Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 – Section 87, 167 and Rule 140 – This Writ Petition challenges an order by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, attaching land owned by the petitioners due to alleged misappropriation by a third party, who was their power of attorney holder, in Claim Petition No. 1 of 2014 bearing No. Sa.Pa dated 17.12.2014 and quash the same and hold that the order of attachment in CAM No.6 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014 with respect to lands in S.No. 334/R.S.No.

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) – Sections 2(a), 9 – Complaint – Necessity of Primary Details – Incidental reference to sexual harassment.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement, backwages, and an inquiry under the POSH Act based on alleged sexual harassment. The appellant claimed that, despite mentioning “sexual harassment” in certain communications, no action was taken. The college argued that the appellant was not a permanent employee and that her allegations were unfounded.

Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983; Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 – Rule 57(1) – The case concerns the validity of orders declaring the post of President of the Atomic Energy Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited vacant following the retirement of the petitioner from his service in the Department of Atomic Energy. The primary contention revolves around whether the petitioner’s retirement automatically disqualifies him from continuing as President, given the absence of a specific bye-law stating such disqualification.

The petitioner, initially a member of the society due to his employment and residence in the township, argued that his eligibility as President should continue until his term expires. The respondents contended that the cessation of employer-employee relationship and residency entitlement due to retirement inherently terminates his membership and consequently his presidency.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order III Rule 2 – This civil revision petition contests the order issued by the II Additional Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram, pertaining to I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2020. The original suit was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration and related reliefs against the respondents (defendants 1 & 2).

Due to their advanced age and illness, the defendants appointed Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar as their power of attorney. He then filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 under Order III Rule 2 of the CPC, requesting permission to represent the 2nd defendant (his father) and submit a proof affidavit on his behalf.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Second Appeal against property tax enhancement.
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 – Sections 81, 82, 354 and Schedule IV – Property tax revision – Challenging notice of enhancement.

The plaintiffs filed suits challenging the enhancement of property tax, arguing that the municipality did not follow due procedure and the tax was arbitrarily increased. The defendant contended that the enhancement was based on government guidelines and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, following a general revision of property tax. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, upholding the municipality’s right to enhance the tax based on government guidelines.

The High Court considered whether property tax could be levied based on government guidelines and whether the Commissioner alone should determine the tax.

Key Acts and Articles Discussed

Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15, 16, 335, 341, 342, 366
The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006
Government of India Act 1935

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the constitutional validity of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation purposes in India. The central question is whether further classification within SCs, to prioritize the most disadvantaged, is permissible under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, or if it unlawfully tampers with the Presidential List under Article 341.

The judgment examines the history of reservation jurisprudence, emphasizing the shift from formal to substantive equality, and dissects the interplay between Article 16 (equality of opportunity) and Article 335 (efficiency of administration). It reviews landmark cases, including Indra Sawhney and E.V.