Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182 NOMINAL INDEX Retailers Association of India v. The Department of Labour and Skill Development and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176 K Mayakannan and Others v. The Managing Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 177 Manel Amrithkala v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 178 Mohan Ravi v. Aarthi...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
NOMINAL INDEX
Retailers Association of India v. The Department of Labour and Skill Development and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
K Mayakannan and Others v. The Managing Director and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Manel Amrithkala v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
Mohan Ravi v. Aarthi Ravi and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and Anr v. Union Bank of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
ABC v XYZ, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
REPORT
Case Title: Retailers Association of India v. The Department of Labour and Skill Development and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to not take any coercive action against shopkeepers for failing to display their shop names in Tamil language primarily and then in English language.
Justice V Lakshminarayan has also directed the GCC Commissioner to consider a representation made by the retailers seeking an extension of time to change the already existing boards, in compliance with the Government decision mandating that the names of the shops be first displayed in Tamil and then in English and then, if needed, in any other language.
The retailers submitted that they had made substantial investments for creating and installing name boards. It was submitted that these name boards may also contain the recognised trademark of the shop, follow a uniform global branding format and incorporate carefully crafted elements such as colour, font, and design. It was submitted that forcing immediate redesign would disrupt the brand uniformity and cause confusion among the customers.
Case Title: K Mayakannan and Others v. The Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court recently set aside the suspension of three employees of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) for speaking in the media about alleged illegalities in TASMAC.
Perusing the materials produced to the court, Justice B Pugalendhi commented that there was something wrong with the department. The court further noted that since the department was being run by the government, it should not allow any corruption.
Considering the materials, the court remarked that something was wrong with the department and that the complaint of the petitioners was not addressed properly. Though the court agreed that the petitioners had acted against the circular, considering the manner in which the issue was handled, the court set aside the suspension order and gave liberty to the department to initiate disciplinary action against the employees.
Case Title: Manel Amrithkala v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court has held that Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card and booklet can be accepted by the authorities as valid identification documents for issuing Legal Heirship Certificate.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus gave relief to a woman whose husband had passed away in March 2025. The court noted that the Government of India had clearly directed the State Governments to treat OCI registration booklets as their identification for any services rendered to him.
The court noted that as per the Government order, wherever proof of residence was required, the Overseas Citizen of India may give an affidavit attested by a notary public stating that a particular address may be treated as their place of residence in India.
Case Title: Mohan Ravi v. Aarthi Ravi and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
The Madras High Court has restrained the media from sharing or discussing the details of the matrimonial dispute between cine actor Mohan Ravi and his wife Aarthi Ravi.
Passing a “John Doe order”, Justice GR Swaminathan noted that though the matrimonial dispute between the parties had no public element in it, since he was a celebrity, every information was magnified and distorted in a sleazy manner. Thus, considering the necessity to protect the privacy of the children of the couple, the court thought it fit to retrain the media.
The court wondered if it could pass an injunction order against the media or unknown defendants who were not present before the court. The court noted that there was no impediment against passing a John Doe order, which was an exparte order issued against unidentified persons preventing them from indulging in activities breaching the copyright of applicants. The court added that John Doe ordered could be issued not to uphold copyright but also to protect right and reputation.
Case Title: All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and Anr v. Union Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court recently observed that transfer orders which disregard the family, health, or safety concerns of an employee is against human dignity and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice CV Karthikeyan said that while issuing transfer orders, there must be a balance between the administrative requirements and the familial responsibilities of the employee.
The court also highlighted that women were always tied to their family and could not be expected to move around frequently. The court thus asked Union Bank of India to reconsider their existing transfer policy which mandated transfer of employees after 9 years of service at particular place and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employees when they failed to join the new place immediately.
The court said that the policy disproportionately affected women and caused considerable hardship. Thus, the court thought it fit to put forth safeguards, to prevent the indirect discrimination meted out to the women working in the bank.
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Family Courts do not have the inherent power to grant a decree of judicial separation in a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that while Hindu Marriage Cat empowers the family court to grant a decree of judicial separation in a plea for divorce, no such power existed in a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Case Title: S. Aslam v. The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court has stayed the rustication of a 2nd year MSW student for allegedly painting “Jai Bhim and Free Palestine” graffiti in the hostel wall of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth development.
Justice TV Tamilselvi stayed the rustication considering that the student was at the fag end of his career and if he was not permitted to attend exams and internship, it would cause him too much hardship. The court therefore directed the college to reschedule his exam, issue hall ticket and permit him to attend the block placement programme in social service department.