Search Judgments

Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982 – Rule 32 and 36, Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974 – Rule 98 and 102 – The case revolves around whether an employee, after receiving leave encashment upon superannuation, is entitled to a second leave encashment for the re-employment period. The State of Sikkim challenged the High Court’s decision, which favored the employee’s claim for a second leave encashment.

The employee retired at 58 years, received leave encashment, and was re-employed. Subsequently, another leave encashment for the re-employment period was sanctioned but later cancelled by the State, based on a clarification that the 300-day leave encashment limit includes leave earned during re-employment.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 25(3); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 64 – This case involves an appeal against a money decree issued by the trial court in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, who sought to recover Rs. 13,23,333 from the appellant/defendant, based on a dishonored cheque. The plaintiff’s case is that the cheque was issued by the defendant as a refund of an advance payment for a failed property sale agreement, along with interest. The defendant contested the suit, claiming the cheque was given to a finance company where the plaintiff was a director.

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Section 3(2) and Article 226 of the Constitution of India – The case involves a challenge to a notice issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, seeking to acquire land belonging to the petitioner, United India Insurance Company Limited, for the construction of a Metro Station. The petitioner argues that the CMRL had already decided to acquire the land based on an undertaking given in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without making the petitioner a party, rendering the notice a mere formality.

The petitioner also contends that it had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from CMRL before constructing its building, which is an iconic structure, leading to a legitimate expectation that its land would not be acquired. The CMRL, however, argues that the acquisition is necessary for a crucial project connecting different phases of the Metro and that the petitioner was given an opportunity to raise objections.

The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Order 6 Rule 17 – This civil revision petition challenges the order of the Principal Commercial Court at Egmore in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in COS No.221 of 2023, dated 08.11.2024, concerning a suit for damages initially filed as a permanent injunction against releasing a Telugu film. The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.57,00,000/- due to a delay in the release of the Tamil film. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to change the relief from injunction to direct payment of the claimed damages with interest.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing it was time-barred and lacked due diligence as the Telugu film had already been released.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 69 – Power of Sale without Court Intervention – Mortgagor’s Remedies – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 2(12) – Mesne Profits. A mortgagee can sell the mortgaged property without court intervention under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act if the mortgage deed expressly grants this power and the property is located in a specified area like Chennai. Section 69(3) protects the title of a purchaser in a sale made by the mortgagee from being challenged on grounds of irregular procedure or improper notice, limiting the mortgagor’s remedy to a claim for damages against the mortgagee. The mesne profits are calculated based on what the person in wrongful possession (the defendants) could have reasonably earned from the property with ordinary diligence, not on what the plaintiff has lost. The court can draw an adverse inference against a party who files a proof affidavit but fails to appear for cross-examination despite being given multiple opportunities.

(Survivability of Consumer Complaints for Medical Negligence Against Deceased Doctor's Legal Heirs)

The Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 13(7) - The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 38(12) - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXII, Rules 2, 4, and 11 - The Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 306 - Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855 - The appeals challenged orders of the NCDRC allowing substitution of a deceased doctor's legal heirs in a medical negligence case. The original complaint alleged deficiency in service by Dr. P.B. Lall, leading to loss of vision for the complainant's wife after eye surgery in 1990.

(Revocation of Probate for Will Obtained by Concealment and Non-Citation of Interested Parties)

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 263, 276, 283, 294), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68), and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 3) - The appellants challenged a High Court order that restored a probate of an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976, which the District Court had initially revoked. The Will was propounded by Respondent 1, daughter of the testator, Eswaramurthy Gounder, 26 years after his death, claiming the suit properties.

Crucially, the testator had sold the properties in 1976, shortly after the alleged Will, and the appellants acquired them from these transferees in 1997, before the probate petition in 2009. Respondent 1 failed to implead her two brothers/their legal heirs and the appellants as parties in the probate proceedings and concealed the prior sale of the properties by the testator.

(Interpretation of 'Can' in an Arbitration Clause)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), specifically Sections 7 and 11, addresses whether the word 'can' in an arbitration clause signifies a mandatory or optional dispute resolution mechanism. The case involved a financial loss suffered by the appellant (manufacturer) due to the respondent (transporter) delivering goods without the original bill of lading. Clause 25 of their agreement stated: "Any difference... can be settled by arbitration..."

The appellant's request for arbitrator appointment was dismissed by the High Court, which held that 'can' did not impose compulsory arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed that arbitration hinges on party autonomy and mutual consent, noting 'can' implies possibility, not obligation.

(Kidnapping for Ransom)

This judgment involves appeals against convictions under Sections 120B, 364A, 419, 341, 342, and 368 of the Indian Penal Code, considering procedural aspects of the Cr.P.C. and the Indian Evidence Act - The prosecution alleged that A1, A2-A10 conspired to kidnap PW1's two young daughters for a Rs. 50 lakh ransom. A1, A3, and A10 intercepted the children's car, sedated the driver (PW3), and confined the children at A9's house.

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion with Maintenance

This appeal challenges the High Court's judgment affirming divorce granted to the respondent-husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) (Cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (Desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appellant-wife and respondent-husband married in 2002 and have two children. Disputes arose, leading to their separation since 2018.

The appellant alleged cruelty, dowry harassment, and being driven out. The respondent contended the appellant insisted on separate living, was abusive towards his parents, and caused continuous mental/physical harassment, leading to an irretrievable breakdown.