Search Judgments

(Defamation, Survival of Cause of Action, and Qualified Privilege)

This second appeal challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which awarded Rs. 75,000/- as damages for defamation to the plaintiff (an Advocate).

The relevant legal provisions considered were the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 306; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Section 100, Order 22 Rules 3, 4, and 11; and for analogy, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 394.

The defendant had filed a complaint against the plaintiff with the District Judge/Legal Services Authority, accusing him of misconduct for not returning documents. This complaint was eventually closed.

(Property Valuation for Stamp Duty and Procedural Compliance under Indian Stamp Act)

This appeal challenged an order from the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, concerning property valuation and stamp duty. The relevant statutes include the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (specifically Section 47A, as amended by Tamil Nadu) and Rules 4, 6, and 7 of the 1968 Rules, along with Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The appellant had registered 12 sale deeds for vacant land based on the guideline value of Rs. 75,000/- per cent.

(Quashing of Criminal Proceedings (Fraud, Forgery, Land Dispute)

This judgment addresses appeals against a common order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which quashed criminal proceedings (FIRs) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The complaints, initiated by NRI plot purchasers, alleged a large-scale conspiracy involving fraud, forgery of General Powers of Attorney (GPAs), and the execution of fraudulent sale and confirmation deeds concerning land in Survey No. 12 of Doddagubbi Village, Bengaluru. Offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including Sections 379, 381, 383, 415, 420, 409, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477, 107, 115, 116(1), 117, 118, 120, and 120-B, were invoked.

(IEnforcement of Consent Arbitral Award - Interpretation of Indemnity Clause)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 34, 36, 37) - The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Sections 124, 125) - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 47) - This Civil Appeal challenged a Delhi High Court judgment deferring the enforcement of a Consent Arbitral Award dated 01.03.2019, made by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The Appellants (VPS/Medeor) and Respondents (Promoters) had executed a Deed of Compromise, incorporated into the Consent Award. Paragraph 32(a) of the Award obligated Promoters to defend specific litigation (including an EY claim against Medeor), "ensure that no liability... is recovered from [VPS/Medeor] by the Forum," and indemnify, with discharge within 30 days if liability was confirmed by the "Highest Court of Appeal."

An arbitral award was subsequently rendered in favour of EY against Medeor.

(Co-ownership Rights in Electricity Service Connection and Ancillary Apparatus)

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code (Section 2(g)), the Electricity Act, 2003 (Section 2(15)), and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 (Clause 27(2)), in the context of pre-existing civil rights declared under the General Clauses Act (Section 13) - The plaintiffs and the 5th defendant are co-owners of a common well. An earlier civil court decree (O.S. No. 139 of 2003) had unequivocally declared the plaintiffs' one-third right in the common well, electric motor pump set, and Service Connection No.

(Deficit Court Fee and Limitation)

This Second Appeal challenged the reversal of a trial court's decree for money recovery by the first appellate court, which dismissed the suit primarily due to belated payment of deficit court fee.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 149, 148, 151, Order VII Rule 11(c), Order 41 Rule 22.
• Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955: Sections 4, 12(2).

The plaintiffs (appellants), a partnership firm, filed a suit to recover Rs. 4,69,476/- from the defendants for outstanding commercial transactions. The Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, decreed the suit in the plaintiffs' favour.

(Partition of Ancestral Property Based on Admission)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 18 (equivalent to Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 16) - This appeal challenged a judgment denying the plaintiff (now appellant), who had recently attained majority, a share in the 4th item of the suit schedule property, a 4.5-acre vacant land. The plaintiff had initially filed a suit for partition and separate possession against his father (1st defendant), paternal grandmother, and paternal aunts, claiming an undivided share in family properties.

The central issue was whether the 4th item of property, though recorded in the 1st defendant's name, was ancestral property or his self-acquired property. The plaintiff contended that this property was purchased using funds derived from the sale of ancestral properties by his grandfather, thereby establishing an ancestral nucleus.

(Divorce by Mutual Consent, Breach of Settlement, and Quashing of DV Proceedings)

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Section 12), the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Sections 13B(1) & 13B(2)), and the Constitution of India (Article 142(1)) - The Appellant-Husband and Respondent-Wife, married in 2000 with two adult children, separated in 2022-23. Following a divorce petition by the husband, a mediated Settlement Agreement (16.05.2024) was reached. Its terms included mutual consent divorce, the husband withdrawing his existing petition, payment of Rs. 1.5 Crores to the wife (in two installments), Rs.

(Suspension of Sentence and Bail in Corruption Case)

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)  and Sections 120B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India were also referenced - The appellant, a former Minister, challenged an order of the High Court of Jharkhand that rejected his application for suspension of sentence and bail. The appellant was convicted in R.C. Case No.

(Rejection of Plaint - Benami Transaction & Limitation)

This judgment addresses two Second Appeals arising from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal issues revolved around the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (pre-2016 amendment) and the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 58.

The plaintiffs (respondents) sued for a declaration of title, a declaration that a 1974 sale deed in favour of the first defendant (appellant, their brother's wife) was sham and nominal, and a permanent injunction. They asserted that the property's consideration was paid by them, but the deed was executed in the first defendant's name for the family's benefit, on their elder brother's advice.

The first defendant sought plaint rejection, alleging no cause of action, a limitation bar, and the suit being barred by the Benami Act.