Search Judgments

Transfer of Property Act 1882 Section 129 – Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 – This case revolves around a partition suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking a ¾ share in the property of her deceased brother, Malang Aslam Basha, based on Shariat law. The defendant, Malang Aslam Basha’s second wife, contested the claim, asserting that her husband made an oral gift (Hiba) of the property to her before his death. The trial court initially granted the plaintiff a preliminary decree for a ¾ share in the residential property while dismissing the claim over the printing press and bank deposits.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to properly consider the validity of the oral gift under Shariat law.

Employees’ Compensation Act (Formerly Workmen’s Compensation Act) Section 14-A, This writ petition challenges a letter issued by the first respondent, seeking to relieve the petitioner company from a compensation claim related to an incident that occurred on December 7, 2003, at M/s.Carrit Maron Company Private Limited (fifth respondent). A laborer, Sangeetha, died in a fire accident on the premises. Her mother, Parvathi (sixth respondent), filed a petition seeking compensation, and the Labour Commissioner ordered the company to pay Rs.4,52,760 with 12% interest. The company failed to comply.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 122 & Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 14 – This case revolves around the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a husband and wife as evidence in divorce proceedings. The husband sought to introduce these recordings, stored on memory cards and CDs, as supplementary evidence to prove cruelty by the wife. The Family Court allowed it, but the High Court reversed, citing the wife’s right to privacy.

The Supreme Court considered Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects marital communications, but also provides an exception for suits between married persons.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal was filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.384 of 2018. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 5,13,761/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

The claimant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate considering the head injury and multiple injuries suffered.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 157 & Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC  – This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the dismissal of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The petitioner sought to be removed as a party in Motor Accident Claim Original Petition (MCOP) proceedings, arguing that they had sold the vehicle involved in the accident before it occurred.

The Insurance Company contended that the petitioner remained a necessary party because the insurance policy was still in their name. The trial court agreed with the Insurance Company.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) – Section 3, Section 2(q), Section 2(zf) – The Petitioner Association, representing apartment owners in M/s. Serene Adinath Retirement Community, filed a revision petition challenging the return of their complaint due to lack of jurisdiction. The association claimed that the respondents, the developers, failed to fulfill their commitments, leaving the project incomplete and necessitating the application of the RERA Act. The petitioner argued that the project was ongoing, requiring registration under RERA.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 118 & Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20 – The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on dishonored cheques, claiming the defendant borrowed money and issued the cheques which bounced due to insufficient funds. The defendant denied the transaction, the signatures on the cheques, and the plaintiff’s financial capacity to lend such a large sum. The trial court dismissed the suit, doubting the plaintiff’s financial capacity and questioning the jurisdiction of the Erode court.

The High Court, in appeal, framed the issue based on the burden of proof related to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after considering the evidence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(i) – Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 319 – This appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents/accused (A1 to A4) by the Judicial Magistrate in C.C. No. 116 of 2011. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the complainant and damaged crops due to prior enmity, leading to charges under Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(i) of the IPC.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 168 – This Criminal Original Petition was filed seeking to quash the Final Report in C.C.No.8045 of 2017, pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case based on source information alleging bribery against an Enforcement Officer and a restaurant owner. During the investigation, it was found that the petitioner, Balasundram, an employee of Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. (a Government of India undertaking), was working as a consultant for various firms, including the restaurant owned by second accused, which is a violation of his Conduct Rules which prohibit engaging in profit-making activities, leading to charges under Section 168 IPC.