Madras High Court
Madras High Court Grants Ad-Interim Relief To Yash Raj Films Against Illegal Broadcast of 'Mardaani 3'
The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted ad-interim protection to Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., restraining the unauthorised broadcast of the Hindi film Mardaani 3, starring Rani Mukerji, released theatrically on January 30, 2026.Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim order on January 28, 2026, in a suit filed by the production house against internet service providers and cable television operators, apprehending infringement of its copyright in the film.While granting the interim...
New Limitation Plea Without Records Not Maintainable Before CESTAT: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., holding that a plea on limitation cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting factual material on record. A Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice P. Dhanabal observed that limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be examined by a court or tribunal in the absence of necessary evidence. The...
Tax Recovery Officer Can't Void Third-Party Mortgages: Madras High Court In Sree Gokulam Chit's Case
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an income tax recovery order that had declared a mortgage created in favour of Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance, a chit fund part of the Gokulam Group, as void from the outset. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Income Tax Department can recover its dues by selling an attached property, but the Tax Recovery Officer cannot decide the validity of a transfer in favour of a third party. The court said the recovery framework does not permit such...
Madras High Court Upholds ₹48.77 Lakh Award Against Angel One Over Illegal Squaring Off Of Client's Shares
The Madras High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Angel One Limited to pay Rs 48.77 lakh with interest to its client, holding that the squaring off of shares by the broker was illegal. The court found no ground to interfere with the award under the limited scope of a challenge to an arbitral decision. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the sole arbitrator's conclusion was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The court made clear that it could not re-examine the merits merely...
Imported Parts Alone Don't Justify Higher Sales Tax On Car Audio Systems: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has ruled, in a dispute over the tax treatment of Kenwood-branded car audio systems, that the use of imported components does not by itself make the finished product an imported good, holding that “the parts do not, by themselves, constitute a complete car audio system”. A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar was deciding whether Nippon Audiotronix's car audio systems were taxable at 12.5 percent as domestic goods or at 20 percent as imported...
Madras High Court Quashes Cancellation Of 'SAKTHI' Trademark Without Prior Notice
The Madras High Court on Tuessay set aside the cancellation of a registered trademark by the Trade Marks Registry without prior notice to the trademark owner, holding that such action is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment delivered on January 27, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy, a Tamil Nadu-based food products manufacturer and the proprietor of 'SAKTHI' trademark, directing the Trade...
Dormant Partner Cannot Face Criminal Liability Without Proof Of Control Over Firm: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that a dormant partner cannot be fastened with criminal liability in the absence of specific allegations showing that she was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the firm's business. A Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan was considering criminal revision petitions filed by a firm, its managing partner, and another partner, challenging the trial court's order that had refused to discharge them from criminal proceedings initiated under the Prohibition of Benami...
'VAPORIN' Doesn't Infringe 'VICKS VAPORUB' Mark: Madras High Court Dismisses P&G's Plea
The Madras High Court has rejected Procter & Gamble's attempt to cancel the trademarks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” holding that the marks are validly registered in favour of IPI India and are not deceptively similar to P&G's well-known product “VICKS VAPORUB”.A Single-Judge Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, in an order dated January 6, 2026, dismissed a batch of trademark rectification pleas filed by P&G seeking removal of IPI's registrations on the ground of deceptive...
Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award After Railways Unilaterally Appointed Tribunal
The Madras High Court has recently struck down an arbitral award in a dispute with the Integral Coach Factory after finding that the Railways unilaterally appointed the arbitral tribunal, even though the contractor had clearly objected to the process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitral award stood “vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction” since the tribunal had been unilaterally constituted. The dispute goes back to a contract awarded in November 2017 by the Integral Coach Factory...
Failure To Provide Translation Vitiates Trademark Registration: Madras High Court Cancels 'THUFAN' Mark
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it.In a judgment dated December 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed appeals filed by Kolkata-based fan maker Shambhunath & Bros., which uses the mark “TOOFAN”. The...
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the...