Search Judgments

Filters

Reset

Parties

Appellant

Respondent

Legal Team

Hon'ble Judge

Appellant Advocate

Respondent Advocate

Court Details

Court

Bench Type

Appeal Type

Reported Status

All Reported Non Reported

Found 3489 results

Sivaranjani Vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Govt Home Prohibition & Others Reported

Madurai Bench 09 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 509 Decision: Set Aside

Judges: G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. & R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Sand Offenders, Cyber Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Scurrilous Writers, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) – Section 2(f) – This habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order dated 09.06.2025, which categorized the detenu, Guru, as a “GOONDA” under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The petitioner argued that the order was flawed due to an inordinate and unexplained delay between the detenu’s arrest on 28.04.2025 and the passing of the detention order on 09.06.2025. This significant delay, spanning over a month, was asserted to have snapped the “live and proximate link” between the arrest and the necessity for detention. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted the absence of any other adverse cases against the detenu to justify the detention.

Maragadham Ammal Vs. Sagadhevan (Died) & Others Reported

Madras HC 20 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 510 Decision: Dismissed

Judges: P.B. BALAJI, J.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 2(2), 2(9), 47, 96, Order IX Rule 13, Order XX Rule 4(2); Constitution of India – Article 227; Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 16(c), 19; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – The revision petitioners (defendants) sought to set aside an ex-parte decree for specific performance from 2003, via a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They alleged fraud upon the court and illegality, citing non-representation of minors in the sale agreement, suppression of previous suit details, and the decree violating Order XX Rule 4(2) of CPC and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 due to lack of judicial application of mind.

The respondents countered that the petitioners’ earlier attempts to set aside the ex-parte decree, including an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC with condonation of 4915 days delay (under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963), were dismissed and upheld through higher courts, including the Supreme Court. Furthermore, other defendants’ applications under Section 47 CPC questioning executability were also dismissed, and no appeal under Section 96 CPC was filed.

W. Althaf Thasif Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police E.O.W., Thiruvannamalai & Others Reported

Madras HC 20 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 511 Decision: Set Aside

Judges: K. RAJASEKAR, J.

Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (TNPID Act) – Section 5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 167(2), 437(5), 439(2). Chit Funds Act, 1982. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

R. Raman Vs. R. Balaji Ram Reported

Madurai Bench 27 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 520 Decision: Disposed Of

Judges: L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 r/w 142; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528, 72(2); Constitution of India – Article 21 – This judgment addresses a Criminal Original Petition seeking the recall of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued by an appellate court, following a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), citing unawareness of hearing dates and previous similar High Court orders.

The respondent argued that the High Court’s inherent powers cannot be utilized for direct warrant recall, asserting that the primary remedy lies with the issuing court, as established by the authoritative precedent in P.A. Saleem.

Lakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Bakthavatsalu Naidu Reported

Madras HC 20 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 528 Decision: Dismissed

Judges: V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34 – This second appeal involved a dispute over land title and possession, specifically the East-West measurement of the property. The plaintiff claimed ownership of 81 feet, relying on a 1951 family partition deed (Ex.A2) and subsequent purchases. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title originally purchased only 65 feet East-West via a 1919 sale deed (Ex.B1), meaning the plaintiff could not claim a larger extent.

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession, finding a lack of proof for title beyond 65 feet.

TGV SRAAC LTD Vs. Unicon Engineers Reported

Madras HC 19 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 529 Decision: Set Aside

Judges: N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) – Section 34(2) – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) – Section 2(d), 2(e), 15, 18 – The petitioner challenged an arbitral award under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The respondent, a micro-small enterprise registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), initiated arbitration regarding a contract for the design, engineering, manufacture, supply, storage, erection, and commissioning of an Electro Static Precipitator (ESP).

The primary issue was the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction, as the petitioner argued the contract constituted a ‘works contract’ and thus fell outside the MSMED Act’s purview, which is meant for goods or services. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents, particularly Kone Elevator India Private Limited v.

