Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 – Rule 15A – Three writ petitions concerning G.Aariyamala, a Physical Education Teacher at Kshatriya Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School. G.Aariyamala filed a petition seeking to be allowed to sign the attendance register and perform her duties after being allegedly prevented from doing so from March 5, 2021. The School Management filed two petitions: one seeking approval for their decision not to declare G.Aariyamala’s probation due to unsatisfactory performance, and another challenging an order directing them to permit her to continue in service.

The court noted that the School Management did not provide G.Aariyamala with prior notice or an opportunity to improve her performance before deciding against confirming her probation.

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) – Section 74 –  Challenge to orders passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, demanding tax, interest, and penalty from the petitioner for the financial years 2018-2019 to August 2023. The orders stemmed from show cause notices issued following a surprise inspection of the petitioner’s business premises.

The primary legal issue is whether Section 74 of the TNGST Act, which provides for an extended period of limitation for reassessment, was correctly invoked. Section 74 can only be applied if the non-payment or short payment of tax is due to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts with the intent to evade tax.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – The Supreme Court addressed appeals arising from a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentences of three individuals (Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi) under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) for murder. The primary contention raised by the appellants was the non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC, concerning the examination of the accused.

The Court emphasized the importance of Section 313 CrPC, highlighting that it is a crucial component of a fair trial, providing the accused with an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them. It noted that the statements recorded from the accused were virtually identical and demonstrated a lack of thorough questioning by the Trial Court, failing to meet the standards required under Section 313 CrPC.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 409, 468, 471, 477A, 420 r/w 120(b) – Petition to quash a charge sheet against the petitioner, who was an Assistant General Manager at Dindigul District Central Co-operative Bank. The petitioner was accused of offences related to misappropriation, forgery, cheating, and conspiracy in connection with loan disbursements to Self Help Women Groups. The allegation was that the petitioner, along with other accused, took advantage of the recipients’ illiteracy, deducted a portion of the loan amount, and failed to recover the loan, causing a loss to the bank.

The petitioner argued that surcharge proceedings initiated against him were dropped by the Appellate Cooperative Tribunal, Dindugal, and he was also exonerated in disciplinary proceedings.

Constitution of India Article 227 – Batch of writ appeals filed by employees of a Transport Corporation challenging their transfer orders. The employees argued that the Standing Orders governing their service conditions did not explicitly authorize the employer to transfer them. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions, citing Supreme Court precedents that transfer is an incident of service, and allowed the employees to make representations to the corporation. The employees claim they couldn’t represent due to delays.

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 Section 7 and Rule 6 – The acquisition of land in Adhiyaman Kottai Village, Dharmapuri, for Harijan Welfare Schemes under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The District Collector acquired 1.55.5 Hectares of land and the Special Tahsildar determined the market value based on a sale transaction, fixing it at Rs.72,072/- per Hectare, with 15% solatium.

Aggrieved landowners filed appeals before the Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri, which enhanced the compensation, fixed the land value at Rs.10/- per sq. ft., applied a 25% deduction, and added 30% solatium.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Appeals against a Calcutta High Court judgment regarding the return of properties to a divorced Muslim woman, Rousanara Begum, from her former husband, S.K. Salahuddin. The key issue is whether goods given to the daughter (Appellant) at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be returned to the daughter, considering the marriage ended in divorce.

The Appellant sought the return of Rs.

Writ Petition Summary – Challenge to Letter Refusing Essentiality Certificate – Challenging a letter from the first respondent (dated 09.10.2025) and sought a directive to issue an Essentiality Certificate (EC) to the petitioner based on their application (dated 22.08.2025) for establishing a medical college. The petitioner acquired the property, previously owned by PRIST Trust, through an e-auction and intended to establish “Chettinad Institute of Medical Sciences.” The National Medical Commission (NMC) rejected the petitioner’s application, citing that the existing EC was in PRIST Trust’s name. The first respondent required the petitioner to produce an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Certificate. The petitioner requested a conditional EC, subject to producing the ECC and Pollution Control Board certificate before admissions.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 16 – Filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the dismissal order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, regarding an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) filed in a suit for specific performance.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement against the first defendant. Initially, the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in his written statement. Later, he changed his stance, claiming the agreement was for a loan transaction.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – This civil revision petition arises from the dismissal of I.A.No.5285 of 2018 in O.S.No.4194 of 2014 by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner, the plaintiff in the original suit, sought to amend the plaint to include a declaration of title and a consequential direction for the third defendant to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the amendment petition did not disclose the correct value of the suit property.

The petitioner argued that the amendment was a pre-trial amendment and should be considered liberally, as the suit was filed within three years of gaining knowledge of the property transfers.