Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – This case involves an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the applicant seeking an injunction against the respondents from interfering with her XRP coins held in the WazirX platform. The applicant invested in XRP coins through WazirX, a crypto currency exchange platform operated by the first respondent, and subsequently, her account was frozen following a cyber attack on WazirX’s wallets. The applicant contends that WazirX holds the XRP coins in trust on her behalf.

The first respondent argued that the seat of arbitration is in Singapore and that the Indian court lacks jurisdiction.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – This case involves a dispute over the partition of property originally belonging to Ranganayaki, who passed away intestate in 2006. Her daughter, Rajalakshmi, filed a suit for partition, claiming that the property devolved equally among Ranganayaki’s four children (including herself). Another daughter, Amsaveni, contested this, asserting ownership based on a will allegedly executed by Ranganayaki in her favor. Amsaveni claimed to have purchased the suit property in the name of her mother Ranganayaki as per the advice of astrologer, using her husband’s retirement benefits.

Chit Funds Act, 1982 – Section 71 and Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 48A – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed in E.P.No.4166 of 2022, which arose from A.R.C.No.24 of 2018, regarding the execution of an arbitral award. The respondent obtained an award against the petitioner and others, and subsequently filed an execution petition to attach the petitioner’s salary. The petitioner argued that the execution petition was time-barred under Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, which prescribes a 3-year limitation period from the date of the award.

The petitioner also contended that he is merely a guarantor, and the decree holder should first proceed against the principal debtor, whose properties were already attached.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XX, Rule 4; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – This revision petition was filed by the first defendant in O.S. No.294 of 2017, challenging the dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2021, which sought condonation of a 655-day delay in filing the application to set aside an ex parte decree. The defendant argued that the decree was a nullity due to non-compliance with Order XX, Rule 4 of the CPC and that the plaintiff relied only on photocopies of documents.

Constitution of India – Article 17 – This case involves a Writ Petition filed seeking a Mandamus to allow the petitioner and his community (Dalits) to enter the Muthu Kolakki Amman Temple in Puthagaram Village, participate in worship and rituals, and permit the Temple Car to extend its route to the Dalit Colony during the Car Festival. The petitioner alleged resistance from upper-caste Hindus, despite the Temple being under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

The District Collector’s report, following a court order, suggested that the extended route to the Dalit colony was feasible with minor repairs. The respondents contended that the existing route has been in practice for decades and also denied any discrimination.

The Arms Act, 1959 Section 13(2); The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 197 – The appellant, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), challenged a Patna High Court judgment that refused to quash an order taking cognizance against him. The case originated from a 2005 FIR alleging irregularities in the issuance of arms licenses during his tenure as District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority in Saharsa, Bihar. The appellant was accused of violating Section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution argued that the appellant issued licenses without proper verification, even to individuals who were physically unfit or fictitious.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) and 11(12)(a) – This judgment addresses an Arbitration Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) and subsequent contracts. The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, sought to include Fludor Benin S.A. (Respondent No. 1), M/s Vink Corporations DMCC (Respondent No.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96, Order 22 Rule 6 – This case concerns the execution of a decree initially passed by the trial court in favor of the appellant’s predecessors, which was later modified by the first appellate court. The appellant sought to execute the original trial court decree, arguing that the first appellate court’s judgment was a nullity because defendant Nos. 4 and 5, who had filed the appeal, had died before the appeal was heard. The executing court dismissed the execution application, a decision upheld by the High Court.