Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 7 to April 13, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 133

A Arunkumar v. The Home Secretary to Government and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 134

Gowdham v. The Director General and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 135

State v. S Kasimayan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136

Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 137

REPORT

Arranging Job For Accused Does Not Amount To Harbouring Him In Absence Of Evidence: Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Man

Case Title: B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man under the NDPS Act, holding that in absence of evidence other than confession of co-accused, the fact that the man had arranged a job for the co-accused would not amount to harbouring the latter.

Justice P. Dhanabal reiterated that a confession statement of the co-accused by itself could not be a reason for implicating a person in a crime unless there were other materials to connect him in the crime. In the present case also, the court noted that except the statement of the co-accused, there was no other material to implicate him the crime.

The court also noted that though the petitioner had arranged a job for one of the accused, there was nothing to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about the involvement of accused in the NDPS case. The main accusation against the petitioner was that he harboured Accused No. 3 (A3) knowing that A3 was involved in a drugs case. The prosecution had relied upon A3's confession statement and impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused.

CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 133

The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice.

The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee.

In this case, the respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The assessee has availed CENVAT Credit for the capital goods used in establishing a captive power plant of the assessee.

Madras High Court Allows Indu Makkal Katchi Members To Garland Ambedkar Statue On Condition That They Won't Raise Slogans, Wear 'Tilak' Or 'Kumkum'

Case Title: A Arunkumar v. The Home Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 134

The Madras High Court has allowed the members of Indu Makkal Katchi to garland the statue of Dr. Ambedkar situated at the Ambedkar memorial Hall in Chennai in connection with Ambedkar Jayathi on certain conditions.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan gave permission to the party on the condition that the party members would not raise any slogans or speech against anyone, that they would not play any instrument, that they would not cause any hindrance to the traffic or general public, and that they would not wear “Kavi Dhoti” or Sandal Thilagam or Kum Kum or Vibhuti to the Statute

Noting that the court had granted permission previously in similar circumstances based on undertaking, the court was inclined to permit the party to garland the statute since the party had agreed to abide by any condition imposed by the police.

Corruption Rampant In Every Organ Of Govt, We Are Helpless In Curbing It: Madras High Court

Case Title: Gowdham v. The Director General and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 135

The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a woman who was asked to get re-validated certificates for compassionate appointment.

The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that asking the woman to get fresh certificates would only pave way for the officers in-charge to get illegal gratification once more. Acknowledging that corruption was rampant in every organ of the government, the bench also expressed its helplessness in curbing the menace of corruption.

The court noted that in the present case, the mother's application for compassionate appointment was unduly delayed and the authorities had adopted a pedantic approach in seeking fresh certificate which could not have been obtained without a reasonable expense.

“White Collar Criminals”: Madras High Court Convicts DRT Recovery Officer And Others In Corruption Case, Sends Them To 5 Yrs Imprisonment

Case Title: State v. S Kasimayan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136

Setting aside an order of the Special Court for CBI cases, the Madras High Court recently convicted a recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and others for making illegal gains by undervaluing a property during auction proceedings. The court thus sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and a fine.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the recovery officer was guilty of conscious misconduct as he had flagrantly violated all the norms and legal requirements and acted contrarily to the norms, conducting the auction without fixing proper upset price.

The court added that the recovery officer was a public officer and a trustee for the public. Thus, the court remarked that the officer was duty bound to protect, preserve the property entrusted with him. However, in the present case, the court said that the officer had entered into conspiracy and committed the offence of breach of trust.

Goods Exempted From Customs Duty, May Still Be Subject To Levy Of Additional Duty Under Respective Enactments: Madras High Court

Case Title: Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 137

The Madras High Court stated that goods imported exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under respective enactments.

“The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such additional duty” stated the bench comprising of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.

The bench further stated that under the Customs Act, duties of custom shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on goods imported into or exported from India. Therefore, the Customs Tariff Act specifies the rate at which duties of customs shall be levied.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Satire Video Row: Madras High Court Extends Interim Protection Granted To Kunal Kamra In Mumbai Police FIR Till April 17

Case Title: Kunal Kamra v. State

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.9768 of 2025

The Madras High Court today extended the interim protection granted to Kunal Kamra in connection with the FIR lodged against him at Mumbai over his alleged remarks against Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde, till April 17.

Justice Sunder Mohan ordered Kamra to meanwhile take steps to approach the concerned courts. The bench also took note of petitioner's submission that a petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court to quash the FIRs registered against Kamra and that the same is coming up for hearing tomorrow.

On March 28, the court had granted interim anticipatory bail to Kamra till April 7th. Meanwhile, Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR registered against him by the Maharashtra Police. An urgent mention was made before the division bench headed by Justice Sarang Kotwal today, who agreed to hear the case tomorrow (8th April 2025).

Can Judge Exercising Administrative Power Transfer Trial From One District To Another? Madras HC To Consider In DA Case Against TN Minister

Case Title: Suo Motu RC v. Vigilance and Anti Corruption and Others

Case No: Crl RC 1419 of 2023

The Madras High Court on Monday said it would hear the suo motu revision petition against the order acquitting Minister K Ponmudy and his wife in a disproportionate assets case on April 17th.

Justice Anand Venkatesh said that while hearing the revision petitions, the primary issue that the court would deal with would be whether judges holding administrative portfolio over a particular district have powers to transfer a trial from one district to another district.

It may be noted that the trial in Ponmudy's disproportionate asset case was transferred from Villupuram to Vellore by an administrative order of the Madras High Court.

'Why Insult HC?': Madras High Court Expresses Displeasure With TN Govt's Plea To Transfer ED-TASMAC Case From HC

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally criticised the Tamil Nadu government for not informing it that- State has moved a petition seeking transfer of plea challenging the searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at the TASMAC headquarters, to the Supreme Court.

While the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran recognized that State has right to file such a petition, it was upset about being kept in the dark.

It thus asked the State what prevented it from informing the court about its intention to file such a transfer petition in the previous hearing, when the court was fixing the dates for the final hearing.

“ED Officers Must Dispel Notion That They're Law Unto Themselves”:TASMAC Argues In Madras High Court Against ED Raid

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025

Arguing against the searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at its headquarters on March 6 and March 8, TASMAC on Wednesday argued that ED officers must dispel with the notion that they can act according to their own perceived standards, ignoring the law of the land.

“This practice (of summoning officers at unearthly hours) has to be curbed. They have to dispel the notion that they are law unto themselves,” Chaudhari said.

Emphasising the need to follow the parameters under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Chaudhari argued that the authorities under the Act could not prosecute someone on the notion or assumption that a scheduled offence has been conducted. Chaudhari further submitted that the court had to see whether the safeguards had been implemented in spirit and substance and whether the action was taken based on materials or was it a mere roving enquiry.