K.U. Meeran Vs. R. Subramani Reported

Madras HC 16 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 530 Decision: Dismissed

Judges: S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 – The petitioner/defendant challenged the trial court’s dismissal of their application to reject the plaint. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership, an injunction, and the cancellation of a sale deed dated 19.05.1975, claiming it was forged. They asserted that they became aware of this alleged forged document only after receiving summons in a separate suit filed by the petitioner (O.S.No.115 of 2019), which contested their subsequent registered documents (2013 release deed and 2019 settlement deed).

The petitioner argued the plaintiffs’ suit was hopelessly time-barred due to challenging a 45-year-old document.

B. Shyam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Heath and Family Welfare & Others Reported

Madras HC 03 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 531 Decision: Set Aside

Judges: P.T. ASHA, J.

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO Act) – Section 9(3), 9(5); Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (TOHO Rules) – Rules 7(3), 14, 17, 19 – The petitioners challenged the Authorisation Committee’s rejection of their organ transplantation application. The 1st petitioner suffered from chronic kidney disease, requiring a transplant. The 2nd petitioner, a non-near relative (brother of the 1st petitioner’s maternal aunt’s husband), volunteered to donate a kidney. Their Form-11 application under the TOHO Rules was rejected with a non-speaking order stating, “Relationship not established.”

The Court clarified that for non-near relatives (third-party donors), Section 9(3) of the TOHO Act requires establishing affection, attachment, or special reasons to prevent commercial exploitation.

Mohandass Vs. State by S.S. Colony (L & O) Police Station (Crime No.518 of 2016) Reported

Madurai Bench 11 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 535 Decision: Dismissed

Judges: G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. & R. POORNIMA, J.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B and 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) – Section 32 – This judgment concerns criminal appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, challenging their conviction by the Sessions Court for the murder of A1’s wife, committed under Sections 120-B and 302 of the IPC. The deceased and A1, her husband, were estranged, and she had filed for divorce. The prosecution alleged that A1 conspired with A2 (his driver) and another to attack her by throwing chilli powder, pouring petrol, and setting her on fire.

Rajarathinam Vs. State of TN Rep by Sipcot Police Station (Crime No.48 of 2023) & Another Reported

Madurai Bench 25 Feb 2026 2026 SCIT 536 Decision: Dismissed

Judges: K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act) – Section 14-A(1) & 3(2)(v); Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (SC/ST (POA) Rules) – Rule 7(2) & 7(2-A); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, 109; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 173, 167, 207, 468 – The appellants, accused in a murder case, challenged the Special Court’s dismissal of their discharge petitions. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to murder P.K. Muthukumar, a Scheduled Caste advocate, due to his involvement in an earlier murder case involving his brother.

The appellants sought discharge contending the final report was filed beyond the stipulated 60 days without a written explanation, violating Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, arguing this invalidated the Special Court’s cognizance.

« First ‹ Prev … 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 … Next › Last »

Search Judgments

Filters

Parties

Legal Team

Court Details

Reported Status

Citation Details

Acts & Sections

Sivaranjani Vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Govt Home Prohibition & Others Reported

Maragadham Ammal Vs. Sagadhevan (Died) & Others Reported

W. Althaf Thasif Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police E.O.W., Thiruvannamalai & Others Reported

R. Raman Vs. R. Balaji Ram Reported

Lakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Bakthavatsalu Naidu Reported

TGV SRAAC LTD Vs. Unicon Engineers Reported

K.U. Meeran Vs. R. Subramani Reported

B. Shyam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Heath and Family Welfare & Others Reported

Mohandass Vs. State by S.S. Colony (L & O) Police Station (Crime No.518 of 2016) Reported

Rajarathinam Vs. State of TN Rep by Sipcot Police Station (Crime No.48 of 2023) & Another Reported