Search Judgments

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.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 34, 36, 37 and 50; Order 21 Rule 22 and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – This case concerns appeals against orders of the Bombay High Court regarding the execution of an arbitral award. The appellant, son of the deceased Mr. Kantilal Dalal, sought to execute an arbitral award in his favor against the estate of his father, with the uncle of the appellant being the executor of the will. The respondents, including the uncle, challenged the execution.

Constitution of India, 1950  Articles 14, 32, 136, 141, 142, 226, 227, 323-A, 323-B, 368; The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 – Validity Challenged – The Supreme Court addressed petitions challenging the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, focusing on its impact on the independence and functioning of tribunals in India. The petitions argued that the Act, particularly Sections 3, 5, and 7, violated the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence by diluting the judiciary’s role in tribunal appointments, tenure, and service conditions.

The court examined the historical trajectory of tribunal jurisprudence in India, citing key cases like S.P. Sampath Kumar v.