Search Judgments

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 92; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 6 Rule 4 – This case involves an appeal against a trial court’s decision to decree a suit filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, seeking declarations and recovery of funds allegedly misappropriated by one of its clerks, the first defendant. The bank claimed that properties were purchased in the names of the defendants 2 to 5, including the appellant (defendant 3) and the deceased defendant 4, using the misappropriated funds. The trial court decreed the suit.

The primary contention of the appellant was that the bank failed to prove a direct link between the alleged misappropriation and the sale consideration for the properties purchased in their names.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Section 13(2) and Section 13(3A); The Constitution of India Article 227  – This petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioners’ (borrowers) Securitisation Application (SA). The SA was filed against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act due to loan default. The bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2), taken symbolic possession, and sold the secured asset via auction.

The petitioners raised several objections, including defects in the sale notice regarding the 15-day notice period, property description, valuation report validity, and non-compliance with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) – Section 4(2) and 21(2)(a) – This civil revision petition was filed by landlords challenging the Rent Tribunal’s decision, which had dismissed their application for recovery of possession from the tenant. The landlords initially sought eviction under Section 21(2)(a) and 23 of the TNRRRLT Act, arguing that there was no valid tenancy agreement as required by Section 4(2) of the Act and the tenant had sub-let the property. The Rent Court initially ruled in favor of the landlords, but the Rent Tribunal reversed this decision, sympathizing with the tenant’s willingness to enter into a fresh agreement.

The High Court considered the arguments from both sides, including the tenant’s claim that the landlords were attempting to misuse the provisions of the Act.

Constitution of India Article 227; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908 Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 – Civil Revision Petition – This petition challenges the Trial Court’s order dated 26.08.2025, which returned the plaint filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction concerning three properties.

The Trial Court initially raised objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, proper valuation and court fee payment, and the correctness of the prayer portion. While resubmitting the plaint, the petitioners provided explanations for each objection.

Civil Revision Petition – Direction for Speedy Disposal – This Civil Revision Petition was filed seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of I.A.No.324 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2013, pending before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. The suit (O.S.No.40 of 2013) pertains to partition and separate possession, where a preliminary decree was already passed on 10.11.2014. Subsequently, I.A.No.324 of 2018 was filed for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties, which was allowed on 02.03.2019.

The petitioner argued that the matter had been pending for over seven years and the Commissioner’s report was still awaited, causing hardship.