Search Judgments

 (Specific Performance of Sale Agreement concerning Housing Board Property)

Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1981 - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c) - This Second Appeal, remitted by the Supreme Court for fresh consideration, originated from a suit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement dated 03.08.2006. The agreement pertained to a Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) unit, which the plaintiff intended to purchase from the deceased allottee, Janagaraj, having paid an advance of Rs. 5,00,000.

The defendants, heirs of Janagaraj, contended that the suit was non-maintainable and the agreement unenforceable due to violations of TNHB allotment conditions.

(Jurisdiction of Waqf Board over 'Waqf-alal-aulad simpliciter)

Waqf Act, 1995 (Sections 3, 32(a)(j), 63, 64, 83(1), 83(2)); Constitution of India (Article 227) - This revision petition challenged a resolution of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and a consequential order of its Chief Executive Officer, along with seeking an injunction against interference with Waqf administration. The central issue was whether a 1930 Waqf Deed constituted a 'Waqf-alal-aulad simpliciter' (private, for family) or a 'Waqf-alal-aulad composite' (including public/charitable purposes).

The petitioners argued the Waqf was private, created for the Wakif's daughter and male descendants, with Muthawalliship hereditary and restricted to the male line. They contended that minor provisions for feeding the poor were not a dedication for charitable purposes and the Board, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to interfere or appoint respondents 3 to 6 (who claimed through a female line).

Election Petition - Non-Disclosure of Assets 

This civil appeal, filed under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenged a High Court order dismissing an election petition. The relevant provisions include Sections 36(4), 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), 123(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Rule 4A and Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - The Appellant, an unsuccessful candidate, challenged the election of Respondent No.1, the returned candidate, to the Telangana Legislative Assembly. The primary grounds were alleged non-disclosure of income from Income Tax Returns (ITR) for four out of the last five financial years in Form 26 Affidavit (marked as 'Nil'), and non-disclosure of honorarium as Zilla Parishad Chairperson and ex-MLA pension. The Appellant contended this amounted to improper acceptance of nomination, corrupt practice, and non-compliance with election laws, rendering the election void under Section 100 of the Act.

Government Tender and Letter of Intent Cancellation

This judgment addresses an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh (Appellant) against a High Court order that reinstated a cancelled Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) for ePoS devices in its Public Distribution System.

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India concerning arbitrariness in government contractual actions.

Judicial Misconduct and Bail Orders

This judgment primarily interprets and applies Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 - The appellant, a judicial officer with 27 years of unblemished service, was removed based on disciplinary proceedings. The central charge (Article-I) alleged that he granted bail in four cases under the Excise Act (involving 50+ bulk litres of liquor) with "corrupt or oblique motive" by "deliberately violating" Section 59-A, which prescribes 'twin conditions' for bail.

Appointment and Retrospective Notional Benefits for Wrongful Exclusion

This case revolves around principles of fair selection, administrative justice, and the consequences of governmental inaction. The petitioner, D. Kumar, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that denied him retrospective service benefits despite the Tribunal having earlier directed his appointment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer Gr.II (Explosives).

The petitioner applied for the said post advertised in 2013 by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

Partition and Challenge to Property Deeds

This judgment addresses appeals concerning a suit for partition and permanent injunction, where the core dispute revolves around the ownership of a property and the validity of a settlement deed and subsequent sale deed. An interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Order 41 Rule 27 regarding additional evidence, and the Specific Relief Act, Section 31, concerning the necessity of challenging registered documents. References were also made to Section 37(2) of the Court Fees Act.

The plaintiff and the 1st defendant (brothers) sought a 1/3rd share each in a property, claiming it was their deceased father's self-acquired asset. They contended that their deceased mother, Mohana, illegally executed a settlement deed in favour of their sister, the 2nd defendant, who then sold the property to the 3rd defendant.

Partition of Ancestral Property and Validity of Will

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (specifically Section 29, 30, and 63, including the 1990 amendment), the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68), and the Tamil Nadu Court Fee Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (Section 37(2)) - The plaintiff, granddaughter of deceased Arumuga Gounder and daughter of the second defendant, filed a suit for partition of two properties. She claimed Item I was ancestral property, and Item II was acquired from the income of Item I. The defendants contended that Item I was the self-acquired property of Arumuga Gounder, validly bequeathed to the 5th defendant (grandson) via a Will dated 20.02.1996. They further asserted that Item II was the second defendant's self-acquired property, which he settled in favour of his son.

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion with Maintenance

This appeal challenges the High Court's judgment affirming divorce granted to the respondent-husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) (Cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (Desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appellant-wife and respondent-husband married in 2002 and have two children. Disputes arose, leading to their separation since 2018.

The appellant alleged cruelty, dowry harassment, and being driven out. The respondent contended the appellant insisted on separate living, was abusive towards his parents, and caused continuous mental/physical harassment, leading to an irretrievable breakdown.

Limitation for Taking Cognizance in Criminal Proceedings

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Sections 2(d), 2(r), 173, 190, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 341, 34 - Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 - This appeal challenged a Delhi High Court order that quashed FIR No. 121 of 2011, concerning offences under Sections 323, 341, and 34 IPC. The High Court had quashed the FIR on the ground that the charge-sheet, filed on 29.05.2012, was beyond the one-year limitation period from the incident date of 09.05.2011, as prescribed by Section 468 Cr.PC.

The central legal issue was determining the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC: whether it is the date of filing the complaint/FIR or the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance.