Search Judgments

Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Section 64 – The Chennai Port Trust filed a suit to recover Rs. 1,08,84,931 from the defendant, the purchaser of the vessel “M.V. Island Pride,” as unpaid berth hire charges. The defendant argued for a waiver similar to one granted to the previous owner, citing that the vessel was purchased solely for scrap and was not seaworthy.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves a challenge by the Corporation of Chennai to an arbitral award dated 31.05.2012, concerning a contract for the construction of a flyover near Perambur Railway Station, awarded to the first respondent.

The project faced significant delays and alterations, including the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and changes in seismic zone requirements, ultimately leading to the termination of the contract by the Corporation in 2008. The first respondent filed claims for compensation, which were referred to arbitration.

The Arbitral Tribunal awarded a net amount of Rs.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order V Rule 20, Order IX Rule 13, Order 43(1), Section 13(1); Commercial Courts Act – These revision petitions challenge the orders of the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, regarding an ex-parte decree in a commercial suit. CRP.No.5041 of 2025 contests the dismissal of an application to condone a 25-day delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, while CRP.No.5044 of 2025 challenges the dismissal of the application to set aside the decree directly under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

The defendants (petitioners) argued they were not properly served with summons after the suit was transferred between courts (Original Side to City Civil Court to Commercial Court). They also contended that the paper publication for substituted service was done without a court order under Order V Rule 20 of CPC, making it a material irregularity.

Constitution of India – Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Section 432 – This judgment addresses the maintainability of writ petitions and miscellaneous petitions seeking premature release or interim bail/leave (or its extension) for convict prisoners, particularly when their cases are pending before the Government. The court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.

The court highlights that granting bail presupposes the accused is in the court’s custody, which is not the case once a convict is serving a sentence. The power to suspend or remit sentences lies exclusively with the government under Section 432 Cr.P.C., governed by the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for Enhancement of Compensation – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.3392 of 2020. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving a Metropolitan Transport Corporation bus. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/- with 7.5% interest.

GST- Service Tax –  These writ petitions were filed by flat purchasers against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), challenging demands for Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the sale consideration of flats, which the petitioners had already paid under protest. The petitioners argued that the advertised “frozen price” included all taxes, including GST, and that TNHB had issued “No Due Certificates” without mentioning any GST liability. TNHB countered that GST was payable separately under the lease-cum-sale agreement and that they were merely collecting agents for the GST authorities.
The Court relied on a previous similar case which held that the GST authorities are not necessary parties in such a dispute.

The Negotiable Instruments Act Sections 138 and 147; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 63 and 65 – The case revolves around a Criminal Revision Case filed against an order dismissing a petition to accept a xerox copy of a cheque as secondary evidence in STC No. 476 of 2016, a case filed under Sections 138 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner claimed the original cheque was lost by his former advocate after it was initially produced and verified by the Trial Court during the recording of the sworn statement. The respondent contested, arguing the loss wasn’t sufficiently proven.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Sections 438 and 442; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 39 and 116 – This criminal revision case was filed to challenge the order dated 22.07.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in Crl.MP.No.1089 of 2025 in MC.No.26 of 2022, which dismissed a petition seeking a DNA test to establish the paternity of the petitioner. The petitioner, born in 2006, claimed to be the son of the respondent through a relationship with his mother, who was legally married to another man, Subbaiah, who passed away in 2020. The petitioner sought the DNA test under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, despite official records naming Subbaiah as his father.

The respondent opposed the DNA test, arguing that the petitioner was presumed to be Subbaiah’s legitimate son and that the test would infringe on his fundamental rights.

Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 67; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 298, 504, 505(2) – The petitioner filed a complaint against Sathish Kumar for posting a misrepresented photo and offensive comments about Lord Krishna on Facebook, alleging that it hurt religious sentiments and could incite social unrest. The police registered a case under Sections 298, 504, 505(2) IPC, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 but filed a final report as undetected, citing lack of information from Facebook authorities.

The Judicial Magistrate accepted the final report, leading the petitioner to file a criminal revision. The High Court noted that the police investigation was insufficient and the final report was filed mechanically.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 55(6)(b) – This civil revision petition was filed to challenge the order dismissing I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2007, which concerned the refund of interest accrued on the deposited balance sale consideration. The petitioner/plaintiff sought interest from the deposit date until the sale deed’s execution. The trial court rejected the application, leading to this revision.

The petitioner argued entitlement to interest under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.