Search Judgments

Constitutional Law – Article 32, Article 14, Article 170, Article 239A; Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 – Section 26; Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – Section 60; Delimitation Act, 2002 – Section 3 – This case involves two Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging Notification Nos. SO No. 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 and SO 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021, issued by the Union of India. The petitioners argued that these notifications led to a delimitation exercise for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, increasing the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly, while arbitrarily excluding the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 156(3), 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S. and 154 – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S. to challenge the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, which dismissed a petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner alleged encroachment on temple lands by respondents, claiming they were constructing a marriage hall without permission and cutting trees.

Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 – Section 1(3)(f), 3 and 9 – Transferred City Tenant Original Petition (TCTOP) arising from a suit filed in 1979, where the tenant sought to compel the landlord to sell the land under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921. The tenant had constructed superstructures on the leased land. The landlord resisted, arguing the amended Act exempted religious trusts/charities from its provisions and claimed that the property was a religious charity.

The court examined Ex.R.1 and found it was partly a family arrangement and partly a deed of trust.

Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 32, 65 and 83(9) – Civil Revision Petition against the order of Waqf Tribunal – The dispute concerns two Waqfs, Hazarath Syed Hussain Sha Khadiri Dargah and Mosque, surveyed and notified by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. The Waqf Board, after initially directing direct management, called for common elections for both Waqfs, resulting in the petitioner’s election. However, the Waqf Board bifurcated the election results, appointing the elected members only to the Mosque committee and unelected members to the Dargah committee.

The Waqf Tribunal upheld the Waqf Board’s decision.The High Court addressed several issues, including the validity of ad hoc committee appointments, the Waqf Board’s power to call for common elections, and the Chief Executive Officer’s authority to implement Board resolutions.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – This order addresses two Civil Revision Petitions (CRP.No.617 of 2025 and CRP. No.618 of 2025) filed by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of their suits (O.S.Nos.577 of 2024 and O.S.No.295 of 2024) for default by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur. The suits were initially filed in the Alandur Court and later transferred due to a change in territorial jurisdiction.

The primary grievance of the petitioners is that they were not served with notice of the transfer and re-numbering of the suits.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 105(2), Rule 106(3), Section 151; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5, Article 137 – This revision challenged an executing court’s decision to condone a 573-day delay in restoring an Execution Petition (EP) on payment of costs. The revision petitioners argued that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it is inapplicable to applications under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), especially when filed beyond the 30-day period for restoration.

They referenced established legal precedents from the Supreme Court and High Court. Conversely, the respondents contended the EP’s dismissal was not a strict “dismissal for non-appearance” under Order XXI Rule 105(2) CPC, but rather for non-production of a stay order while monitoring an appeal.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 26 – This case involves a father seeking visitation rights to see his minor son, a request initially dismissed by the Trial Court. The matter was referred to mediation, which ultimately failed. The father argued that denying visitation rights is against established legal principles and cited several Supreme Court judgments supporting parental visitation rights, even in challenging circumstances. He emphasized his desire to develop a rapport with his son, crucial for the child’s well-being.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 13(b) and 44A – Foreign Judgment – Conclusiveness – “Merits of the Case”: A foreign judgment, even from a reciprocating territory, is not conclusive and cannot be executed in India if it has not been given on the “merits of the case” as per Section 13(b) CPC. A judgment rendered solely due to the defendant’s default of appearance, without any application of mind, consideration of rival submissions, or assessment of the plaintiff’s case on evidence, does not satisfy the “merits of the case” requirement.

Comity of Courts: While the principle of comity of courts generally encourages recognition of foreign judgments, its application in India is circumscribed by the specific statutory provisions of Sections 13 and 44A of the CPC.

Execution of Foreign Decrees – Default Judgments: A default judgment from a foreign court, which merely notes the defendant’s non-appearance and adjudges a sum without substantive examination of the plaintiff’s claim or evidence, is inexecutable in India under Section 13(b) CPC.

Defamation Suit – This civil suit was filed by the plaintiff, a long-standing member of a political party and former Union Minister, against the publisher, editor, and printer of the Tamil magazine “Junior Vikatan”. The plaintiff alleged that the magazine published defamatory news items in its editions dated 28.03.2012 and 22.12.2013, causing damage to his reputation and political career.

The first article concerned the Sethu Samuthiram project, implying the plaintiff had benefited from it while public money was lost. The second article quoted the plaintiff allegedly calling Rahul Gandhi a “small boy.” The plaintiff argued that the defendants failed to verify the authenticity of the news items before publishing them and deliberately flouted journalistic ethics.

(Criminal Revision – Conviction under IPC)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 324, 326 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 360 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - The revision challenged a judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, following a land dispute where he caused injuries, including a fracture, to two witnesses. The High Court noted the prosecution's failure to produce X-ray evidence for the fracture. Consequently, the conviction under Section 326 IPC was set aside. However, the conviction under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to both witnesses was upheld.