Latest Madras Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court granted interim injunction against construction of a church on land revenue records describe as a public road, pending disposal of a civil suit filed in 2011.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted an ex parte interim injunction on 17 June 2026, halting the Telugu dubbed OTT release of Drishyam 3 after none of the respondents appeared despite private notice.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court reversed a Single Judge's order that had allowed attendance-deficient law students to sit their semester examinations, holding that Bar Council of India Rules permit no further relaxation.
The Madurai Bench held that an Agricultural Officer who deferred joining a promoted post until he completed 20 years of service could not claim Special Grade benefits he was not otherwise entitled to.
The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench held that Article 21 dignity extends to mortal remains and authorised State authorities to conduct last rites of Akash Delison after his family declined to receive the body.
The Madras High Court dismissed a PIL by an AIADMK advocate demanding a CBI inquiry into four MLAs who resigned and joined TVK, finding no tangible material beyond suspicion.
The Madurai Bench confirmed conviction under Section 302 IPC after holding that an injured professor's dock identification was reliable without a test identification parade, and that hostile student witnesses had been won over.
The Madurai Bench granted bail to a Sub-Inspector accused of harbouring his son after an honour killing, finding no evidence of his active role in the offence.
The Madurai Bench drew a sharp line between specific matrimonial allegations against a police constable husband and omnibus Section 498-A charges against six relatives living separately.
The Madurai Bench held that a writ of mandamus cannot substitute execution proceedings in a maintenance dispute between spouses, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that oral arguments by the defence are a facet of fair trial under Article 21, and a trial court must appoint an amicus if counsel fails to argue.
A Division Bench held that withholding election documents until the limitation period for an election petition expires would render the statutory right to approach the court illusory.
The Madras High Court set aside the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board's appointment of a Mutawalli for a Triplicane Dargah, holding that no jurisdiction arises without a statutory survey and gazette notification under the Waqf Act.
Sun TV Network's appeal against a defamation decree in favour of actress R. Sukanya has been dismissed, with the High Court holding that the channel's contractual right to edit the interview fixed its liability.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court directed the State not to proceed against Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai and others until 23 June 2026, invoking an oral undertaking given by the then Advocate General.
An accused facing trial under Sections 494 and 498A IPC, who was deported after a Blue Corner Notice, sought permission to resume work in Libya; the Madras High Court dismissed the revision.
The Madurai Bench held that canvassing near a polling booth, without violence, criminal force or specific obscene words, cannot sustain charges of rioting, obstruction of public servant or criminal intimidation.
The Madurai Bench modified a life sentence to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment in a POCSO case where the victim and her parents turned hostile, relying on DNA evidence and a Section 164 statement.
The Madurai Bench held that a dismissed corporation employee who exposed fake ticket records and misappropriation of diesel and salary funds qualifies as an aggrieved person under Article 226.
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran allowed the election petition, voiding the return of I.S. Inbadurai and declaring M. Appavu the duly elected MLA for the 2016–2021 term after a decade of litigation.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that Section 435 CrPC cannot bar premature release once the sentence for the Central Act offence has been fully undergone.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan held that the Authorisation Committee erred by fixating on the parents' marital relationship instead of the only relevant question: whether the donor was the recipient's mother.
