Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor, dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2016. The Revision Petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.80 of 2016, sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer declaring a release deed dated 05.04.2011 as not binding.

The trial court rejected the application, stating that the petitioner was aware of the release deed since it was marked as evidence (Ex-A8) during the cross-examination of PW-1, and that the application was filed with inordinate delay, thus barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Rajkumar Gurawara vs S.K.Sarwagi and Company (P) Limited regarding the conditions under which amendment applications can be rejected.

(Ancestral Property Partition and Limitation)

The Limitation Act, 1963 (Articles 109 & 110); The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Sections 6 & 8); The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937; The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 3) - This judgment addresses two appeals against a common trial court decision. The plaintiff (son) sought partition of ancestral property, challenging a 2002 settlement deed by his father (Kullan) to his sister (first defendant) and subsequent sale deeds. The defendants contended the properties were self-acquired by the father, and the suit was time-barred.

Property Character: The High Court held that Kullan acquired the properties under a 1977 partition deed, after his father Ponnusamy's death (prior to Hindu Succession Act).

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7, 62; Contract Act, 1872 – Section 62 – The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. (Debenture Trustee) against the refusal to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Ecstasy Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor).

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 (PwD Act, 1995) – Sections 32 & 33 – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 (Rules) – Rule 10 – A petitioner with locomotive disability challenged a 2013 Notification for District Judge (Entry Level) appointments, alleging it failed to provide the statutory 3% reservation for Persons with Disability (PwD). This followed a 2011 judgment, involving the same petitioner, where a similar challenge was dismissed, but the Court had explicitly directed the Registrar General to ensure PwD reservation in the “immediate next vacancy.”

The respondents argued that the Rules, Rule 10 at the time only identified Civil Judge posts for PwD reservation, and that reservation under the PwD Act, 1995, was dependent on specific post identification. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, reiterated that reservation for PwD is not contingent on prior identification of posts under PwD Act, 1995, Section 32, and non-identification cannot be a tool to deny statutory rights. The omission in the 2013 selection was deemed a contravention of the 2011 Court direction.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) – Sections 5, 34, 37 – The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited against Tuticorin Port Trust concerning an arbitral award. The Appellant completed a dredging project for the Respondent. A dispute arose over the final bill, specifically Claim No. 7 for ‘idle time’ charges of a Backhoe Dredger (BHD).

Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section 28(2) – This case concerns a challenge to a final notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, regarding encroachment on highway land. The petitioner had previously filed three writ petitions challenging earlier notices related to the same encroachment. The Highways Department sought to remove encroachments to construct a storm water drain, which was delayed due to the petitioner’s legal challenges on S.No.306.

Initially, a notice was issued on 06.11.2023, followed by subsequent legal proceedings and court orders directing the authorities to conduct inquiries and provide opportunities for the petitioner to present his case, claiming ownership of the adjacent property in S.No.307/5A.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 48 & Section 52 and Contract Act, 1872 – Section 171 – This case involves two Original Side Appeals (O.S.A.No.31 of 2025 and O.S.A.No.97 of 2025) challenging the order that allowed the sale of mortgaged properties by public auction to recover dues owed to The Madras Purasawalkam Hindu Janapokara Saswatha Nidhi (Nidhi). The appellants are Shantha Rajabather, the vendor claiming ownership through a settlement deed from her husband (who originally mortgaged the property), and Mrs. K. Vijaya Sree, the purchaser of a portion of the property from Shantha Rajabather.

Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 – Clauses 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 of the Revised Policy Guidelines of 2014 – The petitioner, a divorced daughter of deceased freedom fighters, sought the transfer of her mother’s “Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension” to her, citing her financial dependency and acute ill health. The State of Tamil Nadu had already granted her a dependent pension after acknowledging her medical condition and reliance on her parents.

The Union of India opposed the request, arguing that under its 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines, divorced daughters are not eligible for the Samman Pension, which mandates beneficiaries to be unmarried and without independent income.

The Court established the petitioner’s impoverished circumstances.

(Termination of Teachers - Eligibility and Natural Justice)

The Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, specifically Rule 4 (Eligibility Criteria) and Rule 21 (Merit List Preparation). It also addresses principles of natural justice. The appellants, Intermediate Trained Teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, were terminated from service. The grounds for termination were that they allegedly did not meet the minimum 40% marks in their intermediate examination and questions regarding their graduation certificates from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar.

The Supreme Court noted that the validity of the graduation degrees from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar (awarded before Feb 26, 2015), was subsequently confirmed by the State Government.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – This case concerns civil appeals against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s decisions dated 10.04.2024 and 19.12.2023, which dismissed the Appellant’s application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator, citing it as time-barred.

The Appellant, Offshore Infrastructures Limited, sought arbitration due to disputes arising from a contract with the Respondent, Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (now Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited). The High Court determined that the limitation period began with the issuance of a ‘No Claim Certificate’ on 03.10.2018, making the application filed on 14.03.2022 beyond the three-year limit.

The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: the court’s power to appoint an arbitrator when the designated mechanism is legally flawed due to statutory amendments, and whether the application was within the limitation period.