Search Judgments

The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Section 47A – A petitioner, successful bidder in an e-auction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), paid stamp duty and registration charges under protest for a sale certificate. The petition sought registration and release of the document, and a refund of the excess charges. The central legal question was the applicability of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to properties purchased through transparent public auctions.

The petitioner argued that Section 47A is not applicable, citing Supreme Court judgments in V.N.Devadoss (concerning BIFR sales under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985) and ASL Vyapar (regarding court/liquidator sales), which established that market value determined in a public auction leaves no scope for undervaluation or fraudulent evasion.

The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (Rules, 1978) Rule 23 – The Full Bench of this Court was constituted to clarify pension eligibility under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (Rules, 1978), regarding service forfeiture due to resignation on medical grounds, addressing conflicting Division Bench judgments.

Rule 23, Rules, 1978, unequivocally states that resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service. The only exception is resignation submitted with proper permission to take up another government appointment; the rule is notably silent on medical grounds.

Applying the plain and literal rule of statutory interpretation, the Court held that new grounds, such as medical reasons, cannot be added to a clear and unambiguous provision.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 and Section 37 – This appeal arose from a contractual dispute under an agreement between Union of India (appellants) and Larsen & Tubro Limited (respondent) for modernizing the Jhansi Workshop. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded the respondent over Rs. 5.53 crores, including amounts for ‘financing charges’ and ‘interest’ (Claim Nos. 1, 3, 6), and 12% post-award interest.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Sections 7 and 60(2) – The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of simultaneous Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against both a principal debtor and its corporate guarantor.

The Court reiterated its precedent that such concurrent proceedings are permissible, aligning with Section 60(2) of the IBC and the co-extensive liability of a guarantor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It rejected the ‘doctrine of election’ argument, stating no statutory provision mandates a creditor to choose between remedies against the debtor and guarantor.

Concerns regarding ‘double enrichment’ were addressed by highlighting existing safeguards.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR & CE Act) – Section 78 – This judgment addresses the persistent issue of encroachments on 507.88 acres of land belonging to Arulmighu Balasubramaniyaswami Temple in Karur District. A 2019 High Court order in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018 directed category-wise removal of encroachments under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, and filing civil suits for lands where pattas were irregularly issued, some under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. Despite these clear, time-bound directives, nearly six years of non-compliance prompted this contempt petition. The Court noted systemic delays, lack of administrative and police cooperation, and organized resistance from influential encroachers, including government officials and politicians, often leading to protests and law and order issues.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 97 – The case concerns a Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Section 47 of CPC by a third party, seeking to declare an Execution Petition non-maintainable. The petitioner, son of the second defendant, argued that his father was ‘given up’ by the decree holders in the Second Appeal, thus no decree existed against his father, and consequently, the decree could not be executed against him, who claimed independent possession of the property. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s father had earlier conceded not being in possession, and legal representatives are bound by the pleadings of their predecessors.

The Court noted that the First Appellate Court’s favourable decision for the petitioner’s father was not set aside in the Second Appeal since he was given up.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 and 103 – This Second Appeal challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff (respondent) sought to remove eight stone pillars and a barbed wire fence allegedly erected by the 1st defendant (appellant) on his property of 5.830 cents. The plaintiff claimed title through a registered sale deed and proved possession.

The 1st defendant disputed the plaintiff’s entitlement to the full 5.830 cents, arguing his vendor owned only 5.5 cents, and contended a suit for bare injunction was unsustainable without a declaration of title, citing a “cloud” over ownership.

Case Summary: Executability of MSME Award Post-CIRP Approval

Acts and Sections:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016: Sections 14 (Moratorium), 30(6), 31(1) (Approval of Resolution Plan), 42 (Appeal against Liquidator’s Decision).
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006.

This revision petition challenged an executing court’s order allowing the execution of an award issued by the MSME Council. The respondent (decree holder) obtained an MSME award for Rs.

(Private Family Trust vs. Public Waqf Declaration)

Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 6, 36, 40 – Procedural History - Waqf Board Resolution (2009): The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board passed a resolution registering the petitioners’ property as a “Public Waqf” under Section 40 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Tribunal Judgment (2022): The Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal upheld the Board’s decision, declaring the property a public Waqf.

Civil Revision Petition: The petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s judgment in the High Court, seeking to set aside the public designation.

Factual Background

Nature of the Deeds: The petitioners relied on partition deeds from 1910 (Ex.A1) and 1951 (Ex.A2).

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – The Civil Revision Petition challenged a Commercial Court’s order returning a plaint for non-compliance with Pre-Institution Mediation (PIM) under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner, a plaintiff, sought urgent interim reliefs including a declaration of contract termination, permanent injunction against raising invoices, and mandatory injunction for the defendant to remove 127 printers occupying its commercial premises, along with damages.

The Commercial Court had determined that the plaint did not contemplate urgent interim relief and mandated PIM. However, the High Court, referencing Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Yamini Manohar), clarified that Section 12A exempts suits contemplating “urgent interim relief” from mandatory PIM.