Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37; Specific Relief Act – Section 28 – Judgment concerns an Execution Petition (E.P.No.4 of 2025) filed by the Award Holder (petitioner) seeking the execution of a Majority Award dated 31.07.2015, which ordered specific performance of a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) between the petitioner and the Judgment Debtors (respondents), controlling shareholders of Gordon Woodrroffe Limited (GWL). The dispute arose after the respondents terminated the SPA due to alleged encumbrances on GWL’s land.

The petitioner requested specific performance, or alternatively, damages, in arbitration. The Majority Award, challenged by the respondents but upheld by the High Court, Division Bench, and ultimately the Supreme Court, directed the respondents to transfer 93.47% shareholding of GWL to the petitioner, contingent on the petitioner waiving representations and warranties for 24 acres of land.

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 24-A (MMDR Act) and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) Rule 72 – This judgment addresses 32 cases (19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ Petitions) concerning the levy of surface compensation by the State of Tamil Nadu on mining lessees operating on poramboke lands (government-owned vacant land).

The core issue revolves around whether the State is entitled to demand surface compensation from mining operators on poramboke lands under Section 24-A of the MMDR Act and Rule 72 of the MCR, considering that these lands are owned by the government.

The appellants/petitioners argued that the Act and Rules primarily consider compensation for private landowners (“occupiers”) whose land use is disrupted by mining activities, not for the government who is the owner of the poramboke land. They highlighted that the government already receives royalties, dead rent, and other charges.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 230; Indian Trusts Act 1882 – Section 88 – Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 – The case involves two suits: C.S. No. 200 of 2006 filed by Dharmendra Bafna against C. Kishan Lal for recovery of Rs.1,83,72,162, and C.S.

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35-L (b) – Addresses an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that had overturned the Commissioner of Customs’ original order and discharged a show cause notice issued to respondent Units No. 2 and 3. The appellant argued that Units No. 1 and 2 were processing cotton fabrics with power without following due procedures, thus not qualifying for customs duty exemption.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016  – This writ petition was filed by Mission Accessibility to enforce the rights of persons with disabilities to equal opportunity, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner sought directions for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to modify scribe registration timelines for the Civil Services Examination, allow the use of laptops with screen reader software, and provide accessible digital question papers.

The Court allowed the impleadment of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and directed UPSC to address concerns regarding scribe changes and screen reader facilities. UPSC affirmed it would consider requests for scribe changes on merit.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 321 & Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 – An appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The appellant was booked under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State Government had earlier decided to withdraw the prosecution in some of the cases and directed the Public Prosecutor to file an application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal, citing public interest and justice.

The Trial Court rejected the withdrawal application, observing that the State had not sought prior permission from the High Court as mandated by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v.