Search Judgments

The Registration Act  Section 22-A ; Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act & Registration Act – This case concerns a writ petition filed against the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kalyana Ramasamy Thirukovil, Pudhukottai District, challenging a communication that requested the Sub Registrar to withhold registration of certain lands. The Executive Officer claimed the lands belonged to the temple, while the petitioner asserted ownership based on a civil court decree.

The petitioner had previously been denied claims regarding the land’s status as private property under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The temple argued the petitioner obtained a collusive decree without involving the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, attempting to register the document based on this decree, which the Sub Registrar rightly refused.

All India Council for Teachers Education Act, 1987 – Section 10 and 23 – This appeal was filed by the Gujarat State Public Service Commission against a High Court order that had overturned a Single Judge’s decision dismissing a candidate’s writ petition. The candidate sought appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), challenging the selection process after being unsuccessful in the interview.

The core issue was whether the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations apply to direct recruitment conducted by the Commission under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012, for filling professorships in Gujarat’s government engineering colleges.

The court concluded that the AICTE Regulations, specifically the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), primarily concern the promotion and career progression of existing faculty members, not direct recruitment of candidates who are external to the academic system.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal was filed by Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in an M.C.O.P. case. The case arose from a motor accident that resulted in the death of the claimant’s son. The claimants sought compensation, alleging that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Swaraj Mazda vehicle insured by the appellant.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Sections 314, 316, 318, 322, and 351(2) – The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on December 9, 2025, concerning a case registered under Sections 314, 316, 318, 322, and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner agreed to provide a loan of Rs. 3.5 crores to the complainant, demanding a sale deed of the complainant’s property as security, valued at Rs. 26 lakhs.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case concerns a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a majority award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, had entered into a contract with the respondent for railway repair work. The dispute arose over the measurement unit “track metre” for certain items in the contract’s Schedule B. The petitioner contended that the measurement should have been taken separately for each track, while the respondent argued for a combined measurement of two tracks for specific items.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 9, Order XLIII Rule 1(c), Section 115 – This Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Subordinate Court, Attur, which dismissed I.A.No.216 of 2016 in O.S.No.91 of 2011. The original suit, filed by the Plaintiff, sought declaration, permanent injunction, and partition. The suit was dismissed for default on July 27, 2016, due to the Plaintiff’s absence. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed I.A.No.216 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit.

The Code of Civil Procedure CPC (1908) Section 96 read with Order 41 of Rule 1  – This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) seeking recovery of possession of a property they purchased from one Senthilkumar via a sale deed. The defendant (appellant) claimed a right to the property through inheritance from his grandmother, Maragathammal. He argued that his father, Kandasamy, a legal heir of Maragathammal, became the absolute owner through a release deed and subsequently sold the property to Senthilkumar, who then sold it to the plaintiffs.

The defendant contested the plaintiffs’ claim, asserting his possession and a pending suit for declaration regarding the property.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 – This case involves a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, which dismissed an application by defendants 1 to 10 to reject the plaint in O.S.No.11 of 2011, a suit for partition. The plaintiffs claimed rights through Chellammal, a daughter of Kanniga Pillai, while the defendants claimed rights through other descendants of Kanniga Pillai.

The core issue revolves around a General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by the plaintiffs in favor of the 1st defendant, D.Revathy, in 1996, and a subsequent Release Deed executed by D.Revathy in favor of her father, Ethiraj Pillai. The plaintiffs argued that D.Revathy exceeded her authority under the GPA by executing the Release Deed.

The Factories Act, 1948 – Section 59(2) – This case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against a High Court (Madras) order, which had set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order. The core issue is whether compensatory allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA), and Small Family Allowance (SFA) should be included in the “ordinary rate of wages” for calculating overtime wages under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948.

The Union of India argued, citing various government letters and memoranda, that these allowances should be excluded from the calculation of overtime wages. They contended that including these allowances would lead to disparities in overtime pay due to varying amounts and applicability among employees.

Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 Rule 14(3) & Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 ; The Constitution of India Article 26, 48A and 51A(g) – This case involves a Hindu Religious Mutt seeking the return of three elephants, Sandhya, Indu, and Jayanthi, to its custody. The elephants were previously moved to a rescue and rehabilitation center due to inadequate facilities at the Mutt’s premises. The Mutt has since established a new facility at Konerikuppam Village, claiming it meets the required standards under the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011.

The court appointed a committee to inspect the Konerikuppam facility, which initially identified deficiencies.