Search Judgments

Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 – Rule 110 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 – Rule 27 – This case concerns the legality of departmental proceedings initiated against a retired employee, the appellant, by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Corporation) after his retirement. The appellant challenged the proceedings, arguing that the Corporation lacked jurisdiction to initiate such action in the absence of explicit provisions in the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 (‘1992 Regulations’). The Corporation relied on Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations, which allows for the application of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (‘1982 Pension Rules’) in matters not specifically covered by the 1992 Regulations, particularly Rule 27 regarding withholding or withdrawing pension.

The key issue was whether the Corporation could initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee by applying Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules, given the absence of specific provisions in the 1992 Regulations.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – This case involves appeals filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Sattur, which upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff, Arulmigu Mariamman Kovil temple, regarding the eviction of tenants from temple-owned shops. The temple sought possession of the shops, citing their dilapidated condition and the need for reconstruction, after serving notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants argued that the suits were not maintainable without prior permission from the HR & EC Department and raised concerns about potential demolition and reconstruction.

The trial court decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiff, which was later confirmed by the First Appellate Court, dismissing the defendants’ appeals.

Employee Compensation Act, 1923 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Dindigul, in W.C.No.12 of 2006. The petitioner, a driver, suffered 100% permanent disability due to amputation of his right hand in an accident while driving a vehicle. He claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 2(s); The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 Section 102; The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – This judgment addresses appeals against a High Court decision that quashed FIRs registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The High Court had ruled that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) police station lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a notification under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), declaring it a police station. The Supreme Court examined relevant provisions of the CrPC, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and various government orders and circulars. The Court emphasized that Section 102 of the Reorganisation Act allowed courts to apply existing laws even without specific adoption orders.

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 58(3) – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a Company Law Board (CLB) order condoning a 249-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent, sought registration of inherited shares, which was refused by the appellant company. The respondent initially delayed action under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. After the new Act, 2013 came into effect, a fresh appeal was filed with a delay, which the CLB condoned.

The United Provinces [Indian Medicines] Act, 1939;
Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021

This case involves appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court judgment that directed the state to consider certain candidates for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses. The core issue revolves around the State’s change in policy regarding appointments after private institutions were permitted to offer Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course.

Prior to 2011, only a single government institution offered this training with limited seats. Graduates were generally appointed due to vacancy.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100 – This case involves a Second Appeal arising from three interconnected suits: a suit for permanent injunction (O.S.No.803 of 1985), a suit for foreclosure of mortgage (O.S.No.1524 of 1988), and a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits (O.S.No.1828 of 1989). The plaintiff claimed ownership of ancestral property through inheritance from his father, alleging that the defendant, who lived with his father after his mother’s death, had fraudulently created an agreement of sale and a mortgage deed.

The defendant contended that she had purchased the property from the plaintiff’s father and had perfected title through adverse possession by being in continuous possession for 18 years. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in favor of the plaintiff, dismissed the injunction suit, and decreed the mortgage suit.

The Constitution of India Article 226 – CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS  – The case involves M/s. Velan Builders Private Limited challenging the rejection of their request for a working condition of plants and machineries certificate and the subsequent rejection of their tender bid by respondent officials. The petitioner had applied for the certificate to participate in a tender (TRY-62 to TRY-66), but it was rejected because they allegedly did not provide sufficient documentation to prove ownership of a mandatory piece of equipment, a static roller.

The petitioner claimed a contractor, Murugesan, demanded a bribe and influenced the rejection due to their refusal to comply.

Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Section 73 – This case revolves around a dispute concerning membership, allotment, and possession of an industrial plot within the Tuticorin Co-operative Industrial Estate. M/s. Sundar and Chandar were initially allotted the plot, but M/s. Krishna and Co.

The Constitution of India Article 226 – The case involves M/s. Megala Construction challenging the rejection of their request for certificates required to participate in tender processes issued by the Superintending Engineer (Highways), for tender notifications No.31 and 32 in 2025. The petitioner, a Class-1 contractor, was denied the certificates due to deficiencies in proving ownership of mandatory machinery, specifically the Central Hot Mix Plant, Static Roller, and Concrete Mixture Machine. The petitioner argued that they had provided sufficient documentation and were discriminated against.