Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13 – This Original Side Appeal (OSA) challenges an ex parte judgment and decree issued by the Commercial Division in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited (PFIPL) against Mansarowar Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL). MIPL, the defendant, argues that the ex parte judgment was wrongly issued because they had already filed their written statement.

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 22; Constitution of India – Article 14, 19(1)(g), 226 – Several industrial establishments in North Chennai filed writ petitions challenging direction No. 18 in paragraph 53 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order dated July 20, 2023, in Original Application No. 256/2020. The direction mandated the creation of a corpus fund, requiring companies in the Manali complex to deposit a minimum of 1% of their annual turnover for environmental restoration and RCC road construction.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 2(9), 96, 100, 103, 107(d), Order XX Rule 4(2), Order XX Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 27 and 28, Order 9 Rule 13; Transfer of Property Act – Section 52; Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act – Section 40 – This case revolves around a second suit for partition (O.S.No.128 of 2005) filed despite a previous suit (O.S.No.105 of 1974) having already partitioned the properties of Chinna Mallegoudu’s family. The appellant, Chinnappa, purchased the property from the legal heirs of Mallamma (who was granted 1/7th share in the first suit and possession through court), defendants in the second suit. The lower appellate court dismissed Chinnappa’s appeal (A.S.No.30 of 2011) against the second partition decree, deeming him a lis pendens purchaser without the right to appeal.

The High Court addressed whether a second partition suit is maintainable, whether the trial court’s judgment met the requirements of a judgment under the CPC, and whether a lis pendens purchaser can maintain an appeal.

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) – Section 9, 9B, 9C, 13, 18; Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (MCR, 2016) – Rule 38, 39, 42; Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (MCDR, 2017) – Rule 45; Article 14, 32 of the Constitution of India

This case involves a challenge to the validity of certain Explanations in the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of the MCDR, 2017. These Explanations stipulate that royalty payments, along with contributions to the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), should not be deducted when computing the ‘Sale Value’ for calculating royalty.

The petitioners argued that this leads to a “compounding” effect, where royalty is effectively charged on royalty, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They further contended that this anomaly has been acknowledged by the government, which issued a notice for public consultation to amend the MMDR Act to address the “cascading impact of royalty on royalty.”

The respondents, however, contended that the petitioners are challenging the economic policy.

Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 – Rule 15A – Three writ petitions concerning G.Aariyamala, a Physical Education Teacher at Kshatriya Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School. G.Aariyamala filed a petition seeking to be allowed to sign the attendance register and perform her duties after being allegedly prevented from doing so from March 5, 2021. The School Management filed two petitions: one seeking approval for their decision not to declare G.Aariyamala’s probation due to unsatisfactory performance, and another challenging an order directing them to permit her to continue in service.

The court noted that the School Management did not provide G.Aariyamala with prior notice or an opportunity to improve her performance before deciding against confirming her probation.

The Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate from Pondicherry, applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) pursuant to a notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. In the online application, she selected “SC- others” instead of “SC – as per presidential order 1964 and 2002 for Puthiraivannan” due to the options provided. Despite securing marks above the cut-off for SC candidates, she was not selected. Her application to correct the error was rejected by the respondents, stating it was made belatedly.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 & 100 and Order 41 Rule 22 & 33 – This case concerns a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of a shop. The original plaintiff died during the suit, and his legal representatives were impleaded as the second plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6. The second plaintiff also died, and his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs 3 and 4. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs 3 and 4, directing defendants 1 and 2 to hand over possession.

BNSS Section 528 – Criminal Original Petition – This case originated from a petition seeking to quash an FIR. The court noted discrepancies in the number of charge sheets filed versus those taken on file by the courts, based on reports from the police and the Principal District Judges.

The court scrutinized the e-filing system implemented in subordinate courts, finding it was not functioning optimally, with both the police and the courts attributing blame to each other. Issues included technical difficulties, inadequate training for personnel, defective charge sheets, and lack of FIRs.

The Constitution of India Articles 14 and 21 – The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) – The petitioner sought 28 days ordinary leave for his father, a life convict in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, who recently suffered a right leg amputation. The Court underscored the relevance of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for prisoners with disabilities.

The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court precedents, L.Muruganantham and Sathyan Naravoor, which issued binding directions for all States and Union Territories regarding the identification, accessible facilities, healthcare, assistive devices, and reasonable accommodation for disabled prisoners, aligning with the UNCRPD. The Court observed that the father’s amputation was a direct consequence of his unaddressed diabetic condition in prison.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17A (as amended in 2018) ; The Constitution of India Articles 14 and 21 – This judgment addresses the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior approval for investigating offenses by public servants related to their official duties. The petitioner argued that it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is a reintroduction of provisions struck down in previous cases (Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy). The respondent contended that the section is necessary to protect honest public servants from harassment and policy paralysis. The court examined the legislative history, previous judgments, and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for granting approval.