Act / Rules: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 107, 409, 201, 120-B; Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (BSCA) - Sections 13, 14, 15, 19. | The public servant was accused under the PC Act and IPC for amassing disproportionate assets. An Authorised Officer had ordered confiscation of these assets, some held in his wife's name. The High Court, however, ruled that upon the public servant's death, the BSCA provided no mechanism to continue such proceedings, thus applying a presumption of innocence and setting aside the confiscation order. Decision: Set aside Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) - Sections 3(6), 14, 31(1); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) - Sections 16, 31(6), 34 | The appellant underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The respondent (public sector undertaking) had raised a counterclaim in ongoing arbitration proceedings before the resolution plan was approved, but crucially, it was never submitted to the Resolution Professional (RP) during the CIRP. The Arbitral Tribunal had initially rejected the counterclaim, holding it extinguished by the approved plan. Decision: Partly allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482; Copyright Act, 1957 (Act) - Sections 63, 65, 65A. | The complainant claimed the director's film 'Kahaani-2' infringed his script 'Sabak' after he shared it, leading to charges under the Copyright Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) issued summons, but an expert committee of the Screen Writers Association (SWA) had previously found no similarity between the works, a fact concealed from the CJM. The Supreme Court observed the complaint contained only bald and unsubstantiated allegations, lacking specific identification of copied elements. Decision: Quashed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: The Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 Section 2(f) | It was further contended that the Detaining Authority demonstrated non-application of mind by relying on an irrelevant bail order (C.M.P.No.1630 of 2022) to presume the likelihood of the detenu obtaining bail, despite his own bail application being dismissed. The respondents asserted the gravity of the broad daylight murder warranted detention, citing a previous case under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act. The Court held that while a solitary case could justify detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 if it prejudiced public order, a murder arising from a money dispute did not inherently meet this threshold. Decision: Set aside Non-Reportable Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 (PwD Act, 1995) - Sections 32 & 33; Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 (Rules) - Rule 10. | This followed a 2011 judgment, involving the same petitioner, where a similar challenge was dismissed, but the Court had explicitly directed the Registrar General to ensure PwD reservation in the "immediate next vacancy." The respondents argued that the Rules, Rule 10 at the time only identified Civil Judge posts for PwD reservation, and that reservation under the PwD Act, 1995, was dependent on specific post identification. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, reiterated that reservation for PwD is not contingent on prior identification of posts under PwD Act, 1995, Section 32, and non-identification cannot be a tool to deny statutory rights. The omission in the 2013 selection was deemed a contravention of the 2011 Court direction. Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302, 304(I), 300 Exception I; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 161, 207, 313, 428. | The prosecution's case established that on 17.10.2017, the appellant, who had a history of demanding money and a strained relationship with his father, engaged in a heated quarrel with him. During this dispute, Murugesh fatally attacked his father with a stone, inflicting multiple severe injuries leading to his death. The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, giving significant weight to the consistent eyewitness accounts of neighbours (PW2 and PW3) who corroborated the verbal dispute and the subsequent violent assault. Decision: Set aside Non-Reportable Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Tamil Nadu Amendment) - Article 58(a)(i) | The pivotal question was whether grandparents fall within the 'family' definition for settlement deeds executed by grandchildren, entitling them to concessional stamp duty. Prior judicial decisions presented conflicting interpretations. One view advocated for an expansive reading, asserting that since grandchildren are listed, grandparents should logically be included, and the definition was illustrative. Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 20 Rule 18; The Indian Evidence Act Section 106; Hindu Law | Defendant 1 had alienated Schedule II property to Defendant 4 and Schedule III property to Defendant 5, citing 'legal necessity'. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for partial partition. However, the Lower Appellate Court granted a preliminary decree for partition of Schedules III & IV, while upholding the alienation of Schedule II, accepting the plea of legal necessity. Decision: Allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) Sections 310(2), 333, 127(7), 311, 351(3) and 332(b); Constitution of India - Article 21 | The petitioners are alleged to have criminally trespassed, poisoned a dog, assaulted occupants, and robbed 9.5 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.1,00,000/- from a house. Petitioners sought bail citing long incarceration and claims of being implicated solely by co-accused confession. They argued that their continued pre-trial detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Madurai Bench

