Search Judgments

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.

The constitution of India Article 21, Article 22(1), and Article 39A – These criminal original petitions address allegations of misconduct by members of the Nagercoil Bar Association and connected bar associations, including the denial of legal representation to certain accused individuals and involvement in criminal acts. The court notes a disturbing pattern of such allegations, highlighting a potential issue of professional indiscipline.

The court emphasizes the constitutional guarantees under Article 21, Article 22(1), and Article 39A, ensuring the right to a fair trial, legal representation of one’s choice, and free legal aid. It cites the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules, which impose a duty on advocates to accept briefs and uphold professional conduct.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves an appeal against a judgment acquitting the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs, which was dishonored. The complainant claimed the money was initially given to the accused to secure a job in TNSTC.

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 14 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, which partly dismissed the wife’s application (I.A.No.3 of 2025) to admit certain documents as evidence in a divorce petition (O.P.No.4908 of 2024) filed by her husband. The documents in question include photographs with a pen-drive, message communications between the parties, and e-mail exchanges. The Family Court had rejected some of the photographs, the pen drive and initial e-mail sheets.

The wife argued that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act grants the Court broad powers to receive any documents that may assist in resolving the dispute, regardless of their immediate relevance under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 131 & Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 148-152 This case involves a dispute over a lost cheque that was fraudulently encashed. The plaintiff, a wind-power electricity generator, issued a cheque to the 1st defendant (TANGEDCO) which was lost in transit while being delivered by the 2nd defendant (courier service). The cheque was then fraudulently encashed by an unknown person through the 4th defendant (collecting bank), with an altered payee name. The trial court decreed the suit against the 4th defendant but dismissed it against the other defendants.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 118 & Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 214 – This case involves an appeal against a decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 26,25,280/- based on a promissory note. The defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and claimed it was a forgery. The plaintiff died during the suit, and his legal heirs were impleaded.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 9, Section 141, Order XII Rule 6 – This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2018 in OS No.164/2013, where the respondent (plaintiff) sought partition and separate possession of a share in the suit property, co-owned with the appellant’s husband. The appellant admitted co-ownership but claimed compensation had been paid, negating the partition claim.

The respondent initially filed IA No.199/2015 under Order 12 Rule 6 for a preliminary decree, which was dismissed for default. Instead of restoring the petition, the respondent filed IA No.120/2018 under Order 12 Rule 6 after the appellant’s witness (D.W.1) was examined.