Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of workmen) Act, 1981 – The writ petition challenges orders denying the regularization of petitioners who were engaged on a consolidated salary basis in various categories at a de-salination plant. Despite serving for over 10 years, they were not placed on a regular pay scale. Earlier, the Labour Department had ordered conferment of permanent status under the Tamilnadu Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argued that despite being granted permanent status, they were not regularized with appropriate pay scales, continuity of service, back wages, and attendant benefits from the date of the initial order by the Labour Department.

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Article 58 – This case involves an appeal against a writ order where the High Court expanded the definition of “family” under Explanation to Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act to include grandmothers. The Sub-Registrar had refused to register a release deed and a settlement deed from a granddaughter to her grandmother, arguing that Article 58 doesn’t include grandmothers in its definition of “family,” requiring full stamp duty payment.

The appellants argued that the definition in Article 58 is exhaustive and cannot be expanded by the courts, relying on previous judgments. The respondents argued that the definition of “family” should be interpreted broadly, relying on a Supreme Court case.

 The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 Rule 45(5) – This case concerns a dispute over the service benefits of a deceased government employee, S. Vijayakumar, between his mother (the appellant), wife, and daughter. Vijayakumar passed away while in service, and the appellant sought a separate share of his Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), Employees Family Security Fund, and other benefits. The original writ petition was dismissed by a single judge, leading to this appeal.

Revenue Department Notification – GO.Ms.No.565 of 2008 and GO.Ms.No.63 of 2020, regarding the “Innocent Purchaser Scheme” – The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their request for regularization of land under the “Innocent Purchaser Scheme,” arguing the rejection was based on an incorrect interpretation of GO.Ms.No.565 of 2008. The petitioner’s mother initially purchased the property from an Urban Land Holder before the prescribed cut-off date, and later settled the property to the petitioner. The respondent rejected the regularization request because the settlement deed was executed after the cut-off date.

The court observed that the beneficial notification should be interpreted “land-centric” rather than “person-centric.” The key factor should be whether the land was originally purchased from an Urban Land Holder before the cut-off date.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31 and 34 –  Involves three second appeals arising from a dispute over property ownership and possession. The initial suits, O.S.No.236/1985 (declaration & injunction), O.S.No.304/1985 (injunction), and O.S.No.305/1985 (injunction), were filed in the Subordinate Court at Sankari. The trial court dismissed O.S.No.236 and 304, while decreeing O.S.No.305. However, the first appellate court reversed these decisions, decreeing O.S.No.236 and 304 and dismissing O.S.No.305.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 & 113; Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 55 – Involves an appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit concerning copyright infringement. The plaintiff claimed ownership of audio copyrights in certain films based on assignment agreements with defendants 2 & 3. The first defendant contested this claim, asserting its own ownership.

The Single Judge initially dismissed the suit, deeming it time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the suit was filed more than three years after the 1st defendant’s initial denial of the plaintiff’s title.

Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (T.N. Act XXVI of 1948) – Section 1(4), 3(b), 7, 11, 15 & 64(C)(1) – Concerns a dispute over land in Padiyanallur ex-zamin Village, which was notified for takeover in 1951. During ryotwari settlement in 1962, the land was classified as “Government Wet-Anadheenam.” A belated claim for ryotwari patta was made in 2011, and initially granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, but was later cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur.

The High Court set aside the District Revenue Officer’s order and directed the Commissioner of Land Administration to review the matter.

Writ Petition Family Pension  – This writ petition was filed seeking to quash an order (Lr.No.13334/2023/E2 dated 24.08.2023) issued by the first respondent, which denied the petitioner’s claim for family pension and other monetary benefits following her husband’s death on 07.10.2022.

The petitioner claimed to be the second wife of the deceased employee, who had married him after his first wife had deserted him and subsequently died.

The petitioner was nominated to receive the deceased employee’s death cum gratuity benefits and family pension.

The respondents argued that the second marriage was void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it occurred during the subsistence of a valid first marriage.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 6(15) and other relevant provisions – The case revolves around a dispute concerning the appropriate location for lighting the Karthigai Deepam (festival lamp) at the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple in Thirupparankundram. Some devotees filed writ petitions seeking a court order to direct the temple management to light the lamp at the “Deepathoon” (stone lamp pillar) located on one of the peaks of Thirupparankundram hill, instead of the traditionally used Deepa Mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple.

The temple management, along with the Commissioner of HR&CE, the Managing Trustee of the Dharga (a Muslim shrine also located on the hill), and the Waqf Board, opposed this request. They argued that the traditional location should be maintained, the petitioners lacked locus standi, and granting the request would violate the Places of Worship Act and potentially create communal disharmony.

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.