Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and ection 34(2A)- This case involves two Arbitration Original Petitions (O.P.s) filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 22.03.2021. The dispute arose from a lease agreement between the claimant (VR Dakshin Private Limited), a mall developer, and the petitioners (SCM Silks Pvt. Ltd.), textile retailers, concerning space in the VR Chennai mall.

The petitioners terminated the lease prematurely, leading the claimant to invoke arbitration, claiming damages for wrongful termination, forfeiture of security deposit, and other expenses.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 3, 4, and 2(1)(u); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 227 – This appeal challenges a High Court order that upheld the rejection of the appellant’s discharge application by a Special Judge (PMLA) in a case concerning offences under the PMLA. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings against the appellant, alleging involvement in money laundering activities related to proceeds of crime generated through fraudulent activities. The appellant sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, arguing false implication and inapplicability of the PMLA due to the alleged offences predating the Act or its relevant amendments.

The primary arguments revolved around the retrospective application of the PMLA and the applicability of the PMLA for predicate offences.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013)  Section 24(2) and 105(3); National Highways Act 1956 Section 3A(1) And 3(G)(1) –  This writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to determine and pay just and proper compensation to the petitioner for acquired land under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

The petitioner’s land was initially acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, with a subsequent withdrawal due to incorrect land description, followed by fresh acquisition proceedings. The petitioner argues that the compensation should be determined under the 2013 Act because the award was passed after the Act came into force and after the effective date set by central government guidelines. The petitioner further contended that a second land acquisition for the same purpose after vesting of land in central government is barred.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in Service – Delay in Possession: Where a development authority delays possession of an allotted flat beyond the stipulated period, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid with reasonable interest and compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Compensation – Multiple Heads: Awarding compensation under multiple heads for a singular default (e.g., delay in possession) is generally not sustainable, as interest awarded on the refunded amount is considered compensation for the deprivation of investment.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Compensation – Interest on Home Loan: A developer is not liable to pay interest on a home loan taken by an allottee, in addition to the interest on the refunded amount, unless exceptional and strong reasons are demonstrated. The source of the allottee’s funds is irrelevant to the developer’s liability for deficiency in service.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 68B, 68F, 68H, 68J, 68Z and 8A – This case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, which directed the release of properties seized under the NDPS Act. The Competent Authority initiated proceedings against Shri. Shankar @ Sekar and his wife Smt. Usha, alleging their involvement in drug trafficking with Shri.

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) – Section 19 & Income Tax Act, 1961- Rule 53 – This case involves a dispute over the auction of a leasehold plot by Corporation Bank (the Bank) to recover dues from Sarita Vihar Club (the Club), which had defaulted on its loan. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) challenged the auction, arguing that the mortgage was created without its prior written consent, violating the lease deed terms and that the e-auction was done without properly disclosing the encumbrances

The Recovery Officer rejected DDA’s objections, leading to an e-auction where M/s Jay Bharat Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (the Auction Purchaser) was the highest bidder.

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) – Section 18 – This judgment addresses the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006.

The court identifies conflicting views in previous judgments:

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: Held that MSEFC could record the failure of conciliation and initiate arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. Mahakali Foods Private Limited: Suggested MSEFC could act as conciliator and then arbitrator, overriding Section 80 of the A&C Act, which generally prohibits conciliators from acting as arbitrators.

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 Section 10  – This case involves writ petitions filed by a university challenging government orders to evict them from encroached government land. The land was initially allocated to the Prison Department for constructing an Open Air Jail.

The university has been litigating this issue for approximately 30 years, with the matter reaching the Supreme Court. Previous eviction notices and requests for land assignment were rejected.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 109 – This case involves a criminal revision petition filed against the dismissal of a discharge petition in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2024. The petitioners, A1 (Village President) and A2 (his brother), were accused of amassing disproportionate assets. The prosecution alleged that A1, during his tenure as Village President from 2011 to 2016, acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, with A2 allegedly assisting him.

The prosecution’s case hinged on comparing assets at the beginning and end of the check period, calculating income and expenditure, and concluding that the petitioners held disproportionate assets worth approximately Rs.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18, 23(1)(a), 28 – This case involves appeals concerning the enhancement of compensation for land acquired for the formation of a Broad Gauge Railway Line in Konerikuppam village. The claimant sought an increase from the awarded Rs.25 per square foot to Rs.400 per square foot. The land, part of a larger layout, was acquired after provisional approval for a housing layout called “Senthamizh Nagar” had been obtained. A portion of the land was earmarked for a park.