Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, concerning an accident on 14.02.2020, where the claimant sustained severe injuries, including a crush injury to her left leg, ultimately leading to amputation. The claimant sought Rs. 30,00,000 in compensation, while the appellant, the insurer of the offending vehicle, disputed the claim, alleging contributory negligence and lack of a valid driving license.

The Tribunal awarded the claimant Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case involves appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award regarding a fatal accident. Sabu James, a pillion rider, died after a collision between the motorcycle he was on and an auto. His family claimed compensation, alleging negligence by the auto driver.

The Insurance Company contested the claim, citing a delayed FIR and questioning the accident’s genuineness.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This is an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation to the petitioner, Balasubramaniyan, who sustained grievous injuries in a road accident. The insurance company contested both the liability and the quantum of compensation.

The petitioner, a science and education graduate working in Singapore, was hit by a tourist van driven rashly. The accident caused severe head injuries leading to 75% dementia, rendering him unfit for employment.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – This appeal contests the dismissal of a suit for specific performance concerning an agreement for sale of Kudivaram rights in land. The appellant (plaintiff) claimed the defendants (1 to 5) breached the agreement after receiving Rs. 40 lakhs as advance. The defendants denied the agreement’s validity, alleging it was created on blank stamp papers and disputed the payments.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 5,25,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the accused, disbelieving the complainant’s version and finding the accused’s version more probable.

University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification on Remittance and Refund of Fees and Other Student-centric Issues, December 2016 – This case involves a dispute over fee refunds for students who enrolled in Law courses at Saveetha School of Law. The students sought refunds because the institution initially lacked recognition from the Bar Council of India (BCI). The writ court initially ordered the appellant to refund the entire fee collected from the students.

The appellant argued that a refund policy, based on UGC guidelines, was outlined in the prospectus and agreed upon by the students.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 16, 101, Sections 47 and 151 – This revision petition was filed by third parties challenging the dismissal of their execution application, which they filed under Order 21 Rule 101, Sections 47 and 151 of CPC. The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of half of a land parcel (S.F.No.289/1) based on a 1978 sale deed to their predecessor, Murugasamy Gounder.

The core issue revolved around conflicting claims and alleged fraudulent manipulation of revenue records (specifically survey numbers) in prior suits. The petitioners argued that a decree obtained in O.S.No.487 of 2008 was collusive and could not be executed against their property due to their settled possession and errors in mutation.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – This order addresses two Civil Revision Petitions (CRP.No.617 of 2025 and CRP. No.618 of 2025) filed by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of their suits (O.S.Nos.577 of 2024 and O.S.No.295 of 2024) for default by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur. The suits were initially filed in the Alandur Court and later transferred due to a change in territorial jurisdiction.

The primary grievance of the petitioners is that they were not served with notice of the transfer and re-numbering of the suits.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Amendment to Order – This order pertains to a correction of a prior judgment issued on 05.08.2025, specifically addressing errors within paragraphs 12 to 16. The original order involved a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant’s counsel brought to the Court’s attention that certain figures in the assessment of compensation required rectification.

The court has now amended the figures related to disability compensation, transportation expenses, nutrition expenses, and damages to clothes, finding the initially awarded amounts to be too low.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 & Usurious Loans Act, 1918 – This appeal arises from a judgment of the Madras High Court, which upheld an arbitral award against the appellants, M/s Sri Lakshmi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, V.S. Palanivel.