Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 – Section 63-B – The petitioners sought planning permission for an office complex in Chennai, initially applying in 1996. Despite a Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.413, 1998) exempting their building from certain development rules and two High Court mandamus orders (1999 and 2009) directing the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to issue permission, their application remained pending for over a decade due to CMDA’s inaction and subsequent objections. The CMDA initially demanded a bank guarantee for car parking, which was quashed by the Court in 1999. Later, after an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 introduced Section 63-B and the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008, the CMDA demanded new infrastructure and amenities charges of Rs.30,50,000/-, classifying the re-submitted plan as a ‘fresh application’.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) – Section 34, 12(5), 21 – This petition challenged an arbitral award dated 26.02.2022 concerning a contract for work awarded to the petitioner by the respondents. Disputes arose over outstanding payments and work completion, leading the petitioner to invoke arbitration and claim unpaid dues.

The primary objection raised by the petitioner was regarding the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the respondent unilaterally appointed the Tribunal despite the petitioner’s express refusal to waive their rights under Section 12(5) of the Act.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) Section 17; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (BNSS/Cr.P.C.) Section 156 read with Section 4(2) – The Supreme Court examined whether the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) possesses jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Central Government employees for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), or if this power rests exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act).

The High Court had affirmed the State ACB’s jurisdiction, rejecting the petitioner’s argument for exclusive CBI authority. The Supreme Court upheld this view.

The Court clarified that while the CBI typically investigates Central Government employee corruption and State police agencies handle State Government employee cases, this is an arrangement of convenience, not a statutory limitation on jurisdiction.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 61(2) ; The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS/Crpc Section 41-A) Section 35(3) –  The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a Telangana High Court order dated 26.11.2025 in a Criminal Petition. The High Court, while addressing a petition to quash an FIR concerning offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which attract punishment of less than seven years, had directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure stipulated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (previously Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

A critical grievance raised by the appellant (defacto complainant) was that the High Court had disposed of the matter on the very first day without issuing notice to either the State or the defacto complainant and without providing them an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had thus overlooked the complainant’s fundamental right to be heard.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1), 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 88 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Section 91 – This petition sought a direction to the trial court to accept sureties for the petitioner’s appearance after summons, clarifying it was not a bail application and thus not subject to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner, Accused No. 6, was named in a supplementary charge sheet alleging conspiracy in a case involving the recovery of 140 kg of ganja. He contended that Section 88 Cr.P.C.

 The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 153 – The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (IT Act) Section 66E – The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) Sections 74, 77 – A Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash an FIR against the petitioner (Crime No. 12/2024). The petitioner was accused of commenting on a social media video showing minor girls consuming alcohol. Her comment criticized the state’s “Dravidian model” administration.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 151 and 152 – This judgment addresses a Miscellaneous Application filed by Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited, the original respondent in Civil Appeal Nos. 14565-14566 of 2025, which were dismissed by the Court on 04.12.2025. The respondent sought rectification of several inadvertent and typographical errors within that prior judgment.

The application specifically highlighted inaccuracies in paragraphs 3, 43, 44, and 45 of the judgment.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 105(2), Rule 106(3), Section 151; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5, Article 137 – This revision challenged an executing court’s decision to condone a 573-day delay in restoring an Execution Petition (EP) on payment of costs. The revision petitioners argued that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it is inapplicable to applications under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), especially when filed beyond the 30-day period for restoration.

They referenced established legal precedents from the Supreme Court and High Court. Conversely, the respondents contended the EP’s dismissal was not a strict “dismissal for non-appearance” under Order XXI Rule 105(2) CPC, but rather for non-production of a stay order while monitoring an appeal.

The Limitation Act, 1963 Section 22, Article 113 –  The case pertains to an employee (plaintiff) seeking notional increments for his non-employment period from May 1991 to December 1996 and appropriate pay scale fitment from his reinstatement date (December 1996). This claim arose from a High Court order (W.P.No.17225 of 1991) directing his reinstatement with “continuity of service” but without backwages. The defendants (Bank) challenged the trial court’s decree, which granted the plaintiff Rs.10,01,000/-.

The Bank contended that “continuity of service” does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to notional increments, and that the suit was barred by limitation, applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the claim was allegedly rejected in 2003.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) – Section 6, 8 – The Second Appeal arose from a suit for partition of family properties. The original plaintiff sought a share in properties, asserting they were either ancestral (Items 1 & 2) or acquired from joint family income (Items 3-11). The defendants (father, brother, mother, and sister) contested, claiming Items 3-11 were the father’s self-acquired properties and that an oral partition had already occurred.

During the litigation, the father (1st defendant) and mother (3rd defendant) passed away.