Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 2(1)(c)(i) and 12A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 6, Rule 15A; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 118 and 139 – The respondent filed two suits before the Commercial Court, Salem, seeking recovery of amounts due on loans advanced to the appellants. The appellants failed to file a statement of truth along with their written statements as required by Order VI, Rule 15A of the CPC, as applicable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Consequently, the trial court refused to consider the written statements.

The trial court held that it had territorial jurisdiction and that the suits were not barred by limitation.

• 1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA):
  • Section 34(3): Prescribes a 3-month period to set aside an award, with a proviso for a “further period of thirty days, but not thereafter” if sufficient cause is shown. This “not thereafter” clause is crucial.
  • Section 43(1): Explicitly states that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to arbitrations as it applies to court proceedings.
• 2.Limitation Act, 1963:
  • Section 4: “Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.” Allows filing on the reopening day if the “prescribed period” expires on a holiday.
  • Section 2(j): Defines “prescribed period” as the period of limitation computed under the Act.
  • Section 29(2): Applies Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws (like ACA) that prescribe different limitation periods, unless expressly excluded.
  • General Clauses Act, 1897 (GCA):
  • Section 10: Allows an act to be done on the next working day if the “certain day” or “last day of the prescribed period” falls on a court holiday.
  • Proviso to Section 10: Crucially, states that Section 10 “shall not apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act… applies.”
• 3.Court’s General Stance on Applicability of Limitation Act to ACA (paras 8-22):
  • No Wholesale Exclusion: The Court emphatically states that there is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act from Section 34(3) of the ACA. Section 43(1) of the ACA confirms the general applicability of the Limitation Act.
  • “Express Exclusion” Interpretation: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act requires “express exclusion.” This isn’t limited to explicit words but can be inferred from the “nature and language of the provisions, and the scheme of the special law.”
  • Case-by-Case Analysis of Limitation Act Sections:
  • Section 5 (Condonation beyond prescribed period): Excluded by the “but not thereafter” clause in Section 34(3) (reiterating Popular Construction).

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 122 – This appeal concerned a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over property claimed by the plaintiffs (nephews) based on their paternal grandfather’s 1948 “WILL,” alleging it was self-acquired. The defendants (uncles) argued it was joint family property and the “WILL” was a family arrangement.

The Court affirmed that the property was indeed joint family property. Under pre-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Mitakshara law, a Karta could not bequeath coparcenary property by will (M.N.Aryamurthy v.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 18, 19 – The Second Appeal challenged the First Appellate Court’s reversal of a trial court judgment that dismissed a money recovery suit. The plaintiff (respondent) sued the defendant (appellant) for loans from 2002. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s 2006 petition (PCEIOP) acknowledged the debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period. The defendant contended the suit was time-barred, as the PCEIOP petition disputed liability, alleging repayment through exorbitant interest, and sought document return, not acknowledgment.

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) – Sections 11(1), 12, 31(2), 41, 52. Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 12A – The petitioner, a trust engaged in teaching Vedanta, Sanskrit, Hatha Yoga, and manuscript preservation, sought registration under the FCRA. After significant delay and query exchanges, including compounding a prior technical violation of receiving foreign funds without permission, their application was rejected.

The rejection was based on two grounds: the prior receipt of foreign funds and alleged transfer to another organization, and the nature of the organization appearing to be religious.

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator (Non-Signatory)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(4), 16, 21 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 - The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a High Court order that allowed an application under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed an arbitrator. The appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), had awarded a tender to AGC Networks Ltd. (AGC).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 379, 387, 506(ii), 406, 420 – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 24 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – This Criminal Original Petition challenged an FIR lodged against petitioners for alleged theft, extortion, criminal breach of trust, and cheating, arising from a property dispute within a large joint family. The defacto complainant alleged misappropriation of over Rs. 15 crores intended for property purchases, theft of 1000 sovereigns of jewels, and forcible removal of property documents at gunpoint.

The Court observed that the core allegations primarily concerned a civil dispute over property partition and benami transactions, falling outside police jurisdiction.

Specific Relief Act, 1963; The Indian Evidence Act Section 65B – Appeal against a decree for specific performance.

Facts: The defendants, owners of a property, entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff. A dispute arose, with the defendants claiming the plaintiff cancelled the agreement via WhatsApp and was unwilling to perform his part, citing demonetization as a reason for delay. The plaintiff denied cancelling the agreement and claimed readiness to perform.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 63, 68, 69 & Indian Succession Act, 1925 – This appeal challenges the trial court’s decision in a partition suit. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of legal heirship and partition of properties (A & B), claiming equal shares for themselves and the defendants as legal representatives of their parents. The second defendant contested, asserting the second plaintiff wasn’t the first plaintiff’s daughter and presenting a Will (Ex. B1) bequeathing the B schedule property to him.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 (Rescission of contract for sale of immovable property after decree for specific performance): The court passing a decree for specific performance retains control over the decree and has the power to extend the time for payment of the purchase money, even if a period was stipulated in the original decree. This power is discretionary and is exercised considering all attendant circumstances, including the parties’ conduct. The suit for specific performance does not extinguish with the decree, as it is in the nature of a preliminary decree, and the suit is deemed pending.

Doctrine of Merger: When an appellate court, including a High Court in a second appeal, passes a judgment or order, the decree of the lower court (e.g., trial court) merges with that of the appellate court.