Search Judgments

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 31 and 60(5) – This case involves appeals against a judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) regarding the ownership of the trademark “Gloster” in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Gloster Limited (Successful Resolution Applicant – SRA) and Gloster Cables Limited (GCL) both appealed the NCLAT’s decision. The core dispute revolves around whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had the jurisdiction to determine the title of the “Gloster” trademark during the CIRP of Fort Gloster Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor). GCL claimed ownership of the trademark based on various agreements, while the SRA asserted it belonged to the Corporate Debtor and, consequently, to them.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 91 & 92; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 58(c); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 4 – This case concerns a dispute over a registered sale deed and a subsequent rental agreement. The plaintiff (now deceased) claimed that the sale deed was a sham transaction intended as a security for a loan, while the defendants asserted it was an outright sale. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court then overturned the appellate court’s judgment, restoring the trial court’s decree.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the award passed by the II Additional District Court at Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1608 of 2015, which granted compensation to the parents of the deceased, Rajavignesh, who died in a road accident. The accident occurred when the two-wheeler he was riding pillion on, driven by his friend, crashed due to rash and negligent driving. The parents filed a claim petition seeking Rs.50,00,000/-, and the tribunal awarded Rs.30,06,000/-. The insurance company appealed, arguing that negligence wasn’t adequately proven, and the compensation was excessive.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 52 – This case involves three writ petitions (W.P.No.19568 of 2015, W.P.No.22382 of 2015, W.P.No.22383 of 2015) concerning the allotment of shops in the Koyambedu Wholesale Vegetable Market under a discretionary quota. The allotments were challenged earlier, leading to a court order to conduct a public auction. Despite this, the original allottees sold the shops to the current petitioners. The petitioners claim rights based on these sale deeds.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation for Death due to Motor Accident – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Principal Small Causes Court, Chennai, in M.C.O.P. No.831 of 2020. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, who died in a car accident. The Insurance Company challenged the award, arguing that the driver of the car did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident, which constitutes a breach of the insurance policy.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 Section 4(3) ; The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act Section 37(1); The Indian Evidence Act Section 68 – This case involves a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, who are family members. The dispute concerns ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed both schedules as joint family properties, while the defendants contested the claim, particularly regarding the ‘B’ schedule properties. The trial court decreed the suit for ‘A’ schedule but dismissed it for ‘B’ schedule.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 108, 80; Dowry Prohibition Act – Sections 3, 4 – The case concerns an appeal against the High Court’s rejection of a regular bail application filed by the appellant, a dentist, accused of offences under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, related to the death of his wife. The FIR was initially registered for abetment to suicide following the wife’s death, allegedly due to the appellant’s relationship with another woman. Later, a charge-sheet was filed including charges of dowry death and murder.

The prosecution argued that the death was a murder by injection and that the appellant demanded dowry, based on statements from the deceased’s family.

Constitution of India – Article 14, 16, 19, 21, 226; Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 – Section 3, 33; Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order 2025 – Section 3(2) – This case involves a Sri Lankan refugee challenging her termination from a bank job due to not being an Indian citizen. The petitioner argued discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming Indian origin and long-term residency. The bank defended the termination based on the advertisement requiring Indian citizenship and the petitioner’s failure to disclose her nationality.

The court examined the maintainability of the writ petition by a non-citizen.

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – This case involves a Civil Revision Petition (CRP(MD)No.1314 of 2011) and a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M.A(MD)No.1351 of 2012) arising from an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen Compensation), Tirunelveli, in W.C.No.49 of 2008.

The company, Subam Papers (P) Ltd., filed the CRP challenging the dismissal of its application (unnumbered I.A.) seeking a re-evaluation of the workman’s disability by a medical board. The company argued the initial disability assessment of 52% was too high and required further expert assessment.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the same company, challenging the compensation awarded to the workman for injuries sustained during employment.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the insurance company, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.194 of 2004. The case originated from a road accident where a bus collided with a lorry resulting in the death of a person travelling in the lorry.

The claimants alleged rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, whereas the insurance company contended that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal held both the Transport Corporation (bus) and the owner/insurer of the lorry jointly liable for compensation.