Search Judgments

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.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 8; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) and 1(5); Constitution of India – Article 227 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the trial Court’s order allowing the respondent/plaintiff to submit additional documents that were not initially filed with the plaint. The suit is for recovery of money based on business transactions, where the respondent claims the petitioner owes money for supplied lubricants and a Marketing Assistance Programme Agreement (MAP).

The petitioner contested the suit, alleging product returns and disputing the amount owed under the MAP agreement. The respondent sought to introduce tax invoices and a return invoice after the examination of PW1, which the trial court allowed subject to proof and relevance.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 16 Rule 1 and Order 16 II Rule 17 – This case involves a challenge to the dismissal orders on two Interlocutory Applications (I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022) filed by the defendants (Revision Petitioners) in O.S.No.115 of 2005. These applications sought to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence and recall P.W.1. The defendants also challenged the Trial Court’s order closing their side evidence.

The plaintiffs and the deceased 1st defendant were brothers and sons of late Chinnan Chettiar.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 302, 302 read with 109; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(5); Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) – Section 313(1)(b); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – The case revolves around the murder of Muthusamy, allegedly orchestrated by A1 (who had a prior relationship with A5’s sister) and carried out with the help of A2, A3, and A4. The prosecution’s case is based on the testimony of an eyewitness (PW12), circumstantial evidence, and the recovery of weapons.

The trial court acquitted A1 of the conspiracy charge but convicted him of murder (Section 302 IPC). A2 was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC), while A3 and A4 were convicted of murder with abetment (Section 302 read with 109 IPC).

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 302, 380, and 201 – This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli, against the appellant for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 380 (theft), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution’s case revolves around the appellant allegedly murdering the deceased, Santhi, due to a financial dispute and stealing her jewels. The prosecution presented evidence of motive, last seen theory, and the recovery of stolen jewels from a pawn broker. The appellant was seen with the deceased shortly before her disappearance, and the deceased’s body was found buried behind the appellant’s house.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Section 26E, Section 13, Section 35, Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF&MP Act)- Section 11(2) and Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP). – The case involves a dispute between a secured creditor (Co-operative Bank) and the dues of workmen and provident fund regarding a defunct sugar factory owned by a Co-operative Society. The bank sought to recover its dues by proceeding against the mortgaged properties, arguing that its claim had priority under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act due to registration with the Central Registry. The workmen claimed unpaid wages and Provident Fund dues, asserting that the provident fund had a first charge.