Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation Enhancement – This judgment involves two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (CMAs) arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Award. The first CMA (No. 1886 of 2023) was filed by the petitioners (claimants) seeking enhanced compensation for the death of K. Ravichandran in a motor vehicle accident.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Section 13(2); Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 371A; Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – A company in Nagaland secured a loan from a Corporation for a cold storage unit. Due to the special provisions of Article 371A of the Constitution of India, restricting land transfer by tribals, the company mortgaged its properties to the Model Village Council. The Council then guaranteed the loan to the Corporation, using the mortgaged property as security under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978.

Upon default, the Corporation initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act, issuing a demand notice and taking asset possession.

The Civil Procedure Code Section 96 Order 41 Rule 1; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 68 –  This case involves two appeals (A.S.No.329 of 2022 and A.S.No.102 of 2023) against a common judgment concerning two suits (O.S.No.51 of 2015 and O.S.No.38 of 2017) filed in Puducherry, both claiming declaration of title and recovery of possession for the same property. The dispute originates from a larger landholding owned by Krishnaveni Ammal, with both parties presenting different claims of ownership and possession.

Coumar, in O.S.No.38 of 2017, bases his claim on a Will from Krishnaveni Ammal and a compromise decree. Alamelu, in O.S.No.51 of 2015, claims title through a sale deed from Ramakrishnan, who allegedly purchased the property from Krishnaveni Ammal.

(Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Misuse of IBC as Recovery Mechanism)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): Sections 7, 3(10), 5(7), 5(8), 14, 62, 65 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 151 - The appellant challenged the NCLAT's order which admitted a Section 7 IBC petition filed by the respondent, a financial creditor. The respondent had previously obtained a final decree from the Delhi High Court for Rs. 4,38,00,617/- with 24% interest against the appellant, which attained finality after Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP.

Instead of pursuing execution of the decree, the respondent initiated CIRP.

(Interim Injunction against Bank Guarantee Encashment)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 9, 21 - The applicant, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the respondent for design and construction work, providing two bank guarantees (BGs) as performance security. The contract included an arbitration clause for dispute resolution. The respondent invoked both BGs for an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,33,66,425/-, prompting the applicant to seek an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Act to prevent encashment.

Wakf Act, 1995 – Sections 65 and 67 – Concerns the management and election process of the Salem Jamia Masjid Trust, a Wakf governed by a scheme decree. The elected committee’s tenure expired, and extensions granted by the Wakf Board had also lapsed. The Wakf Board ordered direct management, citing the need to amend the existing scheme to accommodate the expanded city and increased number of registered masjids.

The petitioner (Muthawalli) challenged the order, arguing that the existing committee should continue until the next election.

Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 3(g), 3(r), 5, 6, 7, 37, 54, 83, 85; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – This judgment addresses the jurisdictional reach of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995, specifically concerning a dispute over a property claimed to be a ‘waqf by user’ where the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent obstruction of prayers. The appellants (defendants) argued that the property was not a registered waqf or included in the ‘list of auqaf’, thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The respondent (plaintiff) contended that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine if a property is a waqf, even without Gazette notification or registration, based on Section 83 of the Act and ‘waqf by user’ under Section 3(r)(i).

The court analyzed conflicting opinions from previous coordinate benches, particularly concerning the interpretation of Section 83 and its impact on the jurisdiction of civil courts, referring to various judgements like Ramesh Gobindram v.

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Section 2(h) and Section 3 & 4 – This Writ Petition was filed challenging an order by the first respondent (Authority under the Minimum Wages Act) in M.W.Case.No.34 of 2022, dated 21.04.2023, which directed the petitioner to pay minimum wages as per G.O.No.67(2D) 13.11.2017. Respondents 2 to 57, through their union, claimed that the petitioner did not pay minimum wages for 2021-2023 as per the GO.

The petitioner argued they paid wages exceeding the GO-fixed amount, including basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, and other allowances. The Authority, however, considered only basic pay and dearness allowance when calculating minimum wages, excluding house rent and other allowances, and directed the petitioner to pay a difference of Rs.22,20,252/-.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XX Rule 12A – Decree for Specific Performance.

The case revolves around a suit for specific performance of a contract, decreed in favor of the appellant, directing the respondents to execute a sale deed. The trial court initially mandated the balance sale consideration to be deposited within two months. The respondents’ appeal against the decree was dismissed, without specifying a further time limit.

The appellant filed an execution petition after two years seeking permission to deposit the balance.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 – This judgment addresses appeals against interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court, which stayed orders passed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) in two disciplinary cases.

Case 1: SLP (Civil) No (s). 27606 of 2023

The BCMG appealed against the High Court’s stay of its order referring a complaint against Advocate Rajiv Narula to the Disciplinary Committee (DC). The complaint alleged professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, related to a consent decree obtained in a suit where the respondent-advocate had identified the plaintiff.