Search Judgments

(Motor Accident Claims - Enhancement of Compensation for Deceased Child)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173, by the claimants (parents) seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of their minor daughter, Aashni, in a motor accident. The deceased child was fatally struck by a Tamil State Transport Corporation bus on March 30, 2012, due to the driver's rash and negligent driving. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,36,000, attributing 20% contributory negligence to the mother for lack of supervision and fixing a notional annual income of Rs. 30,000.

(Motor Accident Compensation - Insurer's Liability for Dishonoured Premium Cheque)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 146, 147(5), 149(1) - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB - IRDA (Manner of Receipt of Premium) Regulations, 2002 - This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award in a fatal accident case where the deceased was hit by a Tipper Lorry. The appellant insurer contended that the policy was void ab initio due to a dishonoured premium cheque issued by the lorry owner (fifth respondent). The appellant claimed to have sent intimation of cancellation to the insured and RTO before the accident, relying on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act for deemed service.

However, the appellant failed to produce acknowledgment cards as proof of actual delivery of the cancellation notice.

(Maintainability of Application for Clarification/Correction of Court Order)

Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India; Order XII, Rules 1 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules; Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1971 - This miscellaneous application sought to declare an order dictated in open court as final and binding, while asserting that a subsequent signed and uploaded order had no legal force, citing material variances (e.g., status quo directions, disposal of the High Court writ petition).

The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding it non-maintainable. It reiterated that post-disposal applications are generally limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, or addressing executory orders rendered impossible to implement by subsequent events, as per its previous judgments and Circular F. No.

(Interim Stay on Filing Charge Sheet in Fraud and Forgery Case)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) of Section 193(3) and the scope of a High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in ongoing criminal investigations. The appeal challenged an interim order of the Allahabad High Court that allowed investigation to proceed but restrained the Investigating Officer from filing a police report (charge sheet) under Section 193(3) BNSS. This order was passed in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2025, which alleged fraud, forgery, and illegal sale of properties belonging to the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India by unauthorized individuals, a recurring issue with multiple civil and criminal cases pending.

(Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Scope of Authority and 'Ongoing Project' Determination)

This judgment primarily addresses the scope and powers of authorities under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), specifically Sections 3, 2(zk), 35, 36, 37, 38(2), 53(1), 88, 89, and relevant Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (Rule 2(h)(i), 2(h)(ii), 2(h)(iii)). It also touches upon the Code of Civil Procedure (Order XLI Rule 27) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The case originated from a homebuyer's (PIP) complaint against M/s IVR Hotels and Resorts Limited (IVR) for sub-standard construction and incomplete amenities. Initially, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) dismissed the complaint, deeming the project completed before RERA.

(Impleadment of Pendente Lite Purchasers in an Injunction Suit)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Section 151, Order I Rule 10(2), Order 22 Rule 10 - This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order allowing the impleadment of subsequent purchasers as co-plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction. The original plaintiffs (respondents 1-3) had filed a suit restraining interference with property possession. During its pendency, they sold the property, which was subsequently purchased by respondents 4 & 5. An application was filed by respondents 1-5 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead respondents 4 & 5 as co-plaintiffs.

(Interim Injunction against Bank Guarantee Encashment)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 9, 21 - The applicant, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the respondent for design and construction work, providing two bank guarantees (BGs) as performance security. The contract included an arbitration clause for dispute resolution. The respondent invoked both BGs for an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,33,66,425/-, prompting the applicant to seek an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Act to prevent encashment.

(Trademark Rectification and Non-Use)

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act) Sections 47, 57, and 55 - The petitioner sought removal of the first respondent's registered trademark (a pictorial representation of Lord Ayyappa for rice products) from the register on three primary grounds:

1. A discrepancy in the user date between the application (14.01.1999) and the advertisement (13.07.1992), alleged to be a contravention under Section 57(1).

2. Significant differences between the registered mark and the mark as actually used, indicating non-use under Section 47 of the TM Act.

(Condonation of Delay under Special Enactment)

This judgment concerns the maintainability of a Special Tribunal Appeal, filed beyond statutory limitation, under the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 Section 41(1) of the Act sets a three-month appeal period, allowing a further discretionary extension of up to three months. Rule 25 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974, mandates dismissal of appeals filed after this period.

The appellant argued for the High Court's inherent power to condone delay, citing *Mukri Gopalan*. The respondent contended the Act's specific limitation and explicit cap on extensions preclude such power, effectively excluding the Limitation Act.

(Jurisdiction for Extension of Arbitral Mandate)

The case concerns the appropriate forum for an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate. Relevant provisions included Sections 2(1)(e), 11, and 42 of the A&C Act, and Practice Direction 7.1 of the Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020.

The applicant, having faced jurisdictional objections from the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, approached the High Court. The High Court considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v.