| The Nativity Certificate was refused due to his temporary relocation to a nearby village in Tamil Nadu, necessitated by his mother's demise and his aged father's ill health. The authorities disregarded G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002, which permits temporary absence without losing nativity by birth. The Medical Board's declaration of medical unfitness was made despite the petitioner's successful B.Tech (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) completion, including practicals, and four years of experience as an Electrical Supervisor in a private company. Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (the Act) - Section 3(42), 5(1)(b), 5(4), 9(2)(b), 10(1), 10(5), and 79. | The petitioners, his legal heirs, contended that his first wife was entitled to 10 standard acres as Sridhana land under Section 5(4) via a 1949 deed and that ancestral property partitioned by a 1942 'Koorchit' should be excluded. They also claimed entitlement to additional land for their family size under Section 5(1)(b). The Court found the 'Koorchit' inadmissible as it was unregistered and the lands mentioned were declared Venkatakrishna Reddiar's assets in insolvency proceedings. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) - Section 181 | The petitioners, consisting of the wife and sons of the deceased K. Ravichandran, sought enhanced compensation for his death in a motor accident on December 15, 2017. The second respondent, the insurance company, filed an appeal seeking to set aside or reduce the awarded compensation. Decision: Allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) - Section 166 | The appellant suffered a left radius fracture and multiple injuries after being hit by a car while standing roadside. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 50,000, covering disability, transportation, and pain & suffering. Dissatisfied, the claimant appealed, arguing the awarded sum was inadequate and failed to cover essential heads like loss of earning, extra nourishment, attendant charges, damages to clothes, and loss of amenities. Decision: Partly allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) | The MACT had initially awarded ₹25,18,272, finding 75% negligence by the offending vehicle and 25% contributory negligence by the deceased. The insurance company appealed, arguing the award was excessive, particularly medical expenses and the component for pain and suffering, which they contended does not survive the deceased. The claimant cross-objected, seeking higher compensation, challenging the low notional income assessment, and disputing the finding of contributory negligence. Decision: Partly allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) | Act) - This appeal challenged an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Coimbatore, which awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,40,470/- to the petitioner for grievous injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 09.04.2018, when an Eicher lorry, driven rashly and negligently, collided with the petitioner's two-wheeler. The appellant contested the Tribunal's decision to order "pay and recovery" against them, arguing that they were not the owner of the offending vehicle. Decision: Allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) | The appellant was severely injured in a collision with a rashly driven TATA ACE on 25.04.2008, suffering major fractures and permanent disability. He initially claimed Rs. 50,00,000, but the MACT awarded Rs. 30,28,400. The appellant sought enhancement, contending the MACT arbitrarily disallowed compensation under several heads and undervalued his monthly income at Rs. 13,000 instead of Rs. 18,000, despite evidence. Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) - Sections 166 & 168; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 279, 338, 304A. | Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 279, 338, 304A - This judgment concerns cross-appeals against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award. The petitioners, dependents of the deceased Rangan, sought enhanced compensation, while the insurance company challenged the award. Rangan died after sustaining injuries from an accident where a rashly driven Tata Sumo car hit his motorcycle. Decision: Allowed in part Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) - Section 173. | The deceased, Narayana Achari, suffered fatal injuries on 05.02.2020 when his two-wheeler was struck from behind by a rashly and negligently driven Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, leading to his demise on 14.02.2020. The legal representatives had initially sought Rs. 30,00,000/-. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,76,000/-. Decision: Partly allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 304(A) | The accident in November 2016 involved an Alto car and a Mahindra Van, resulting in the death of Bharath Bandari, an occupant in the Alto. The accident was caused by the Alto driver's rash and negligent attempt to overtake. The insurance company disputed liability, asserting the Alto driver lacked a valid license and that the Mahindra Van driver also contributed to the accident. Decision: Partly allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982 (Service Regulations) - Regulation 20(3)(iii); Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulations). | Disciplinary proceedings continued post-retirement, resulting in a penalty of permanent reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled this penalty impermissible post-retirement, stating only Pension Regulations applied. The Division Bench reversed this, citing Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Service Regulations and the Supreme Court's precedent in Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court