Search Judgments

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 54, 58, 78 and 100 – Regarding the validity and priority of mortgages, specifically concerning equitable and legal mortgages – The case addresses a dispute between Cosmos Co-operative Bank and Central Bank of India over the priority of mortgage on a flat, where the Central Bank initially sanctioned a loan based on an unregistered agreement of sale, while Cosmos Bank later sanctioned a loan against the flat’s share certificate. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and the High Court favored Central Bank’s claim. The Supreme Court examined the nature of equitable and legal mortgages under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court emphasized that an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on a property as per Section 54 of the Act.

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69 – This case concerns the maintainability of a suit filed by partners of an unregistered firm for the recovery of money from another partner, concerning the implications of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking to recover Rs. 30,00,000 from the defendant, claiming it was owed to them as partners of an unregistered firm. The defendant argued the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Act, which restricts suits by partners of unregistered firms against other partners.

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) – Operational Guidelines – Clause 24 – Regarding the liability of banks in case of misreporting of farmer details.

The writ petition challenged an award directing the petitioner (insurance company) to pay compensation to the 1st respondent (farmer) for crop damage under PMFBY. The farmer’s village name was incorrectly entered by the 2nd respondent (Nambivayal PACCS) in the National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP), leading to a lower compensation payout. The petitioner argued that they relied on the data in NCIP and were not responsible for the error, and the farmer should have approached the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under PMFBY. The 2nd respondent claimed no liability for non-loanee farmers.

(Motor Accident Compensation Enhancement)

This appeal, filed under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, addresses the inadequacy of compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant, a 14-year-old pillion rider, suffered 100% permanent disability in a 2016 accident due to negligent driving. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 7,76,543/-. On appeal, the High Court partially enhanced the compensation to Rs.

(Murder and Attempted Murder)

Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - This appeal challenged Accused No. 1's (appellant) conviction for murder and attempted murder, stemming from a wage dispute. The appellant, armed with a sickle, fatally attacked the deceased and injured an intervening eyewitness (PW1).

The appellant contested the FIR's credibility, citing medical record discrepancies and unreliable eyewitness testimony.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Sections 13(2), 13(4), 31(i), 31(j). Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) – Section 58 – The Civil Revision Petitions challenged DRAT and DRT orders that upheld the sale certificates for agricultural properties mortgaged by petitioners to secure an Over Draft (OD) facility. Petitioners were sanctioned Rs. 2 Crores each, but the bank restricted actual withdrawals to Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) – Section 166 – This appeal addressed a motor accident claim by the deceased’s heirs, challenging a High Court order that partly modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award regarding compensation.

D. Velu (37), a driver earning Rs. 10,000 monthly, died in 2011 due to a tanker lorry’s rash and negligent driving.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 498-A and 304-B – This judgment addresses appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court decision that acquitted the respondents (Ajmal Beg and Jamila Beg) in a dowry death case. The case originated from an FIR filed under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging that the respondents harassed and ultimately caused the death of the deceased (Ajmal’s wife and Jamila’s daughter-in-law) due to unmet dowry demands. The Trial Court convicted both Ajmal and Jamila, but the High Court reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, emphasizing the legislative intent behind anti-dowry laws.

(Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Employees and Procedural Irregularities)

The Chennai Port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1987; Chennai Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1988 (Reg. 10, 13(2), Schedule-I); Chennai Port Trust (Pension) Regulations, 1987 (Reg. 56(2)(b)); and the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 - Petitioners challenged show cause notices for major penalties, issued despite the Enquiry Officer finding charges "not proved." The Disciplinary Authority (Chairman) disagreed without recording specific reasons or independent findings, violating Regulation 13(2) of the Appeal Regulations and principles of natural justice.

Crucially, for the Chief Engineer, the alleged negligence (contract award, July 2012) occurred over four years before the charge memo (December 2016) was issued, exceeding the limitation period under Regulation 56(2)(b) for retired employees.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 20 and 118 and Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 18 and Article 35 – This appeal arises from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of money based on four promissory notes. The plaintiff claimed the defendants borrowed Rs.2,04,000, but the defendants denied the debt, alleging the notes were obtained under duress and the suit was time-barred.

The trial court ruled against the plaintiff, finding the promissory notes defective and incomplete, and the suit barred by limitation.

The appellate court considered:
1.