Search Judgments

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.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(2)(b)(ii), 34(2A), 14(2) – This judgment addresses the validity of an arbitral award challenged due to undue delay in pronouncement and its failure to resolve the core disputes, essentially compelling the parties to further litigation. The court examined whether such an award can be set aside for perversity, patent illegality, or being against public policy.

The Arbitrator’s award, pronounced nearly four years after reserving it, declared sale deeds executed by one party (the Company) as illegal but failed to provide any equitable relief, instead directing a fresh round of arbitration/litigation.

The court analyzed previous judgments on the impact of delayed awards and highlighted that while delay isn’t a standalone ground for setting aside an award, it can contribute to the award being against public policy or patently illegal if it affects the findings.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 10, 14, and 20 – The case involves two suits: one for specific performance of a sale agreement (O.S. No. 73 of 2010) filed by the appellant (Annamalai) and another for declaration and injunction (O.S. No.

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 388 – This case involves a dispute between a developer (petitioner) constructing residential apartments and the owner of an adjacent land (5th respondent) seeking to operate a burial ground. The petitioner challenged the license granted to the 5th respondent by the Greater Chennai Corporation (1st respondent), arguing that it violated zoning regulations and statutory provisions.

The petitioner argued that the license violated the Tamil Nadu Combined Development Building Rules, 2019 (TNCDBR) regarding permissible non-residential activities in a residential zone. They also contended that Section 388 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, was violated as the application for the license was not accompanied by the prescribed fee.

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 2(36), 39, 44 and 49J – The petitioner, an importer, challenged an order rejecting their request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to clear imported conch shells Pleuroploca Trapezium (PT) from Sri Lanka under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA). The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) classified PT under Schedule II of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, leading to the initial rejection.

The petitioner argued that Section 39 of the Act applies only to actions within India and that PT falls under the “Free Import Category” according to the Foreign Trade Policy. They further contended that Section 49J necessitates permission only for articles listed in Schedule IV of the Act, not Schedule II.

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 75, 75A and 27A – The petitioner, an exporter of garments, sought drawback benefits for exports made between 1992-1994. The initial request for conversion of advance license shipping bills to drawback shipping bills, filed on 12.12.1994, faced rejection and subsequent litigation, culminating in orders from Customs Authorities and the CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) in favor of the petitioner. Despite these orders, the respondents denied interest on the delayed drawback payments, leading to the present writ petition.

The petitioner argued that interest should be calculated from the original claim date (12.12.1994), citing Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India Vs.