Search Judgments

Trust Property – This case involves a dispute over the auction of 51.87 acres of land in Chennai belonging to the trust estate of Mr. C. Kandasamy Naidu, which is administered by the Administrative General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu (AG&OT). Multiple Original Side Appeals (OSAs) were filed, challenging different aspects of the auction process.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 – This judgment addresses appeals against interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court, which stayed orders passed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) in two disciplinary cases.

Case 1: SLP (Civil) No (s). 27606 of 2023

The BCMG appealed against the High Court’s stay of its order referring a complaint against Advocate Rajiv Narula to the Disciplinary Committee (DC). The complaint alleged professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, related to a consent decree obtained in a suit where the respondent-advocate had identified the plaintiff.

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) – Section 19 & Income Tax Act, 1961- Rule 53 – This case involves a dispute over the auction of a leasehold plot by Corporation Bank (the Bank) to recover dues from Sarita Vihar Club (the Club), which had defaulted on its loan. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) challenged the auction, arguing that the mortgage was created without its prior written consent, violating the lease deed terms and that the e-auction was done without properly disclosing the encumbrances

The Recovery Officer rejected DDA’s objections, leading to an e-auction where M/s Jay Bharat Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (the Auction Purchaser) was the highest bidder.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) and Section 7 – This case concerns an appeal against the High Court’s decision to dismiss an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant, a healthcare institution, and the respondent, a technology company, entered into a Software Implementation Agreement containing Clause 8.28, which outlined a dispute resolution process involving negotiation, mediation, and “arbitration” between senior management.

The High Court found that Clause 8.28 was not a valid arbitration agreement, as the term “arbitration” was loosely used and the clause lacked the essential elements of a binding arbitration process, such as a neutral adjudicator and a final, binding decision. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether Clause 8.28 constituted a valid arbitration agreement under the A&C Act.

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 69 – This judgment addresses the constitutional right to own and freely dispose of immovable property and the dichotomy between registration and ownership under Indian property laws. The case involves a challenge to sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, which empowered registering authorities to refuse registration of property documents if proof of mutation in favor of the vendor was not produced.

The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions challenging these rules. The appellants argued that the rules were ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the mutation process was uncertain and unavailable.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960 – Section 11(4) – This case involves a revision petition filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery of vacant possession, arrears of rent, and damages. The defendant’s application to cross-examine the plaintiff was rejected by the Sub Court, Alandur. The rejection stemmed from a prior order where the defendant’s defense was struck off due to non-compliance with a conditional order to deposit arrears of rent, as per Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960.

The petitioner argued that even with the defense struck off, the right to cross-examine the plaintiff on the plaint averments should not be denied, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Modula India vs.

Civil Revision Petition – Striking off Plaint – The Constitution of India Article 227 –  This case involves a revision petition filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.309 of 2022, pending before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur. The petitioner argued that the suit is an abuse of process, primarily because it seeks to declare a decree passed by the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, as null and void. The petitioner contended that the Sub Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a challenge, and the proper remedy was to file an appeal against the District Court’s decree. They argued that once the declaration regarding the decree is unavailable, all consequential reliefs sought in the plaint would also fail.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 62; Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 61; Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 & 68 – This case revolves around a suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs, claiming a share in property originally belonging to their ancestor, Subbia Gounder. The defendants, legal heirs of Kandasamy, contested the claim, asserting that Subbia Gounder had mortgaged the property in 1927 to Peria Gounder, their predecessor, and failed to redeem it, thus losing his right. The plaintiffs argued the mortgage was redeemed, but failed to provide evidence. They later argued their right to redeem still existed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 – This appeal was filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.3891 of 2013, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (lessors) for a claim of unpaid rent, stamp duty and registration charges related to a lease agreement.

The plaintiffs claimed that despite entering into a registered lease agreement with the defendants (Food Corporation of India) for a godown, the defendants failed to occupy the premises or pay rent. The defendants contended that the lease was contingent upon the actual storage of food grains, which never occurred, and they had terminated the agreement.

The court framed three points for consideration
(i) Whether Ex-A.13 – Lease Agreement commences on March 15, 2010 as contended by the plaintiffs, or from the date of first deposit of food grains as contended by the defendants ?

Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 – Section 13-A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 24(1)(a) – This appeal was filed to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruppur in O.S.No.752 of 2010.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, citing Section 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873. According to this provision, appeals from decrees and orders of Subordinate Judges passed after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2003, lie to the District Court.

The appellant then requested the court to exercise its power under Section 24(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the appeal to the appropriate court, namely the Principal District Court, Tiruppur.