Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case concerns a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a majority award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, had entered into a contract with the respondent for railway repair work. The dispute arose over the measurement unit “track metre” for certain items in the contract’s Schedule B. The petitioner contended that the measurement should have been taken separately for each track, while the respondent argued for a combined measurement of two tracks for specific items.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 12 – The judgment addresses the critical issue of implementing Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which mandates that neighborhood schools admit 25% of their class strength from weaker and disadvantaged sections of society.

The court emphasizes that this provision is essential for transforming the social structure and securing equality. It acknowledges the challenges in implementing the mandate effectively, including digital illiteracy, language barriers, lack of information, and transparency in the admission process.

The judgment highlights the constitutional values behind Section 12, emphasizing the importance of creating a common school system where children from all backgrounds learn together.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act) Section 54(3) r/w Section 23 and Section 101  – These two writ petitions concern the administration of Arulmigu Agatheeswarar Temple, with the petitioners claiming hereditary trusteeship and challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer/Fit Person by the HR&CE Department.

The petitioners contend the temple is private, built on grama natham land, and an Inam Ryotwari Patta was granted to their ancestors. They argue a statutory suit regarding the temple’s character (private or public) is pending, and the HR&CE Department cannot unilaterally appoint an Executive Officer/Fit Person. They also allege violations of natural justice and statutory provisions (Section 54(3) r/w Section 23 and Section 101 of the HR&CE Act) in the appointment process.

Civil Procedue Code (1908) Order 1 Rule 10, Companies Act, 1956 – Part IX – The case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that overturned a lower court’s decision to implead the appellant, NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., as a defendant in a suit filed by the respondents, Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Priyalata Keshrichand Shah, for the recovery of service charges from M/s Kishore Engineering Company.

The appellant sought impleadment, claiming to be the successor of respondent No. 3, M/s Kishore Engineering Company, and thus a necessary party.

Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyar (Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes), Act 2009 – This case concerns a writ petition filed by a student seeking admission to the MBBS/BDS course under the 7.5% government quota for government school students, while also belonging to the Scheduled Castes (Arunthathiyar) category. The petitioner, having scored 455 marks in NEET, was allotted a seat under the management quota in a private medical college, while candidates with lower scores were allotted seats in the government quota of private medical colleges.

The petitioner argued that she was wrongly considered only under the SC(A) sub-quota and not in the Scheduled Castes (General) quota, violating the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyar Act, 2009, and related government orders. This Act provides preferential treatment to Arunthathiyars within the Scheduled Castes quota, but also preserves their right to compete for non-preferential seats.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A – This case involves appeals against a Delhi High Court order dated 22.04.2025, concerning the substitution and extension of the mandate of a sole arbitrator. The appellants, husband and wife, were in a partnership dispute with the respondents, which led to the appointment of Mr. Anjum Javed as the sole arbitrator by the High Court in 2020.

Disputes arose regarding the arbitrator’s fees and administrative expenses.

National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professionals Act, 2021 Section 1 (2), 3, 22, 40 – A challenge against a communication issued by the Union of India that imposed restrictions on Allied and Healthcare Institutions regarding new institutions, new courses, and increased intake capacity, pending the establishment of required regulations under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professionals Act, 2021.

Educational institutions challenged this communication, arguing that it disrupted their established practices and infringed upon their rights. The writ court quashed the impugned orders and directed the processing of applications for new courses and increased intake.

The appeals were filed against this order.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11, Section 7, Section 4, Section 12(5) and Section 29A – This appeal contests the Patna High Court’s dismissal of a request case under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning a contract for bridge construction awarded by Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited (BRPNNL) to Hindustan Construction Company Limited. The contract contained an arbitration clause (Clause 25). The High Court initially appointed an arbitrator, but later reviewed its order, directing against further arbitration and ultimately dismissing the request for a new arbitrator.

The Supreme Court addressed three key issues: the High Court’s jurisdiction to review its Section 11 order, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and the impact of joint applications under Section 29A for extending the arbitrator’s mandate.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Section 100; Hindu Succession Act 1956 Section 6 – These second appeals arise from a common judgment reversing the trial court’s decision in two related suits: one for partition (O.S.No.197 of 1996) and the other for declaration of title and permanent injunction (O.S.No.187 of 1995). The partition suit was filed by the sons of Karuppa Navithan, claiming a share in ancestral property. The defendants (Karuppannan and his wife) contended that Karuppa Navithan’s share, including his sons’, was sold in a court auction sale in E.P.R.No.98 of 1972 following a decree against Karuppa Navithan. The plaintiffs argued adverse possession and challenged the validity of the release deed favoring the wife of Karuppannan.

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 69 – This judgment addresses the constitutional right to own and freely dispose of immovable property and the dichotomy between registration and ownership under Indian property laws. The case involves a challenge to sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, which empowered registering authorities to refuse registration of property documents if proof of mutation in favor of the vendor was not produced.

The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions challenging these rules. The appellants argued that the rules were ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the mutation process was uncertain and unavailable.