Search Judgments

(Recovery of Marketing Commission)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 12 Rule 8; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65-B - This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 22,87,000/- with interest, claimed as marketing commission.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement from 1986 with the defendant company to pay a 5% commission on product sales. The defendant contended the arrangement was ad-hoc, denying a formal contract, and stated the plaintiff refused to sign a proposed written agreement in 1990.

(Amendment of Plaint to Include Mandatory Injunction)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 39 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 - This Civil Revision Petition challenged the dismissal of an amendment application in O.S.No. 1111 of 2015. The plaintiff, who initially sought a permanent injunction, moved to amend the plaint after an Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the second defendant's encroachment and construction on his property *pending litigation*. The amendment sought to add a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove these superstructures.

(Arbitration - Jurisdiction and Seat Determination)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) Section 34, Sections 2(1)(e), 9, 20(2), 34, 42 and Order 7 Rule 10 CPC -  The petitioner filed a Section 34 petition before the Principal District Judge, Salem, challenging an arbitral award. The first respondent sought its return, arguing New Delhi was the competent jurisdiction. The District Judge allowed this, directing re-presentation in New Delhi, which was then challenged.

The core dispute centered on whether New Delhi was the arbitration 'seat' and which court had jurisdiction.

(Competence of Drugs Inspectors and Regulation of Objectionable Advertisements under Drugs and Magic Remedies Act)

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Sections 2(a), 3(c), 3(d), 7(a), 8, 8(1), 9A, 11); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 190, 200, Ch. XII & XXXVI) - This reference addressed the competence of Drugs Inspectors to initiate prosecution under the 1954 Act for objectionable advertisements and the regulation of online advertisements.

Referring to Supreme Court directives in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, the Court clarified that Drugs Inspectors with Section 8(1) search/seizure powers cannot directly file criminal complaints before a Magistrate.

(Quashing of Proceedings against Advocates for Contempt in Court)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) Sections 384, 385, and 528 - The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) Section 267, and  of the Advocates Act, 1961 Section 30 - Practising advocates and Bar Association office bearers (petitioners) sought to quash proceedings in M.C.No.07 of 2026, initiated by a Judicial Magistrate.

The Magistrate acted under Section 384 BNSS, 2023, for alleged "intentional insult or interruption" (Section 267 BNS) during a remand hearing.

Petitioners contended the proceedings lacked jurisdiction, citing non-compliance with the "before the rising of the Court on the same day" requirement and absence of specific allegations.

They also alleged predetermination/bias due to the use of "offenders" and challenged the denial of legal representation by refusing vakalaths.

(Grant of Leave to Convict Prisoners with Pending Appeals)

This order addresses writ petitions challenging the rejection of emergency/ordinary leave for convict prisoners whose appeals against conviction are pending before the High Court or Supreme Court.

The legal framework involves the Constitution of India (Articles 226, 161, 162), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 389, 432, 432(5)), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Sections 430, 473), and the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (Rules 2(4), 3, 35, 40).

The Court noted a direct conflict between two Full Bench decisions of the Madras High Court. The earlier Full Bench in State v. Yesu (2011) held that 'leave' under the 1982 Rules amounts to 'suspension of sentence' under Section 432 Cr.P.C., and thus, the Executive's power to grant such leave is limited during appeal pendency, in line with the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling in K.M.