Search Judgments

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – This case involves a dispute over the property left behind by Chand Khan between his widow, Zoharbee, and his brother, Imam Khan. The central issue is whether certain properties should be considered as ‘matruka’ (property left by a deceased Muslim) under Mohammedan law, specifically concerning an agreement to sell entered into by Chand Khan before his death.

The Civil Court initially ruled partially in favor of the widow, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that the plaintiff (Imam Khan) was entitled to 3/4th of the property. The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s decision, finding no substantial question of law.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 420, 465, 468, 471 – This appeal addresses the quashing of proceedings against the appellant, JVRR Education Society, accused of offences under Section 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC, related to a purportedly forged No Objection Certificate (NOC) submitted to obtain recognition for their educational institution.

The crux of the matter revolves around a complaint alleging that the college, operating from a building below 15 meters in height, submitted a forged fire NOC. However, as per the National Building Code of India, 2016, such NOC was not mandatory for buildings of that height.

The High Court had previously directed the Education Department to renew affiliation without insisting on the fire NOC.

Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 – Rule 6, 19 and 22. – This case concerns a petition filed by the wife of a convict prisoner, challenging the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Vellore, which granted her husband 21 days of ordinary leave with escort. The petitioner sought modification of the order to allow leave without escort.

The court noted that the convict had previously availed ordinary leave and returned on 14.11.2024.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Sections 94, 173 & 179 – A series of petitions filed by individuals seeking protection from police harassment under the guise of enquiry into civil disputes, such as money matters, property transactions, and contractual disagreements. The court found that the police were exceeding their authority by entertaining these complaints, conducting informal “current paper enquiries,” and issuing summons without registering a First Information Report (FIR).

The court noted a disturbing trend of using criminal proceedings to settle civil scores, emphasizing that police intervention should be limited to cases where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, like cheating or criminal breach of trust, supported by specific factual details. The court also referred to previous Supreme Court judgements which says that Criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VIII and XI – This case concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a suit seeking declarations, injunctions, and damages related to copyright infringement of dubbed cinematograph films. The plaintiff claimed ownership of dubbing rights for the films “Chingari” and “Shrikanta” in Tamil and Malayalam, asserting that the defendants infringed on these rights.

The plaintiff based his claim on assignment agreements with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 8 – Partition Suit Analysis – This case concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a partition suit filed by the daughters and granddaughters of Anga Moopan against the descendants of his son, Mara Moopan, claiming a share in the suit property. The core dispute revolves around the date of Anga Moopan’s death and its impact on the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The plaintiffs contend that Anga Moopan died in 1960, after the Act came into force, entitling his daughters to an equal share in his property. Conversely, the defendants argue that Anga Moopan died in 1939, before the Act, and the property devolved solely to his son, Mara Moopan.

GST- Service Tax –  These writ petitions were filed by flat purchasers against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), challenging demands for Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the sale consideration of flats, which the petitioners had already paid under protest. The petitioners argued that the advertised “frozen price” included all taxes, including GST, and that TNHB had issued “No Due Certificates” without mentioning any GST liability. TNHB countered that GST was payable separately under the lease-cum-sale agreement and that they were merely collecting agents for the GST authorities.
The Court relied on a previous similar case which held that the GST authorities are not necessary parties in such a dispute.

Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1972 – Section 11(2) – This appeal challenges the rejection of a plaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to pay additional court fees as directed by the trial court. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction, valuing the property at Rs. 5,01,000/-. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint, arguing undervaluation based on a higher market value.

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.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 14 – A dispute over the redevelopment of a cooperative housing society, where the original developer (Appellant No. 1) faced Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC. The society terminated its development agreement with the original developer due to persistent delays and appointed a new developer (Respondent No. 8).