, 9953, 14002 and 15566 of 2020
The Madras High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against all officers who have worked as Chief Secretaries for Government of Tamil Nadu from 19th September 2023 till date for failing to comply with an earlier order of the court.
Justice Battu Devanand expressed deep anguish and displeasure in the manner in which the Chief Secretary had been disrespecting the orders of the court and failing to implement it in letter and spirit. The court added that Chief Secretary, who was the Head of the executive State was taking court orders lightly, what could be expected from subordinate officers.
Case Title: S Sushma and Another v. Director General of Police and Others
Case No: Writ Petition No.7284 of 2021
The Madras High Court, on Monday, expressed displeasure at the State government delaying the draft policy for persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ communities.
Justice Anand Venkatesh remarked that he was truly disappointed in the manner in which the state had been seeking adjournments without bringing up the policy. The court also remarked that the state had its priorities elsewhere and not for working for the people of the community.
The court reiterated that the state was loosing out on a big opportunity to set a precedent for the entire country. The court added that a welfare state should take these human factors into consideration and the only hope was that the government worked on these aspects.
Madras High Court Issues Notice To DGP And Commissioner In Suo Motu Case Against Ponmudi’s Speech
Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. Director General of Police and Another
Case No: WP Crl 1/2025
The Madras High Court has issued notice to the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police (Greater Chennai) on a suo motu case initiated by the court against former Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi for his recent remarks on Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Justice P Velmurugan issued notice to the officers returnable by June 25th. The suo motu case was initiated based on an order by Justice Anand Venkatesh on April 23, 2025. The judge had directed the Registry to initiate suo motu writ proceedings against the Minister and place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action. Following this, the matter was posted before Justice P Velmurugan.
