Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 2(1)(c) and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – The Civil Revision Petitions were filed to challenge the order of the Commercial District Court, Salem, which dismissed the Interlocutory Applications (I.A.s) filed by the revision petitioners/defendants seeking rejection of the plaints in two Commercial Suits (C.O.S. No.9 of 2022 & C.O.S. No.10 of 2023). The suits were filed for the recovery of money based on promissory notes.

The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) Order 41, Rule 27 – This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Family Court, Dindigul, which ordered the defendant (appellant) to pay maintenance to the plaintiff (respondent), claiming to be his lawfully wedded wife. The plaintiff asserted that she married the defendant in 1973 and was later subjected to torture, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. The defendant denied the marriage, stating that he was married to another woman. The Family Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, relying on the testimony of a witness who was related to the defendant.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 05.05.2023. The dispute arose from a partnership deed between the petitioner and respondent, who are brothers, concerning a firm operating in Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

The petitioner sought to dissolve the firm, leading to the respondent initiating arbitration proceedings. Initially, the High Court designated Hosur as the seat of arbitration and instructed the proceedings to be held there.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 & 37 – The case involves a dispute arising from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) and a Shareholders Agreement (SHA) between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (UIREF) and Neelkanth Realty Private Limited. UIREF invested Rs. 25 Crore, but the conditions precedent were not fulfilled. An arbitrator was appointed, who decided the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue based on demurrer, in favour of the UIREF.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 6 Rule 17 –The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from disturbing their peaceful possession of a property. During the trial, after reviewing the defendant’s written statement, the plaintiff realized the need to include a prayer for declaration of title, as the defendant had challenged their title to the property. The plaintiff then filed an application to amend the plaint to include this prayer. The trial court dismissed the application, citing an inordinate delay since the written statement was filed.

Act: Railway Protection Force Rules and relevant Employment Notification.

Background: The case involves a dispute over the appointment of candidates from reserved categories to unreserved vacancies in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). The High Court had directed the appointment of reserved category candidates who scored higher marks than unreserved candidates, even though they had availed age or physical measurement relaxations.

Issue: Whether reserved category candidates, who availed age or physical measurement relaxations, can be appointed against unreserved vacancies if they scored higher than the cut-off for unreserved seats.

Summary: The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between Standing Order No. 78 (allowing migration of reserved candidates to unreserved categories) and Standing Order No.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Sections 21 and 22 –  The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 19(1) – These civil appeals, filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, challenged NGT orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022. The NGT had found M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited (appellant) in violation of environmental norms, including illegal disposal of untreated effluent, dilution at the outlet, and lack of proper records and an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) logbook. Subsequently, the NGT imposed an environmental compensation of Rs.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) – This case involves a petition (O.P.No. 590 of 2013, later T.O.S.No. 49 of 2016) filed by A.Dhandayuthapani, his wife, son, and daughter, seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed for a Will dated 09.06.2004, allegedly executed by A. Meenakshi (deceased).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 186 and 341; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Section 195 – This case involves a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for offences under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the IPC. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by a process server who alleged that the petitioner, a police official, had misbehaved with him and detained him at a police station when he went to serve summons and warrants.

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) directed the registration of the FIR, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The petitioner argued that the FIR did not disclose offences under Section 186 of the IPC.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 63, 68 & 69; Indian Succession Act – Section 63(g); Code of Civil Procedure – Order XVI Rule 10 – This case concerns a suit for partition and permanent injunction, where the plaintiffs claimed inheritance rights following the death of Karae Gowder, arguing he died intestate. The defendants, however, contended that Karae Gowder executed a registered Will in favor of the second defendant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the division of the property into three equal shares.

The defendants, appealing the trial court’s decision, argued that the Will’s genuineness was not properly considered due to the lack of a specific issue framed regarding it.