Search Judgments

Registration Act, 1908 (as amended by Tamil Nadu Second Amendment Act, 2021 [Act 91 of 2022]) – The judgment addresses the constitutional validity and scope of Sections 77-A, 77-B, and 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended in Tamil Nadu. It reviews various writ petitions and appeals concerning the retrospective application and interpretation of these sections. Key issues include the legislative competence of the state, repugnancy with central laws, delegation of judicial power to executive authorities (specifically District Registrars), and the impact on existing rights and property transactions.
The court analyzes conflicting views on the prospective or retrospective effect of Section 77-A and whether recitals in registered documents can be examined for fraudulent execution.

Constitution of India – Article 32

Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 17, 22, 24(1)(f), 25, 28(1), 49(1)(ah), 49(1)(h)

Bar Council of India Rules – Chapter II, Part VI, Section IVA, Rule 40

Legal Profession – Enrolment Fees – State Bar Councils (SBCs) – Bar Council of India (BCI) – Statutory Prescription vs. Additional Charges – Rule-Making Power – Constitutional Validity (Articles 14, 19(1)(g)) – Financial Needs of Bar Councils

The validity of enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils, exceeding the amount prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is challenged. While Section 24(1)(f) specifies a fixed enrolment fee, SBCs impose additional “fees” and “charges” (e.g., library fund, administration, ID card, welfare, training, processing, certificate fees) under various heads, leading to significantly higher cumulative charges. The core legal question revolves around whether SBCs and the BCI, through their rule-making powers (Sections 15, 28, 49), can levy charges beyond the specific enrolment fee stipulated in Section 24(1)(f), and if such additional fees, particularly when made a pre-condition for enrolment, violate constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) by creating an economic barrier to entry into the legal profession.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 20

This case involves an appeal by the defendants against a decree passed by the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, ordering them to pay Rs. 88,55,120/- with interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sued for recovery of unpaid rent for a Schwing Truck Mounted Concrete Pump hired by the defendants. The defendants contested the suit, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction in Cuddalore, limitation, and disputing the agreed rental amount.

• Service Tax – Export of Service: A service is considered an export if the recipient is located outside India, as per Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, even if the service is physically performed in India.
• Service Tax – Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012: Rule 3, which places the provision of service at the recipient’s location, is the default rule. Rules 4 (services related to goods) and 6 (services related to events) are specific exceptions and do not apply to marketing and business development services.
• CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Refund: An assessee is entitled to a refund of CENVAT credit on inputs used for providing services that qualify as an “export of service.”
• Administrative Law – Remand: When an administrative order fails to correctly apply the law and relevant rules, the court may quash the order and remand the case for a fresh determination.

Final Decision:    The court quashed the orders demanding service tax and rejecting the refund claim. The case was remanded back to the authorities for a fresh determination, with specific directions to segregate services based on the correct legal rules and to process the refund claim expeditiously.

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Section 4 –  1988This appeal was filed by the defendant-wife against a preliminary decree granting the plaintiff-husband a half share in a jointly purchased property. The plaintiff initiated the suit for partition, asserting equal contribution to the Rs. 16 lakh property bought in 2000. The defendant countered, claiming sole financial contribution from herself and her mother, and also solely repaying the housing loan.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant/complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed Rs. 3,00,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court dismissed the complaint, leading to the present appeal.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 49 & 108 – This appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the trial court’s decree and judgment, which dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim. The plaintiff had sued for the recovery of a security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs after a lease agreement was terminated due to a fire at the leased property. The defendant counterclaimed for damages, alleging the fire was due to the plaintiff’s negligence.

The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947, and Rules, 1948 (Rule 9(2) – concerning the termination of an employee, Mr. K.N. Naresh, by Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd (management). The employee, with 18 years of service, alleged oral termination by blocking his office access and email ID without any inquiry, after receiving a show-cause notice for low performance.

The Constitution of India Article 226, Article 14 –  The Supreme Court addressed appeals challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment on a tender floated by GSPC PIPVAV Power Company Limited (GPPC) for power plant operation and maintenance. The tender used a Quality and Cost Building System (QCBS), weighting technical (70%) and financial (30%) bids for evaluation and contract award. The appellant was initially declared the successful bidder, securing a Letter of Award (LOA) on June 9, 2025, and executing the contract on July 1, 2025.

The unsuccessful bidder challenged this in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging arbitrary evaluation violating Article 14.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) Sections 103, 126(2), 49, 61(2)(a), The Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 341, 109, 120(b) – The petitioners, accused in Crime No. 802 of 2025, sought bail for grave offences, primarily murder and criminal conspiracy, under Sections 103, 126(2), 49, 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), corresponding to Sections 302, 341, 109, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. They argued inconsistencies in the FIRs and witness statements, lack of a Test Identification Parade, and prolonged judicial custody after the final report was filed.

The prosecution and defacto complainant contended that the case involved a pre-planned, organized murder by hired assailants, driven by business rivalry, with strong evidence including call detail records.