Search Judgments

Interest Act, 1978 – Section 3(1) and 3(3); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 34; Constitution of India – Article 12 – The case involved T.I. Raju, a government contractor, who completed a Sewage Treatment Plant work by 2014. Despite the principal sum of Rs. 86,64,846/- being due, it was only released in 2016 following a High Court writ petition.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9, 47, 49 – This appeal concerns the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award (26.03.2021, corrected 17.05.2021) obtained by the appellant against the 1st respondent for demurrage under a voyage Charterparty. The dispute was subjected to London arbitration. During interim proceedings under Section 9, the 2nd respondent, a group company of the 1st respondent with common directors and inter-company transactions, voluntarily provided a cheque of Rs. 2,06,78,000/- as security for the disputed arbitration claim, after the 1st respondent’s initial cheques were dishonoured.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 80 – Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1920 – The plaintiff, owner of Plot No. 13 in Velacherry Village, purchased under a 1978 sale deed, sued for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits, after his earlier suit was dismissed. The property forms part of an approved layout (D.T.P. No.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97, Order XIII Rules 3 & 4; Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 33, 35, 36; Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17, 49 – The petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC seeking to admit a registered and an unregistered sale deed as exhibits. The trial court dismissed this application, prompting the current revision petition. The petitioner contended that the unregistered sale deed was crucial for proving his possession for collateral purposes and argued it had already been marked as an exhibit without objection. They cited Section 36 of the Stamp Act and precedents, asserting that admissibility should be decided at the final hearing.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 140, 163-A, 166, and Schedule II. – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 279 and 337 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award. The claimants, legal heirs of the deceased, initially filed for compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the MVA, subsequently amending it to Section 163-A. An FIR was registered against the deceased, who was found responsible for the accident.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 149 and 150; Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 – These appeals contested a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award that mandated an insurer to first pay compensation to accident victims and then recover it from the vehicle owner. The accident, which resulted in death and injury due to a rashly driven motorcycle by an unlicensed rider, occurred on 19.08.2022.

The appellant-insurer argued that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, effective from 01.04.2022, deleted the ‘pay and recovery’ proviso from Section 150 (erstwhile Section 149), thereby removing their obligation for such recovery. Conversely, the claimants contended that since the insurance policy was issued on 30.03.2022, prior to the amendment’s effective date, the previous law containing the ‘pay and recovery’ clause should apply.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – This appeal contested an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The case stemmed from a fatal road accident on 28.11.2020 where the deceased, a two-wheeler rider, died after being struck by a car driven rashly and negligently. The deceased’s parents and siblings, as claimants, sought compensation before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after evaluating evidence including eyewitness testimony and the FIR, concluded that the car driver was solely responsible for the accident.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 498A, 304B, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113B – This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant (husband) under Section 498A IPC by the Trial Court. The appellant was initially charged under Sections 498A and 304B IPC following his wife’s death by hanging, which occurred within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged dowry demands, alcohol consumption, and quarrels leading to harassment.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of dowry death (Section 304B IPC) and also acquitted all other accused, finding no specific evidence of dowry demand.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 166 and 173 – Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA), the Insurance Company filed an appeal while the claimants filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement. The case concerned a fatal road accident where the deceased, aged 40, a businessman operating vehicles, died on 23.10.2021 after being hit by a negligently driven bus while repairing a punctured tyre.

The MACT had awarded Rs. 59,08,000/- to the deceased’s wife, daughter, and parents as dependents.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 & Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279, 337, 304(A) – An insurance company appealed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award, while the deceased’s parents filed a cross-objection seeking enhanced compensation. The accident in November 2016 involved an Alto car and a Mahindra Van, resulting in the death of Bharath Bandari, an occupant in the Alto. The accident was caused by the Alto driver’s rash and negligent attempt to overtake.

The insurance company disputed liability, asserting the Alto driver lacked a valid license and that the Mahindra Van driver also contributed to the accident.