Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | No. 2514 of 2020. The petitioner, V. Karunamoorthy, sought enhanced compensation (C.M.A. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b) | The petitioner was suspended following a charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, alleging financial loss to the department due to under valuation of documents. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated belatedly, a decade after the alleged acts, and lacked any imputation of moral turpitude or corruption. He also contended that the appellate authority (1st respondent) failed to provide a hearing and issued a non-speaking order, merely replicating the disciplinary authority's (2nd respondent) findings. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 Section 3 | The appellants, importers of mild steel items, had entered into firm sale contracts and opened irrevocable letters of credit before the notification but after it was uploaded on the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) website, but before it was published in the Official Gazette. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of "date of this Notification" in the context of transitional protection under para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. The appellants argued that the notification was effective only from its publication date in the Official Gazette, whereas the respondents contended that the "date of Notification" was the date it was uploaded on the DGFT website. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34 and 37 | The core issue in the appeals filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is whether the BOCW Act and the Cess Act can be considered ‘subsequent legislation’ in contracts entered into with its contractors. The Supreme Court delves into the statutory schemes of both Acts, highlighting the delayed implementation despite their enactment in 1996, necessitating judicial intervention for their enforcement. The Court emphasizes that the constitution of Welfare Boards under the BOCW Act is a prerequisite for the effective implementation of both Acts, and the cess could not be levied or collected before these boards were established. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 | Petitioners claim long-term occupation and non-compliance with Section 11 of the Act, arguing that their rights are being violated without assurance of re-accommodation, impacting their livelihood. The petitioners cite the Olga Tellis case, emphasizing the right to livelihood. They also argue the land's dual Taluk location and ownership by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, classifying it as "Government poromboke," further invalidating eviction proceedings. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 208 ; Transfer of Property Act - Section 3 | The plaintiff purchased both flats in a public auction under SARFAESI. After registration, the first defendant, claiming ownership, obstructed the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff alleges coercion into granting the first defendant a power of attorney to sell Flat No. 2 in exchange for possessing Flat No. 1, with a promise of Rs. 34 lakhs from the sale. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 Rule 14(3); The Constitution of India Article 26, 48A and 51A(g) | The elephants were previously moved to a rescue and rehabilitation center due to inadequate facilities at the Mutt's premises. The Mutt has since established a new facility at Konerikuppam Village, claiming it meets the required standards under the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. The court appointed a committee to inspect the Konerikuppam facility, which initially identified deficiencies. Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: The Factories Act, 1948 - Section 59(2) | The core issue is whether compensatory allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA), and Small Family Allowance (SFA) should be included in the "ordinary rate of wages" for calculating overtime wages under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948. The Union of India argued, citing various government letters and memoranda, that these allowances should be excluded from the calculation of overtime wages. They contended that including these allowances would lead to disparities in overtime pay due to varying amounts and applicability among employees. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Constitution of India - Article 142; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 379 | The couple's marriage, solemnized in 2012, lasted only 65 days, after which they became embroiled in numerous legal battles. The Supreme Court, noting the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the extensive litigation between the parties, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court considered factors such as the short duration of cohabitation, prolonged separation, and failed attempts at reconciliation. Decision: Disposed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11 | The plaintiffs claimed rights through Chellammal, a daughter of Kanniga Pillai, while the defendants claimed rights through other descendants of Kanniga Pillai. The core issue revolves around a General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by the plaintiffs in favor of the 1st defendant, D.Revathy, in 1996, and a subsequent Release Deed executed by D.Revathy in favor of her father, Ethiraj Pillai. The plaintiffs argued that D.Revathy exceeded her authority under the GPA by executing the Release Deed. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: The Code of Civil Procedure CPC (1908) Section 96 read with Order 41 of Rule 1  | The defendant (appellant) claimed a right to the property through inheritance from his grandmother, Maragathammal. He argued that his father, Kandasamy, a legal heir of Maragathammal, became the absolute owner through a release deed and subsequently sold the property to Senthilkumar, who then sold it to the plaintiffs. The defendant contested the plaintiffs' claim, asserting his possession and a pending suit for declaration regarding the property. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order IX Rule 9, Order XLIII Rule 1(c), Section 115 | The original suit, filed by the Plaintiff, sought declaration, permanent injunction, and partition. The suit was dismissed for default on July 27, 2016, due to the Plaintiff's absence. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed I.A.No.216 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit. Decision: Allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Advocates Act, 1961 - Sections 6, 35, 36, 48A | The petitioner argued the resolution violated principles of natural justice and his constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g). The Bar Council defended its action citing the Advocates Act, 1961, and the need to maintain the decorum of the legal profession, contending the petitioner had an alternate remedy through revision to the Bar Council of India. The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition, the nature of the right to practice law, and the Bar Council's jurisdiction to issue interim suspension orders. Decision: Allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 | The petitioner, a proprietary concern, had entered into a contract with the respondent for railway repair work. The dispute arose over the measurement unit "track metre" for certain items in the contract's Schedule B. The petitioner contended that the measurement should have been taken separately for each track, while the respondent argued for a combined measurement of two tracks for specific items. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Sections 314, 316, 318, 322, and 351(2) | The prosecution alleges that the petitioner agreed to provide a loan of Rs. 3.5 crores to the complainant, demanding a sale deed of the complainant's property as security, valued at Rs. 26 lakhs. Cheques for the loan amount were issued, with an agreement that the complainant would return the cheques to receive the money. The petitioner allegedly refused to return the cheques and provide the money, resulting in a cheating complaint. Decision: Remanded Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

| The case arose from a motor accident that resulted in the death of the claimant's son. The claimants sought compensation, alleging that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Swaraj Mazda vehicle insured by the appellant. The insurance company argued that the FIR initially implicated the driver of the TATA Indigo car in which the deceased was a passenger. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: All India Council for Teachers Education Act, 1987 - Section 10 and 23 | The candidate sought appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), challenging the selection process after being unsuccessful in the interview. The core issue was whether the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations apply to direct recruitment conducted by the Commission under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012, for filling professorships in Gujarat's government engineering colleges. The court concluded that the AICTE Regulations, specifically the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), primarily concern the promotion and career progression of existing faculty members, not direct recruitment of candidates who are external to the academic system. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

| The case involves a motor vehicle accident where a load auto rickshaw collided with a Bajaj M80 motorcycle, resulting in injuries to the rider and pillion rider. The claimants filed separate petitions seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. The Insurance Company disputed liability, alleging negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider, the absence of a valid driving license, and the violation of policy conditions due to the auto rickshaw lacking proper registration and fitness certificate. Decision: Dismissed Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 | The claimant sustained injuries while travelling in a minidoor vehicle that met with an accident due to the driver's rash and negligent driving, resulting in a claim for compensation. The Insurance Company contested liability, arguing the claimant was an unauthorized passenger in a goods-carrying vehicle, violating policy conditions. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,500/-, directing the Insurance Company to initially pay and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner. Decision: Dismissed Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 | The petitioner, a driver, sustained injuries when the auto he was driving capsized. He claimed compensation, stating the accident occurred during his employment. The Insurance Company contested the claim, arguing the driver was negligent and violated policy conditions by carrying excess passengers. Decision: Allowed Court: Madurai Bench