Latest Madras Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Hearing one accused who had seen two witnesses in three years, Justice B. Pugalendhi widened the case to the State, looked at pendency, special courts and prosecutors, and gave directions to the Registrar General, the Government and the prosecution.
Justice P. Murugan of the Madurai Bench refused to set aside the 10 September 2026 remand of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Inspector and two junior personnel, holding that a Section 91 BNSS bond is no substitute for bail once a murder charge is framed. He told the Sessions Court to finish the trial within nine months.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete found the two four-letter marks phonetically similar yet held that pain-relief tablets bought at pharmacies and incubators bought by hospital procurement teams are too far apart for confusion, and dismissed the pharma company appeal against the Registrar.
A Chief Justice-led bench held that a person named in material forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate has no right to be heard before a court directs an FIR, found the Minister had sixteen days to act and did nothing, and closed the contempt petition once the case was registered.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a 2015 letter about serving a rejection order was not an acknowledgment of debt, that a 2019 promise to decide after permission from higher authorities was neither an acknowledgment nor a promise to pay, and that the machinery supplied to nine training institutes was defective.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a ledger entry showing a Chennai leather firm received Rs 24.15 lakh from its own banker on 1 July 2016 could not extend limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, and refused to lift the corporate veil against the tannery directors and their family.
A division bench of Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilipkumar held that a plan-marked channel or pathway running through private land is a public utility whose possessory rights shift to the Government while title stays with the landholder, and that a 2023 challenge to a rule amended in 2000 came two decades too late.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar set aside a three-year sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the complainant improved his story in the witness box, phone calls were never corroborated, and the sanction order recited a signal that no witness described.
A three-judge bench held that every first appeal under Section 96 CPC must be heard by the Bench under Order 41 Rule 11 before the respondent is noticed, and that the 1965 Appellate Side Rule directing the Registrar to issue notice forthwith stands repealed to that extent.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that once DHFL went into insolvency, a Section 35 Companies Act claim against its statutory auditor Chaturvedi and Shah became an action in rem whose fruits belong to the whole committee of creditors, and struck the firm out of the Chennai commercial suit.
A Madurai Bench of Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar upheld Rules 35-A to 35-H of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, holding that a district-ring-fenced fund for restoring abandoned quarries is within Section 15 of the MMDR Act and does not duplicate the District Mineral Foundation.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the acceptance of five MLAs' resignations and issued a time-bound mandamus on the Tenth Schedule proceedings.
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan issued a mandamus to the Udhagamandalam Municipality, holding the applicant need not wait to be refused before coming to court.
Justice Shamim Ahmed sets aside an order of the Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu and remands the matter with a direction to order registration of an FIR and a proper investigation, to be completed within eight weeks.
Justice A. D. Maria Clete makes an interim injunction absolute till disposal of the suit, refuses to carve snacks and namkeens out of it, and confines the passing-off limb to blended spices on the defendant's own undertaking.
Justice G. Arul Murugan dismisses the appeal of a man convicted of sexually assaulting a ten-year-old child at the school he ran, and holds that locking the room established wrongful confinement under Section 342 of the Penal Code.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy holds a writ petition neither maintainable nor entertainable, and points the parties to the Section 92 suit already pending over the same Constitution.
Justice P.B. Balaji holds that whether the allegations are substantiated cannot be decided before evidence, and that the Court cannot reach satisfaction on corrupt practice without a trial.
Justices G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan dismiss a trust's challenge to surplus-land proceedings begun in 1984, holding a choultry that feeds people is charitable, not religious.
He complained to the police repeatedly and got nothing but reference numbers. The Madras High Court upholds the order sending him back to them with a court behind it.
