Search Judgments

(Motor Accident Compensation (Fatal Accident Claim)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (implicitly sections governing compensation for motor accidents) - This appeal challenged a High Court order that partly enhanced compensation for a fatal motor accident. The deceased, a 22-year-old meritorious Mechanical Engineering student, died in 2000 due to rash and negligent driving. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,23,000/-, which the High Court increased to Rs.

(Wife's Professional Autonomy in Matrimonial Disputes)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 195 and 340 Cruelty and desertion in matrimonial law and issues related - The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a High Court judgment that upheld a Family Court's decree of divorce granted to the husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the wife.

The lower courts found the wife, a qualified dentist, guilty of cruelty and desertion for prioritizing her professional career, establishing a dental clinic, residing at her parental home for her child's welfare, and not joining her husband (an Army officer) at his remote postings.

The Supreme Court strongly condemned the lower courts' approach as "pedantic and regressive," "archaic," and "ultra-conservative." It emphasized that a wife's professional identity and autonomy are fundamental, and marriage does not subjugate her individuality.

The Court held that penalizing a woman for exercising choices integral to her dignity, professional aspirations, and the welfare of her child cannot be construed as cruelty or desertion.

(Alternative Land Allotment for Educational Institution)

This petition challenges G.O. Ms. No. 414, Revenue & Disaster Management and Land Settlement, dated 01.07.2025, concerning the allotment of alternative land.

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement)

The Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 12(3)(ii) and 16(c), and the Indian Evidence Act, Section 92 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinayam, Section 95), concerning a land sale. The plaintiff claimed to have agreed to purchase 76 cents for Rs. 1,23,20,000, paying Rs. 50 lakhs advance across multiple agreements. After part of the land was acquired, she sought specific performance for 31.25 cents, asserting the advance covered this reduced extent.

(Motor Accident Compensation)

This case involves appeals and a cross-objection under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award concerning an accident that occurred on November 9, 2011.

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the bus involved, appealed the common award granted to an injured pillion rider (M.A.C.T.O.P.No.35/2012) and the dependants of the deceased two-wheeler rider (M.A.C.T.O.P.No.36/2012). The injured claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhanced compensation and challenging the Tribunal's finding of 10% contributory negligence against the two-wheeler rider.

The Tribunal had initially found the bus driver largely responsible but attributed 10% contributory negligence to the two-wheeler rider.

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement vs. Validity of Sale Deed)

The Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding a property dispute between a son (appellant), his father, and sister. The son sought specific performance of an alleged sale agreement with his father, while the sister and father sought an injunction based on a subsequent registered sale deed from the father to the sister.

The Trial Court initially decreed specific performance and dismissed the injunction suit.

(Partition of Property & Validity of Settlement Deed)

This case concerned a partition suit and the validity of a Settlement Deed dated 28.04.1999. Appellants (plaintiffs) sought a declaration that the deed, executed by their mother Marthammal in favour of the 1st defendant (brother), was null and void, and claimed 1/3rd share in three suit properties.

Plaintiffs contended that suit Items 1 & 2 were purchased by their father (Kartha of Hindu Joint Family) in Marthammal's name for the family's benefit. The 1st defendant asserted these were Marthammal's separate properties, acquired with her own funds, and validly settled upon him.

(Property Partition, Adoption and Validity of Deeds)

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 15(1); Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sections 96, Order 41 Rule 1 & 22) - The case involved three interlinked suits concerning the partition of 2 Acre 36 Cents of property, initially owned by Rajammal, who died intestate. The core disputes were the validity of adoption claims by both the plaintiff and the second defendant, and the legality of various property transactions.

The Court found that both the plaintiff and the second defendant were validly adopted children of Periyasamy (first defendant) and Rajammal. Consequently, upon Rajammal's intestate demise, Periyasamy, the plaintiff, and the second defendant were each entitled to a 1/3 share (79 Cents) in her estate under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(Grant of Ordinary Leave to a Convict for Fertility Treatment)

The Constitution of India Article 226, challenged an order rejecting ordinary leave to a life convict, made under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (Rule 20) - The petitioner, wife of a convict serving life imprisonment for triple murder, sought 21 days ordinary leave without escort for her husband. The stated purpose was for the couple to undergo fertility treatment to conceive a child.

The second respondent, the prison authority, rejected the application. This decision was based on reports from the Probation Officer and Inspector of Police, who objected due to potential law and order problems and life threats to the prisoner and victims.

(Bail Application)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, and The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 296(b), 125, 132, 109(1), and 351(3). The petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2026 and remanded on 09.04.2026. The prosecution alleged that while the petitioner was already in police custody, he joined other accused in pelting stones, abusing police personnel, and causing public panic. The petitioner, a journalist, contended the case was concocted, arguing it was improbable to commit such acts while in custody. He also highlighted inconsistencies with another FIR (Crime No.258 of 2026) regarding a witness and vehicle projected in mutually contradictory roles on the same day.