Search Judgments

Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – The appeal was filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (appellants) against the decree passed by the Principal District Court, Dindigul, in favor of the plaintiff (first respondent), directing payment of insurance claims. The plaintiff’s husband had taken five insurance policies from the appellants and died in a car accident. The appellants settled claims for two policies but repudiated the remaining three, alleging non-disclosure of material facts regarding the insured’s health, specifically a prior accident in 2001 and a stomach ailment in 2006.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the insured’s death was due to a sudden accident and not attributable to any pre-existing medical condition.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – This case involves an appeal against a Trial Court’s decision to grant specific performance of a registered sale agreement. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance, asserting that the defendant had agreed to sell property for a consideration of Rs. 13,12,500/-, with Rs. 7,50,000/- paid as advance.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) – Sections 18, 28(3), 34, 37 – The Supreme Court addressed a Civil Appeal challenging the setting aside of an arbitral award. The dispute arose from construction agreements between SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation (Contractor) and GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (Owner). The Arbitral Tribunal awarded approximately INR 995 Crores to SEPCO, which a Single Judge of the High Court upheld.

However, GMRKE’s subsequent appeal to the High Court’s Division Bench under Section 37 of the 1996 Act succeeded.

Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 Section 3(a), 3(B), And 12;Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 Section 3(16); Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947; Wakf Act Section 7, 65 And 83 – The case revolves around a dispute over land ownership between the State of Tamil Nadu (revision petitioner) and a Pallivasal (mosque, 1st respondent), with the Wakf Board (2nd respondent) also involved. The Pallivasal claimed ownership based on a copper plate grant from 1712 by the then Ruler of Madurai, which was affirmed in an earlier suit (O.S. No.49/1952). The State contested this claim, arguing that the lands were notified under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, and declared as ryotwari lands during settlement proceedings.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 147(5), 149(1), and 166 – This appeal was filed by an Insurance Company against the High Court’s decision to uphold the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation to the family of a deceased motorcycle driver. The driver died in an accident caused by a speeding truck. The Insurance Company argued that its policy for the offending vehicle had been cancelled due to non-payment of premium, relieving them of liability.

The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the claimants.

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 2, 24, 372, 389, 439, 482 & Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 120(B) r/w 364, 120(B) r/w 392, 364 & 392, 302 r/w 34, 302, 201 r/w 302 – This case involves a criminal appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.2 of 2019 dated 08.10.2021. The accused were convicted under various sections of the IPC, including conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, murder, and destruction of evidence. The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence, including motive, conspiracy, last seen theory, and extra-judicial confession.

The court considered the question of whether a victim has the right to intervene in an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.

The West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 – This case concerns the applicability of a government notification extending the retirement age for certain university employees in West Bengal. The appellant, a university employee, was initially denied the benefit of this extension because his teaching experience was partly from a university outside West Bengal.

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, referencing the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976, and its 2017 amendment, ruled that the notification’s benefit applied only to those with 10 years of continuous teaching experience in a State-aided university or college within West Bengal. The court reasoned that the term “any” in the notification must be interpreted in light of the parent Act’s definition of “State-aided University.”

The Supreme Court reversed the Division Bench’s decision, holding that the notification’s intent was not to exclude employees with experience from universities outside West Bengal.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) & Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – This case originates from a suit (O.S.No.380 of 2003) filed by Rajammal seeking partition of properties against her siblings, Nagaraj and Saraswathi. The dispute concerned A, B, and C schedule properties, with Rajammal claiming a 1/3rd share. The defendants countered with settlement deeds and a Will purportedly executed by their mother, Pattiammal, favoring them. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit for A and C schedule properties, rejecting the Will and settlement deeds due to lack of proper legal proof.

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Electricity Service Connection – Government Poromboke Vacant Natham Land – Revenue Standing Orders (RSO 21) – The writ petition was filed seeking an electricity service connection for a property classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Natham” land. The appellant/Tahsildar informed that the land in question is classified as “Government Poromboke Vacant Natham”. The appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No.533 of 2024 to set aside the order dated 30.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.33767 of 2022. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the writ order impugned and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration.

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 – Sections 5 and 14; Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025 – Online gaming companies, player associations, and individual players challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gaming and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, along with the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025 (RMG Regulations), arguing they are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners contended that online real money games (RMGs) fall under Entry 31 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which pertains to communications, placing them within the exclusive legislative domain of the Union. They also argued that the RMG Regulations conflict with central laws, particularly the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT Rules, 2021.

The State countered that its power to regulate stems from Entries 6 (Public health and sanitation) and 26 (Trade and commerce within the State) of List II, asserting that online RMGs pose public health risks and that the regulations are necessary to protect citizens.