Search Judgments

Constitution of India Article 226 – The case involves two writ appeals challenging an order that allowed a religious practice called “Angapradakshinam” (rolling over plantain leaves left by devotees after a meal) at the Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral Samadhi/Temple in Nerur, Karur District. The District Administration and a third party filed these appeals, arguing that a prior Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).No.7068 of 2015 had already prohibited this practice.

The appellants contended that the single judge’s order violated judicial discipline by overruling a Division Bench decision. They also argued that the prior Division Bench decision was a judgment in rem, binding on everyone.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 14(3), Order XLI Rule 25, Section 105(2) – This civil revision petition contests an order by the City Civil Court, Chennai, which dismissed I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.1065 of 1992. The original suit, filed by the deceased M. Natarajan, sought a permanent injunction against interference with his property possession, claiming he was a tenant of the 3rd defendant (Temple). The 1st defendant contested this, asserting ownership based on a purchase by his wife in 1954.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 38 Rule 3(5) and 3(7) – The plaintiff filed a suit based on a promissory note, seeking recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest. The defendants, after entering appearance, filed an application for leave to defend, which was filed beyond the stipulated 10-day period from the service of summons for judgment. The plaintiff argued that the leave to defend application was not maintainable without a prior application to condone the delay, as prescribed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) of the CPC.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 107 and 108 (The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 110) – The writ petition challenged a memo directing the petitioner to approach a Civil Court for a declaration regarding the presumed death of her husband, who has been missing for over seven years since 2006, in order to obtain a death certificate. Revenue authorities, relying on G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 28.06.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.478 dated 29.09.2022, had relegated the petitioner to secure a decree from a competent Civil Court.

The Court affirmed this requirement, emphasizing that Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 110 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) necessitate a judicial declaration for presumption of death. It was clarified that the burden of proof lies with the claimant before a Civil Court of law, and executive authorities, including Tahsildars, are not empowered to declare civil death.

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998 Section 100  – These writ petitions challenge demand notices issued by respondents, contesting the change of property tax from residential to commercial tariff for hostel properties. Petitioners argued that the notices violated natural justice principles due to lack of prior notice and that hostels providing accommodation to economically weaker sections should be considered residential units. They referred to Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and a previous court order (W.P.No.28486 of 2023) emphasizing the recipient’s perspective in determining tariff based on usage. Respondents contended that hostels are commercial premises under Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and CMWSS Service Charges (Levy and Collection) Regulations, 1998, citing potential revenue loss if treated as residential.

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 57 ; Employees’ State Insurance Rugulations (1950) Rule 96(A) – This writ petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred due to a road accident. The petitioner, an employee under the ESI Scheme, sustained severe head injuries and was treated at a non-empanelled hospital. The ESI Corporation rejected the claim, citing that the treatment was in a non-empanelled hospital and the petitioner had not completed two years of employment.

The petitioner argued that the treatment was an emergency, the required facilities were unavailable at the ESI hospital, and the denial was unjustified, referencing a Supreme Court judgment (Shiva Kant Jha v.

Indian Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17; Indian Stamp Act – Section 35, 36 & 49; Evidence Act – Section 58 – This revision petition was filed by the defendant challenging the trial court’s order to impound a lease agreement dated 01.01.2005. The defendant argued that the photocopy of the lease agreement (Ex.A14) was improperly marked because the original was missing, and the document was unstamped and unregistered. The defendant also argued that the document is inadmissible even for collateral purposes to establish the quantum of rent. The plaintiff argued that the defendant admitted to the lease’s execution, making it admissible for collateral purposes, and offered to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B – This revision petition challenges the Sub Court’s decision to adjourn HMOP No. 213 of 2025, filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners sought a waiver of the six-month cooling period.

The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amardeep Singh Vs.