Search Judgments

Navy Act, 1957 – Section 55(B) and 60(a) – The case involves a challenge to an order by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) regarding disciplinary actions against Ex MCEAA-II Amit Dhull under the Navy Act, 1957. Dhull was found guilty by a Court Martial on two charges: signing a certificate for aircraft spare parts without ensuring accuracy (Section 55(B)) and knowingly signing a false official document (Section 60(a)). This led to his dismissal from naval service.

Dhull appealed to the AFT, which modified the punishment to discharge from service with pensionary benefits.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2A(2) and 25F – This case concerns a writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s dismissal of an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, a former bus driver, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner claimed unlawful denial of employment after working for the respondent Management since 2008.

The Labour Court dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner’s refusal of reinstatement and alleged hearing loss. The petitioner argued that the termination violated Section 25F of the Act, 1947, as he had worked for over 240 days preceding termination without due procedure.

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 57 ; Employees’ State Insurance Rugulations (1950) Rule 96(A) – This writ petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred due to a road accident. The petitioner, an employee under the ESI Scheme, sustained severe head injuries and was treated at a non-empanelled hospital. The ESI Corporation rejected the claim, citing that the treatment was in a non-empanelled hospital and the petitioner had not completed two years of employment.

The petitioner argued that the treatment was an emergency, the required facilities were unavailable at the ESI hospital, and the denial was unjustified, referencing a Supreme Court judgment (Shiva Kant Jha v.

The Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 Regulation 6(1)(l) – This writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release imported roasted areca nuts under 19 Bills of Entry and waive demurrage/detention charges, citing Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009. The petitioner’s goods were held due to suspected misclassification of raw areca nuts as roasted to avoid import restrictions and evade duty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Department relied on a Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) report.

The petitioner argued that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) report, under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, already certified the goods as roasted areca nuts, which should be final.

Constitution of India – Article 12, 19, 21 and 226 – This case involves a writ appeal filed by the management of Bharathidasan Institute of Management (BIM) challenging the order of a single judge, who quashed the termination order of an Assistant Professor (writ petitioner). The writ petitioner, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was terminated during his probation period.

The single judge ruled in favor of the writ petitioner, stating that the termination order was stigmatic, passed without adhering to principles of natural justice, and issued by an authority without jurisdiction. The management argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as BIM is not a State or State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 Section  2, 4, 4(1)(c); Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order rejecting his claim for permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The rejection was based on the premise that the respondent University is an exempted establishment under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

The court examined whether the University falls under the definition of an ‘industrial establishment’ as defined in the Act of 1981. The court referenced previous decisions, emphasizing that the exemption under Section 4 of the 1947 Act does not apply to proceedings under the 1981 Act.

The Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 13, 14, and 15 – This case concerns the denial of renewal of a gun license to the petitioner by the District Collector, Dindigul, despite the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer’s recommendation. The denial was based on the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to a motor vehicle accident. The respondent also argued that the petitioner had not exhausted the available appellate remedy.

The court examined the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, specifically Sections 13, 14, and 15, which deal with the grant and renewal of licenses.

Fundamental Rules (FR) – Rule 56(j) – This case involves a challenge to an order of compulsory retirement issued to the respondent, a Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, by the Commissionerate of GST and Central Excise under FR 56(j). The respondent challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai.

The CAT set aside the compulsory retirement order, deeming it punitive and passed in lieu of punishment, after considering the respondent’s Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) from 2006 to 2015, which rated his performance as “predominantly excellent” with no adverse reports on his integrity, and noting the pending departmental action against him. The Government appealed this decision via a Writ Petition.

Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 – Section 41(2) – This case involves a challenge to an order passed under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, concerning the dismissal of the second respondent (Respondent No. 2) from his position as a Manager at Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Respondent No. 2 was dismissed following a disciplinary inquiry where several charges were proven against him.

Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act/Rules – This order addresses two writ petitions concerning the appointment of Vocational Instructors in schools in Tamil Nadu. W.P(MD)No.487 of 2020 involves a non-minority institution seeking permission to fill two vacant positions, while W.P.(MD)No.26277 of 2019 concerns a minority institution challenging the rejection of approval for the appointment of M.Anis Pratheepa.

The core issue revolves around G.O(Ms)No.9, School Education (VE)Department, dated 6.1.2009, which the respondents interpret as a ban on new appointments of Vocational Instructors. They argue that previous approvals were person-centric and that the posts have been abolished.