Search Judgments

(Property Ownership and Benami Transaction)

The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Section 96 - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988  (as amended) concerning a claim of 'name lending', and general principles of property ownership and civil remedies for declaration and injunction.

The appellant (plaintiff) challenged a trial court's judgment, seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over three suit properties and a consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff, an Indian Army serviceman, contended that Item 1 (land) was purchased out of his income in his mother's (1st respondent/defendant) name as a 'name lender'. He further claimed that Items 2 and 3 (houses) were constructed using his savings and housing loans obtained in his name.

(Appealability of Pre-Deposit Order under MSMED Act)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 33, 34(2)(b)(ii), 37
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act): Sections 15, 16, 19
Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 13(1-A) Proviso, 13(2)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 43

The present appeal was filed by M/s.Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (original applicant) challenging an order of a learned Single Judge concerning the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The appellant had initiated proceedings under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside an arbitral award.

(Motor Accident Claims - Insurance Liability for Policy Violation)

The Motor Vehicles Act, involving Sections 379 IPC and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, concerning motor accident claims. An accident resulted in the death of the claimant's parents due to a tractor's rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 7,70,000/- and Rs. 15,50,000/- in two separate petitions, directing the Insurance Company to pay.

(Motor Accident Compensation Liability)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (specifically Section 10(2)(e) related to driving licenses); Insurance Act, 1938 (implied for policy conditions) - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dated 13.08.2024, which fixed the entire liability for accident compensation on the vehicle owner. The appeal primarily revolved around the interpretation of insurance policy conditions and the validity of the driver's license for a heavy goods vehicle.

The appellant, the vehicle owner, contended that the Tribunal erroneously held them solely liable despite the vehicle being insured and premiums paid for workmen. They argued that the driver, holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license, was authorized to operate the lorry, citing a Supreme Court judgment (2024(2) TNMAC 561(SC)) which held that an LMV license holder is authorized to operate a transport vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) less than 7500 kgs without additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(Motor Accident Compensation)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - This judgment addresses an appeal filed by the insurance company and a cross-objection by the claimant, challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.440 of 2022.

The claimant, Ajithkumar, a 25-year-old cooking master, suffered severe head injuries, including sub-dural hematoma, temporal contusion, and multiple bone fractures, in a motorcycle accident on June 7, 2022, while he was a pillion rider. The Medical Board assessed 60% partial permanent disability; the Tribunal determined a 30% functional disability.

The Tribunal found the Bolero pickup vehicle driver solely negligent for driving rashly on the wrong side of the road, rejecting the insurance company's contention that the motorcycle collided with a parked vehicle.

(Motor Accident Compensation & Insurance Liability)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - This common judgment addresses appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award concerning a fatal road accident. The case involves principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically regarding compensation for death, negligence, and the liability of an insurer when the driver holds an invalid license.

The accident occurred on February 10, 2019, when the deceased, Bhuvaneswaran, driving a moped, was struck and run over by a tractor driven negligently by its owner, resulting in fatal injuries. His wife, children, and mother sought compensation.

(Validity of Income Tax Assessment Proceedings against a Deceased Assessee)

Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 148A(d), 156, 159(1), 159(2), 270A, 292B, 292BB. This writ appeal challenged an order dated 27.10.2025 by a learned Single Judge, which upheld the Revenue's jurisdiction but quashed and remitted assessment proceedings. The appellant had challenged an order under Section 148A(d), an Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025, and a demand notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that these actions were taken against a person who had died on 04.01.2024.

(Removal from Legal Aid Panel)

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010, particularly Regulations 8(16) and 8(17) - The petitioner, an advocate empanelled with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Coimbatore, challenged his removal from the B-Panel of Advocates by an order dated 2.3.2026. The removal stemmed from an allegation made by the fifth respondent, a legal aid beneficiary.

The petitioner, allotted an MCOP case for the fifth respondent, engaged his friend, Advocate Murugan, to file the vakalat on 12.1.2026, citing personal illness. The fifth respondent alleged that Murugan demanded and received Rs.

(Governor's Power of Remission and Premature Release)

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 161, Article 200, Article 201
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197

Issues for Determination:
1. Whether His Excellency The Governor is bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release.
2. If so bound, under what circumstances does the Governor have the discretion to take a view different from that taken by the Council of Ministers.