Search Judgments

Service Law – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (ATA) – The Writ Petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, which had set aside the dismissal of Senior Auditor E. Dineshkumar and directed a fresh enquiry. Dineshkumar was dismissed for allegedly committing fraud by availing a discontinued credit purchase scheme for handloom materials, amounting to Rs. 45,377, using an application form from a department where he was not employed.

(Recognition and Implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Education and Regional Languages)

The Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21A, 350A, and The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) Section 29(2)(f). It also refers to the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP, 2020). The appellants challenged a Rajasthan High Court order dismissing a Public Interest Litigation. The PIL sought directions to include the Rajasthani language in the Teacher Recruitment Examination (REET, 2021) syllabus and to impart education in Rajasthani. The High Court dismissed it, stating no enforceable legal right or statutory duty failure.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the REET 2021 relief was infructuous but addressed the broader constitutional issue of language in education.

 Culpable Homicide and Common Intention in a Family Dispute

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 325, 302, 304 Part II, 34).

Facts:  The case involves a boundary dispute between two branches of a family, Senthil (A-1) and Sivakumar (A-2) along with their relatives (A-3, A-4), and the deceased, Kaliyamurthy. During an altercation on 20.09.2014, A-1 attacked PW-4 (the deceased’s brother) with an Aruval, causing non-grievous injuries. A-2 then struck the deceased on the head with a log, causing a depressed skull fracture and brain injury, leading to his death.

Trial Court Decision: The Trial Court acquitted A-3 and A-4.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 47 – The applicants filed applications seeking directions for the Advocate Commissioner to transfer Rs. 3 Crores, SGD 16,666.6 for Singapore High Court costs, and to retain or deposit estimated income tax amounts (Rs. 6.12 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs).

Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Sections 37-A and 38 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a challenge to a public auction notice issued by revenue authorities. The appellant’s husband defaulted on payments for arrack shops in the 1970s, leading to an ex-parte decree in 1987. Years later, auction notices were issued to recover the dues with interest. The appellant challenged these notices, but the auction proceeded and the property was sold.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on a registered sale agreement, claiming the defendant agreed to sell property for Rs. 15,00,000, with Rs. 10,00,000 paid as advance. The defendant contested, asserting the agreement was security for a loan, not a sale.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Section 413 of BNSS), Section 378(4) (Section 419(4) of BNSS); The Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 – This case concerns the maintainability of a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), challenging an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A notification had been issued by the High Court directing the registry not to entertain petitions seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. after 07.07.2025.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 – This revision petition was filed by the husband challenging the order of the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, which directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to his wife and son from the date of filing the interlocutory applications. The husband did not challenge the maintenance awarded to his son or the direction to pay for his NEET coaching fees. His challenge was solely against the interim maintenance awarded to his wife.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code) – Sections 7, 9, 10, 16, 22 – This case involves a challenge by an Insolvency Professional (IP) to an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), where the NCLT appointed a different Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) than the one proposed by the Corporate Debtor (CD) in an application under Section 10 of the IB Code.

The petitioner, an IP, argued that Section 16(2) of the IB Code mandates the NCLT to appoint the IRP proposed by the Financial Creditor (FC) under Section 7 or the CD under Section 10, provided no disciplinary proceedings are pending. The NCLT justified its decision by citing multiple changes in the CD’s IRP recommendation.

The court analyzed Sections 7, 9, 10, and 16 of the IB Code, emphasizing that when an application is filed under Sections 7 or 10, the NCLT must appoint the IRP recommended by the applicant if no disciplinary proceedings are pending.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 95 – Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by auction purchaser – Maintainability – Conflicting decisions of Supreme Court – The High Court, when faced with conflicting judgments of equal strength of the Supreme Court, should follow the earlier one.
The plaintiff purchased the suit property in an auction sale during execution proceedings initiated by the assignee of a puisne mortgagee. The defendant contended that the assignee had no right to execute the decree. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it, citing the absence of the preliminary and final decrees.