Search Judgments

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988 – Section 9 & 9A – The case revolves around a memo issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Jharkhand, mandating a recommendation from the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, as a precondition for Cooperative Societies to avail stamp duty exemption under Section 9A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988.

The appellant, a cooperative society, challenged this memo, arguing it created an unnecessary hurdle, impinged on their independence, and violated natural justice principles. The High Court upheld the memo, stating it ensured only validly registered cooperative societies benefited from the exemption.

The Supreme Court analyzed the legality of the memo, emphasizing that administrative decisions should consider relevant factors and avoid irrelevant ones.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that overturned a Family Court’s decision, granting a divorce decree and awarding Rs. 30 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife. The husband, a judicial officer, had filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, finding the husband guilty of cruelty.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Section 100; Hindu Succession Act 1956 Section 6 – These second appeals arise from a common judgment reversing the trial court’s decision in two related suits: one for partition (O.S.No.197 of 1996) and the other for declaration of title and permanent injunction (O.S.No.187 of 1995). The partition suit was filed by the sons of Karuppa Navithan, claiming a share in ancestral property. The defendants (Karuppannan and his wife) contended that Karuppa Navithan’s share, including his sons’, was sold in a court auction sale in E.P.R.No.98 of 1972 following a decree against Karuppa Navithan. The plaintiffs argued adverse possession and challenged the validity of the release deed favoring the wife of Karuppannan.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 32 Rule 15, Order 41 Rule 27; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114(e); Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 119(e) – This case involves two appeals, A.S.(MD)No.97 of 2025 and A.S.(MD)No.98 of 2025, arising from O.S.No.8 of 2018 (partition suit dismissed) and O.S.No.142 of 2019 (recovery of possession suit decreed) respectively. The suits concern a property dispute in Tiruchirappalli District. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.8 of 2018 (Appellants) claimed a share in the property, challenging a sale deed executed by Punithavathy (Defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2018) in favor of Mohammed Bilal (Plaintiff in O.S.No.142 of 2019). The core contention was that Punithavathy suffered from Schizophrenia, rendering the sale deed invalid.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 9, 11, 12, 47, 57, and 125 – Trademark dispute between M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Private Limited (ABD), marketing whisky under the name “OFFICER’S CHOICE,” and M/s. John Distillers Limited (JDL), marketing whisky under the name “ORIGINAL CHOICE,” both having registered trademarks.

Both companies filed rectification applications before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), challenging each other’s trademarks, but both applications were dismissed.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 – Appeal against the rejection of a plaint by the trial court. The 2nd defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking the rejection, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff, daughter of the deceased S.Chakrapani, filed a suit seeking partition of her share in the property and declaration that a release deed, purportedly signed by her in 1996, is null and void due to alleged fraud and impersonation.

The defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as the release deed was executed in 1996 and challenged after a significant delay.

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment Act), 1992 Section 217-A, 217-C,and 303(1) & Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Station) Building Rules, 1993 Rule 7(2) – This case concerns a writ appeal against a High Court order that directed the Commissioner of Udhagamandalam Municipality to grant building plan permission/license to the respondent. The appellant argued that the writ court misapplied the law, specifically Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Station) Building Rules, 1993, which prohibits construction within 150 meters of reserve forests. The appellant presented that the land in question falls within 17 meters of a reserve forest. The respondent argued that the revised master plan approved by the government should supersede Rule 7(2).

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India – These criminal original petitions were filed seeking directions to the police for further investigation, transfer of investigation, or filing final reports in cases reported as “Undetected” under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The court noted a systemic failure in investigating property offences, highlighting that the State’s duty to investigate effectively is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, encompassing the right to life, personal liberty, and protection of property. The court observed that investigations were often perfunctory, with critical steps being delayed or omitted. The court also referred to judgements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Law Commission of India reports emphasizing the concept of “victimology” and recognized that criminal jurisprudence must evolve to protect victims as rights-bearing participants.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528; The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 44(1)(b), 45, 2(na), 65 – Petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash an order taking cognizance of a supplementary complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2023 under the PMLA, arguing lack of sanction under Section 218 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 197 CrPC) and denial of hearing before cognizance under Section 223(1) of BNSS. The petitioner, an accused in the supplementary complaint, alleged irregularities in a recruitment process during his tenure as Deputy Manager in Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai.

The prosecution argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies due to Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS as the initial complaint was filed and cognizance was taken before the BNSS came into force. They further contended that the supplementary complaint isn’t a fresh proceeding but covered under Section 44 explanation (ii) of PMLA, and no sanction is needed under Section 197 of CrPC for acts of money laundering.