Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable  Endowments Act  (1959) Section 63(e); The Constitution of India Articles 19(1)(a), 25(1), 29(1) – This case involves a dispute over the lighting of a lamp during the Karthigai Deepam festival at the Thiruparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu. The core issue is whether the Executive Officer of the Thiruparangundram Devasthanam can be directed to light a lamp at the stone lamp pillar (“Deepathoon”) on the hill, near a Dharga.

The High Court considered previous litigations, including a Privy Council judgment and earlier writ petitions, which have shaped the rights of Hindu and Muslim communities concerning the hill. Arguments were raised about the historical context, the terrain of the hill, Agama Shastra, and potential disturbances to public peace.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A and 166 – This appeal concerns a claimant seeking enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The initial award by the Tribunal was Rs. 2,12,800, subsequently increased to Rs. 2,23,000 by the High Court, along with 7.5% interest from the petition date.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration arose from a dispute with spillage workers engaged by the Chennai Port Trust (now Chennai Port Authority) to clear iron ore spillages. The Supreme Court directed the arbitration to resolve the workers’ claims for regularization and other benefits, framing key questions regarding their employment status and the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

The Arbitrator examined evidence and found that the workers were effectively employees of the Port Trust, despite an MOU with an Association intended to avoid de-casualization.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 448, 392 r/w 397 – This appeal challenges the conviction of the accused in S.C.No.70 of 2016 by the trial court, which sentenced him for offences under Sections 448, 392 r/w 397 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case was that the accused trespassed into the complainant’s house, threatened his daughter-in-law (PW2) with a knife, and robbed her of a gold chain.

The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated due to a prior altercation with a police officer. He also questioned the lack of an identification parade, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and inconsistencies in the recovery of the stolen gold chain.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Section 45; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 483 – This appeal challenges the High Court of Delhi’s order rejecting the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 45 of the PMLA. The appellant, a former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd., is accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on which the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIRs alleging money laundering.

The appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024 and is one of the 28 individuals accused. He argues prolonged custody violates Article 21, emphasizing that he cooperated with the investigation and the investigation is concluded qua him.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 142 – This case involves an appeal against a Karnataka High Court order regarding a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The appellant, S. Nagesh, sought to quash the complaint filed by the respondent, Shobha S. Aradhya, alleging that a cheque issued by him was dishonored.

Contempt of Court – The contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated July 16, 2024, which directed the State of West Bengal to comply with a High Court judgment dated September 3, 2020. The High Court had ordered the disbursement of salary equivalent to the basic pay of regular teachers to the petitioners, who were part-time contractual teachers, for the period from July 28, 2010, to December 24, 2013. It had also directed the petitioners to submit representations for claims regarding other periods.

The petitioners claimed that the State failed to extend the benefits as directed.

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 25 – Custody of Minor Child – This Original Petition was filed by the petitioner (father) seeking custody of his minor child, S. Vihaan, aged about 6 years, from the respondent (mother). The petitioner and respondent’s marriage was solemnized on 03.02.2017, and the child was born on 06.08.2018. The respondent has been residing with the child at her parental home since the child was three months old.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) r/w Section 7 – The applicant/plaintiff, a director in a hospitality company and a public figure, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the first defendant, a costume designer, from publishing defamatory material. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, under the guise of a professional association, deceitfully induced him into a relationship and later posted defamatory content online, causing damage to his reputation and business. The first defendant countered, claiming she married the plaintiff, faced abuse, and was forced to undergo abortions. She argued that the plaintiff concealed his existing marriage and that the publications were to expose his actions after he deserted her.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16 & Limitation Act 1963 Article 54- This judgment concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property in Kerala. The plaintiff-appellant sought to enforce an agreement made with the defendant-respondent’s brother, acting as her power of attorney, for the sale of her 1/11th share of land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit citing limitation, and the High Court upheld the dismissal, citing lack of readiness and willingness on the plaintiff’s part and limitation.

The key issues revolved around the validity of the power of attorney, the defendant’s ratification of actions taken under it, and the commencement of the limitation period.