Search Judgments

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6; Transfer of Property Act
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Civil Procedure Code

This case originates from a suit filed in 1989 for partition and separate possession of properties. The plaintiff, Chakrapani, sought a 3/7th share in the properties, claiming they were joint family properties inherited from his father, Govindasamy Padayatchi. Defendants 1 to 4 are the plaintiff’s siblings, with Defendants 5 and 6 being the wife and son of the first defendant, respectively. The plaintiff contended that properties were purchased in the names of the first defendant and his family members using joint family funds.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXVI, Rule 19-22 and Section 78; Hague Convention – This case involves an appeal against a single judge’s order allowing the execution of Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware in India. M/s.Pfizer, engaged in patent litigation in the US against Cipla and Hikma (formerly Zenara), sought evidence from M/s.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited, an Indian manufacturer, claiming the latter was a third-party contractor for the defendants. Pfizer sought the appointment of a Local Commissioner to collect documents and testimony from Softgel, along with special powers and confidentiality protocols.

Softgel contested, arguing it was not a party to the US proceedings, the Letters Rogatory were prejudicial, and the Hague Convention did not allow omnibus relief.

Government Tender and Letter of Intent Cancellation

This judgment addresses an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh (Appellant) against a High Court order that reinstated a cancelled Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) for ePoS devices in its Public Distribution System.

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India concerning arbitrariness in government contractual actions.

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Section 3(2) – This case involves an appeal against the trial court’s order rejecting a plaint based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The plaintiff, the husband, claimed ownership of a property purchased in his wife’s name, alleging it was a benami transaction. Defendants, subsequent purchasers of the property, sought rejection of the plaint, arguing the Act barred the husband’s claim.

The plaintiff argued that since property was purchased in wife’s name, it would be covered under exemption.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 34, 36, 37 and 50; Order 21 Rule 22 and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – This case concerns appeals against orders of the Bombay High Court regarding the execution of an arbitral award. The appellant, son of the deceased Mr. Kantilal Dalal, sought to execute an arbitral award in his favor against the estate of his father, with the uncle of the appellant being the executor of the will. The respondents, including the uncle, challenged the execution.

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.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XX, Rule 4; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – This revision petition was filed by the first defendant in O.S. No.294 of 2017, challenging the dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2021, which sought condonation of a 655-day delay in filing the application to set aside an ex parte decree. The defendant argued that the decree was a nullity due to non-compliance with Order XX, Rule 4 of the CPC and that the plaintiff relied only on photocopies of documents.

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act) Section 6 & Juvenile Justice Act Section 2 (13) sub-sections (1), (13), (42) and (60)- This case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the rejection of his application to record his and his wife’s names as parents on the birth certificate of their adopted child, Saatvika. The child was adopted from Vijayalakshmi, the biological mother, following Hindu Rites and Customs, validated by a registered Adoption Deed.

The petitioner argued that the adoption was governed by the HAM Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act doesn’t apply as the child isn’t in conflict with the law. He also highlighted a civil court decree declaring Saatvika as their legally adopted daughter.

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.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 99 and 100; Madras High Court Writ Rules (2021) Rule 17(1)(v) – This judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions challenging Government Order G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 28.04.2025, which approved the “New Comprehensive Scheme, 2024” for mini bus permits to private operators under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The petitioners, mainly bus operators’ associations, argued that the scheme violates Section 99 of the Act, which they claim is meant for State Transport Undertakings (STUs), and that it contravenes the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, which restricts new permits on notified routes. Other issues raised include alleged procedural irregularities, lack of authority, and the validity of validating actions under a previously withdrawn scheme.

The court examined several issues, including whether the 1st respondent was empowered under the Business Rules to exercise the power under Section 99 of the Act regarding formulation of opinion and publication of the proposal for the grant of mini bus permit in favour of the private sector.