Search Judgments

(Execution of Decree Against Legal Representatives)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Section 50 - The decree holder (petitioner) obtained a decree in O.S.No.27 of 2016. Possession was delivered on 27.01.2017, and the execution petition (EP) was closed on 31.01.2017. Subsequently, the judgment debtor (J.D.) trespassed back into the property on 10.03.2017 and died on 04.07.2017. To recover possession from the J.D.'s legal representatives (L.Rs.), the decree holder filed E.A.No.90 of 2018 under Section 50 CPC to implead them (respondents 2 to 7).

(Interpretation of 'Attempt' in University Examinations)

This case concerns the interpretation of "attempt" under the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Regulations governing Ph.D. Programme, particularly concerning the mandatory Paper-I Methodology examination.

(Family Partition, Validity of Family Arrangement and Will)

This common judgment addresses appeals concerning family partition, the validity of a family arrangement, and a Will. The relevant legal principles include those of Hindu Law regarding partition, reunion, and testamentary succession, as well as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (specifically Section 33 for the admissibility of evidence).

The plaintiffs are the elder sons of the late M.S.P. Rajes (Second Defendant), who had previously partitioned properties with them.

(Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order II Rule 2 CPC)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order II Rule 1, 2; Order VII Rule 11(a) to (f), 13 - This judgment addresses the High Court's decision to reject a plaint in a second suit (O.S. No. 2320 of 2013) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, on the ground that it was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The appellants (original plaintiffs in the second suit) challenged this rejection.

(Maintenance under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 144 - This criminal appeal challenged the High Court of Uttarakhand's judgment, which partly allowed the appellant-wife's revision and enhanced her maintenance from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on May 7, 2023.

(Environmental and Planning Law: Validity of Industrial Land Use and Pollution Classification)

The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (Sections 70, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81); Constitution of India (Articles 14, 21, 32); Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006; Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) Notification dated 02.09.1998; Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) Notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E dated 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025.

Background and Issues:   Agriculturists and a school challenged a CLU granted to Shree Cement North Private Limited for a cement grinding unit in Sangrur, arguing it violated the Master Plan's rural agricultural zoning and siting norms. They also challenged the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)'s reclassification of 'stand-alone grinding units without Captive Power Plant (CPP)' from 'Red' to 'Orange' category, and the MoEF&CC's subsequent relaxation of safeguards, questioning their constitutional validity.

Court's Analysis:  The Supreme Court affirmed that a Master Plan is statutory and binding; a CLU cannot override its zoning.

(Challenge to Re-valuation in Confirmed Auction Sale)

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (now Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993); Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Rules 38, 52(2)) - The Indian Bank initiated recovery proceedings (O.A. No. 536 of 1998) against a debtor company and its guarantors, who had created an equitable mortgage. The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) issued a Recovery Certificate in 2010, leading to the attachment and auction of the mortgaged properties in October 2010.

(Banking Service Deficiency)

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 23 of  (now Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), and involving aspects of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Sections 6, 25, 30, 64, 72, 75A, 84, 85, 105, 138, 142) and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 73), arose from two civil appeals filed by Canara Bank against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision.

The respondent, Kavita Chowdhary, deposited two CTS cheques totaling Rs. 1,06,10,768.00 into her savings account with Canara Bank on May 29, 2018. Both cheques, dated March 3, 2018, were drawn on Vijaya Bank.

(Prevention of Corruption Act)

This case concerns a prosecution initiated under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The trial court convicted the accused (Taluk Supply Officer - TSO) for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from an Authorized Ration Dealer (ARD) for countersigning an 'Abstract' register. The accused was sentenced to two years concurrently under both sections, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

(Cancellation of Security Deed)

This revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners are the legal representatives of late Muthusami, who, in 1977, voluntarily provided his immovable property as security to facilitate the release of motor accident compensation to the mother of two minor claimants. This security was for amounts deposited by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, for the minors. A security-cum-guarantee deed was executed and registered.

Decades later, the minor claimants have attained majority, and both Muthusami and the claimants' mother have passed away.