Search Judgments

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 208; Transfer of Property Act – Section 3 – Trial Court judgment granting declaration for Flat No. 1 to the plaintiff while dismissing other reliefs and dismissing the suit entirely for Flat No. 2. The plaintiff purchased both flats in a public auction under SARFAESI.

Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 – The writ petitions challenge eviction notices issued to alleged encroachers by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (formerly Slum Clearance Board), aimed at demolition and reconstruction of a slum area. Petitioners claim long-term occupation and non-compliance with Section 11 of the Act, arguing that their rights are being violated without assurance of re-accommodation, impacting their livelihood.

The petitioners cite the Olga Tellis case, emphasizing the right to livelihood. They also argue the land’s dual Taluk location and ownership by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, classifying it as “Government poromboke,” further invalidating eviction proceedings.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34 and 37 ; The BOCW Act Sections 40 and 62; Interpretation of BOCW Act and Cess Act – This judgment addresses civil appeals arising from arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning the interpretation and implementation of ‘The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996’ (BOCW Act) and ‘The Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996′ (Cess Act).

The core issue in the appeals filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is whether the BOCW Act and the Cess Act can be considered ‘subsequent legislation’ in contracts entered into with its contractors.
The Supreme Court delves into the statutory schemes of both Acts, highlighting the delayed implementation despite their enactment in 1996, necessitating judicial intervention for their enforcement.

The Court emphasizes that the constitution of Welfare Boards under the BOCW Act is a prerequisite for the effective implementation of both Acts, and the cess could not be levied or collected before these boards were established.

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 Section 3 – These appeals arose from a judgment where the High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging a Central Government Notification imposing a Minimum Import Price (MIP) on certain steel products. The appellants, importers of mild steel items, had entered into firm sale contracts and opened irrevocable letters of credit before the notification but after it was uploaded on the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) website, but before it was published in the Official Gazette.

The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of “date of this Notification” in the context of transitional protection under para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. The appellants argued that the notification was effective only from its publication date in the Official Gazette, whereas the respondents contended that the “date of Notification” was the date it was uploaded on the DGFT website.

Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules – Rule 17(b) – This case involves a challenge to the dismissal of the deceased petitioner (originally the 1st petitioner) from service as Sub Registrar Grade-I, just three days before his retirement. The petitioner was suspended following a charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, alleging financial loss to the department due to under valuation of documents.

The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated belatedly, a decade after the alleged acts, and lacked any imputation of moral turpitude or corruption. He also contended that the appellate authority (1st respondent) failed to provide a hearing and issued a non-speaking order, merely replicating the disciplinary authority’s (2nd respondent) findings.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This case involves cross-appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award in M.C.O.P. No. 2514 of 2020. The petitioner, V.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant/complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed Rs. 3,00,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court dismissed the complaint, leading to the present appeal.

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 Section 10  – This case involves writ petitions filed by a university challenging government orders to evict them from encroached government land. The land was initially allocated to the Prison Department for constructing an Open Air Jail.

The university has been litigating this issue for approximately 30 years, with the matter reaching the Supreme Court. Previous eviction notices and requests for land assignment were rejected.

The Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 Section 4(b)(1)  – This case involves a dispute between a landlord and a cultivating tenant in Puducherry. The tenant filed a petition (PCTPA.No.7 of 1990) seeking permission to deposit rent, but later sought to withdraw it after paying the arrears. However, the Revenue Court directed the tenant to deposit Rs.93,418 as arrears of rent and also directed to approach the competent authority for fixation of fair rent for future period. The tenant failed to deposit and landlord filed an eviction petition (PCTPA.No.1 of 2001).

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975

Case Overview: These appeals arose from a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning allegations of illegal construction and environmental violations by Ambience Developers in relation to the Ambience Lagoon project. The central issue was whether the developers had illegally diverted land originally intended for a residential colony to construct a commercial complex, and whether this violated statutory regulations and the rights of apartment owners.

High Court’s Findings: The High Court found that the developers, in collusion with state authorities, had fraudulently reduced the residential area and illegally constructed a commercial complex. The High Court quashed delicensing orders and directed a CBI investigation.