Search Judgments

Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Constitution of India – Article 21 – The Court reviewed compliance affidavits from States/Union Territories regarding stray dog control, noting significant deficiencies and requiring further detailed reports on remedial measures. Secondly, it reaffirmed directions for removing cattle and other stray animals from National, State, and National Expressways. Municipalities, road/transport departments, and NHAI must undertake coordinated drives, establish 24×7 patrol teams, and set up helplines. Collected animals are to be housed in shelters with proper care.

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (the Act) – Section 4(iii)(c)(I) and 53 – The Supreme Court addressed whether age restrictions under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, apply retrospectively to intending couples who initiated surrogacy procedures before its commencement on January 25, 2022. Petitioners had frozen embryos, but the Act’s age limits (female 50, male 55) rendered them ineligible for certification.

The Union argued for retrospective application based on child welfare and gamete quality, stating surrogacy is a statutory right. However, the Court emphasized that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right under Article 21.

Recovery of Loss – The petitioner, an Assistant in the Thanjavur Rural Branch of the respondent Corporation, was permitted to retire. The Corporation intended to deduct Rs.57,500 from her dues, claiming responsibility for a lost ticket bundle worth Rs.230 during her tenure as a Ticket Controller. The petitioner contested the deduction, arguing that the recovery of the full face value of the lost tickets was unjustified without proof of actual loss or fraudulent misuse.

The Corporation argued that the petitioner was negligent, and recovery was per their procedure.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c); Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly Indian Evidence Act) – Section 95 – This appeal challenges a trial court’s decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. The appellant (defendant) argued that the agreement was merely security for a loan and not a genuine intention to sell, disputing the plaintiff’s (respondent) readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The respondent claimed to have always been ready to pay the balance consideration, sending a legal notice to the appellant.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the property value was significantly higher than the agreed sale price, indicating a loan transaction.

Trade Unions Act, 1926 – Section 15 – The case concerns a dispute over whether a trade union can spend money from its general funds to conduct felicitation functions for retiring members. The plaintiff, a union member, argued that such expenditure is illegal as it is not explicitly listed in the union’s bye-laws or Section 15 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The defendant union contended that it falls under permissible “social activities” and is a long-standing practice.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, favoring the plaintiff.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXII Rule 4, 10A – The case revolves around a title suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. The defendants then filed a second appeal in the High Court. The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the first appellate court’s judgment, primarily because some respondents in the first appeal (original defendants) had died, and their legal heirs were not brought on record, leading to abatement of the appeal.

Hindu Succession Act 1956 Section 6 – This case involves a suit filed by the plaintiff against his mother, brother, and sister, seeking a declaration of title and mandatory injunction to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff claimed he purchased the property with his own earnings and the defendants were merely permissive occupants. The defendants argued that the property was purchased from joint family income and should be treated as joint family property.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring him the exclusive owner and directing the defendants to vacate.

The Constitution of India Article 227 – The Wakf Act, 1995 Section 6- This Civil Revision Petition was filed by the fourth Plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Tribunal, Chennai, in O.S. No. 88 of 2018. The suit was initially filed in the City Civil Court, Chennai, and later transferred to the Wakf Tribunal.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) – Section 12 – This case addresses whether a High Court can use its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005. The appellants, including the respondent’s husband, in-laws, and brother-in-law, sought to quash proceedings filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence. The High Court dismissed the quashing petitions, stating that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, are civil in nature and cannot be quashed.

The Supreme Court examined the nature of proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, emphasizing its object to protect women from domestic violence.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – This case concerns a petition challenging a High Court judgment that upheld a Commercial Court’s decision to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The original plaintiffs (petitioners) filed a suit seeking injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement against the defendants (respondents). The defendants then applied under Section 8 of the Act, citing an arbitration clause in the “Deed of Assignment of Trade Marks.”

The Commercial Court allowed the application, stating that the suit revolved around contractual arrangements (assignment deeds), not statutory rights under the Trademark Act, 1999, and that disputes were arbitrable. The High Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the contractual nature of the dispute.