Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) – Section 2(f), 21(2)(a), and 37(1)(j) – This Civil Revision Petition challenged the Rent Court’s dismissal of a tenant’s application to reject the landlord’s repossession petition (RLTOP). The landlord sought repossession under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, alleging the tenant failed to enter a rental agreement.

The tenant argued the RLTOP was not maintainable because the original 1992 lease involved only a vacant site, with permission to erect a temporary structure, not a “premises” as defined under Section 2(f) of the TNRRRLT Act (a building or part of a building). The Rent Court had deferred this preliminary issue for final adjudication.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Section 482, 156(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B – The Supreme Court adjudicated an appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s order, which had quashed criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 2 of 2023) against Respondent Nos. 1-3.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), as amended by Act 43 of 2016 – Sections 2(9)(D), 53, and 62 – The judgment concerns two Criminal Revision Cases challenging the dismissal of discharge petitions. Accused No.1 (a partnership firm), Accused No.2 (its Managing Partner), and Accused No.3 (a dormant partner) face prosecution under the PBPT Act for alleged suspicious cash deposits of Rs. 68.71 Crores post-demonetisation without legitimate sources.

Accused 1 and 2 argued that the deposits were legitimate business turnover and that the complaint lacked specific averments to establish vicarious liability for the Managing Partner (A2) under Section 62.

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) – Sections 3(2), 5, 6(1), 19(3) and Customs Act – This judgment addresses a batch of Writ Petitions challenging various notifications imposing Minimum Import Price (MIP) on commodities such as Black Pepper, Areca Nut, and Apples. Petitioners argued these notifications, published by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), were ultra vires Section 3 of the FTDR Act, contending that only “Orders” were permitted, not “notifications,” and that MIP imposition was outside the scope of Section 3(2). A key ground was also the failure to lay these notifications before Parliament, as mandated by Section 19(3) of the FTDR Act.

The Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, affirmed that notifications published by DGFT are indeed issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the FTDR Act.

Constitution of India – Article 226 – The petitioner challenged the denial of a 4% interest subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) for a Rs. 10 crore loan. The loan, availed in 2010 for modernization, was initially confirmed as eligible for TUFS benefits. However, the subsidy claim of Rs.

The Registration Act, 1908, Section 22A(1)(i) – The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) Section 12A – The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 Rule 37(1) – The Petitioner, SAIL Refractory Company Limited (SAIL), challenged the refusal to register a Deed of Transfer, dated 16.12.2011, conveying mining leasehold rights from Burn Standard Company Limited (BSCL) to SAIL. The 1st Respondent refused registration under Section 22A(1)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908, for lands belonging to the State Government, citing a lack of valid title transfer.

SAIL argued that the Registering Officer lacked adjudicatory power, the transfer was part of a BIFR-approved scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), and that assigning “leasehold rights” was distinct from a “lease,” thus not falling under Section 22A. The Court clarified that while a Registrar generally doesn’t adjudicate title, Section 22A mandates refusal for transfers of State-owned immovable properties without competent authority sanction.

The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 7 – Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 Rule 19 – The appellant, Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, challenged a writ order allowing a retired Block Development Officer (1st respondent) to include his second wife as a nominee for Family Pension. The 1st respondent married his second wife in 1992 while his first wife was alive, leading to the initial rejection of his application.

Following his first wife’s demise in 2020, the 1st respondent renewed his claim, which the writ court allowed based on a ‘presumption of marriage’.

The High Court, in appeal, found that the writ court overlooked crucial provisions.

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 Section 118(2)(b)(i) – The judgment concerns two writ petitions regarding the administration of Arulmighu Sri Adipeeda Parameswari and Kalikambal Temple.

W.P. No.17419/2025 challenged G.O.(P) No.275 (17.11.2023) which reduced the term of non-hereditary trustees from three to two years. The original scheme, settled under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Act II of 1927), provided a three-year term.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 – This appeal concerns a partition suit challenging the inheritance rights of plaintiffs 2 and 4, born from the second marriage of the deceased 1st defendant. The marriage, solemnized in 1950 while the 1st defendant’s first wife was alive, was declared void under Section 4(1) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949.

Nevertheless, plaintiffs 2 and 4 were recognized as legitimate children under Section 16(1) and (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, entitling them to inherit from their father’s property, though not as coparceners. The court ascertained the 1st defendant’s notional share in the coparcenary property using Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 Order 7 Rule 1 – The plaintiff initiated an admiralty suit to recover Rs. 10,68,754/- from the defendant vessel owner. This sum represented charges for additional container detention “free time” allegedly purchased inadvertently by the plaintiff’s Customs House Agent and paid under protest. The suit initially sought the arrest of a sister vessel, which was later converted to an application for attachment before judgment.