Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA, 2015) – Section 13(1A) and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 and Section 2(2) – This appeal challenges the Bombay High Court’s decision dismissing the appellant’s appeal as non-maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant-company had filed a commercial suit for recovery, which was rejected by the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC due to non-compliance with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) under Section 12A of the CCA, 2015.

The High Court held that an order rejecting a plaint is not appealable under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, as it doesn’t fall under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined whether an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 504, and 304 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case was that the appellant stabbed the deceased, Louis Williams, after an altercation. The deceased was admitted to the hospital and died thirteen days later due to septicemia. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 504 of the IPC, a decision upheld by the High Court.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 53 & 53A; Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417 & 420; Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act – Section 4(1) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that directed the appellant to undergo DNA testing based on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1, alleging offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The respondent claimed that the appellant had physical relations with her while she was married, resulting in the birth of a child. The primary issue was whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing to determine the child’s paternity.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal sought an enhancement of compensation awarded for a motor accident injury. The appellant, a minor at the time of the accident, sustained a 77.1% permanent disability due to injuries from a collision between an auto-rickshaw and a lorry in 2002. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 1,73,000 with 7% interest, which the High Court enhanced to Rs.

Appointment Rights For Reserved Catagory –  This case involves a dispute over the appointment of the respondent, who was placed in the Reserved Panel (waitlist) for the post of Technician at All India Radio in 1997 under the Scheduled Castes (SC) category. The appellants, Union of India and All India Radio, challenged the Calcutta High Court’s direction to absorb the respondent, arguing that it violates Recruitment Rules and extends the rights of a candidate on a waitlist beyond its validity.

The respondent’s initial plea before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was partly based on an assurance made by the appellants in 1999 that his case would be considered for future SC vacancies. While the CAT initially directed the appellants to consider the respondent, subsequent actions and orders led to further litigation.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2A(2) – This writ petition was filed by a Co-operative Society challenging the Labour Court’s order in I.D. No. 75 of 2018. The respondent, a former lorry cleaner, was retrenched due to the sale of the lorry and later re-employed as a Gin fitter.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2A(2) – This writ petition was filed by a workman challenging the Labour Court’s award in I.D.No.110 of 2015, specifically the rejection of his request for back wages following an order of reinstatement.

The workman was dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry deemed unfair by the Labour Court. Although the Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement, the request for back wages was denied because the workman didn’t seek re-employment or inform management to get back to work.

The workman argued that approaching the Management after dismissal was not required.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – This case involves a writ appeal filed by a Co-operative Society, challenging a writ court’s order that directed them to pay 25% back wages to a former salt worker. The worker had been dismissed in 1997, and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement without back wages in 2011. The worker then filed a writ petition seeking back wages, which the writ court partially granted.

The Co-operative Society argued that the worker never pleaded or provided evidence that he was unemployed during the dismissal period.

Acts Mentioned:

Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g), Article 21
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 441, 447, 503, 506, 341, 383
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Act
Puducherry Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 2017

The judgment addresses a recurring issue in Tamil Nadu where self-proclaimed loadmen, affiliated with certain trade unions, unlawfully interfere with loading and unloading activities, demanding excessive wages and insisting on exclusive engagement. Several writ petitions were filed by traders, associations, and a company seeking police protection from this interference, while a workers’ union filed a petition seeking to prevent state authorities from intervening in wage disputes.

The court found that these actions often constitute criminal offenses such as trespass, intimidation, extortion, and assault, violating the fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court referenced previous judgments and highlighted the need to protect businesses’ contractual freedom to choose their workers.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 9 and Order 21 Rule 31 – This case involves a dispute between two sects of the Kuruba community in Andhra Pradesh concerning religious rituals and custody of idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy. The dispute originated in 1927 and was addressed through a compromise decree in 1933. This decree outlined the responsibilities and rights of each group regarding the deity.

Decades later, a disagreement arose, leading the Kapadam sect (appellants) to file an execution petition in 2000, alleging that the Kamatam sect (respondents) had violated the 1933 decree.