Search Judgments

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Sections 133 and 139 – The case involved an appeal by Bhagyalakshmi Co-Operative Bank against a High Court decision concerning sureties’ liability. M/s Darshak Trading Co. (principal debtor) secured a Rs. 4,00,000 loan from the Bank, with respondents (R1 & R2) as guarantors.

(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.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 21, 21(2), 157 – Trade Mark Rules, 2017 Rule 46, 46(2) –  This appeal challenged the Registrar of Trademarks’ order declaring the appellant’s trademark application for “MODERN KITCHENS’ Delite in Every Bite” abandoned. The appellant had applied for registration in class 35 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which faced opposition from the 2nd respondent.

During opposition proceedings, the appellant filed an unsigned and unattested affidavit of evidence on 01.06.2020. This was done under Rule 46 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, due to Covid-19 restrictions, with an undertaking to submit a signed copy when possible.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 37, Section 148, Order 34 Rule 7(2) – The petitioner, Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Limited, challenged the Trial Court’s grant of extended time to the respondents for payment in a property redemption mortgage suit.

The petitioner contended that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction as the Appeal Court had modified the original decree, and further argued that Section 148 CPC limits any such extension to a maximum of 30 days.

The respondents countered that the Trial Court, as the court of first instance, retained jurisdiction under Section 37 CPC. They asserted that for mortgage suits, Order 34 Rule 7(2) CPC applies, which permits extensions of time without the 30-day cap found in the general provision of Section 148 CPC.

Indian Evidence Act – Section 63, 64, 65, 85; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – This case concerns a dispute over the validity of sale deeds executed by the 1st Defendant, acting as an agent for the Plaintiff, his sister, based on a Power of Attorney (PoA). The Plaintiff claimed the PoA used for the sale was a “fudged” document granting only specific, not general, powers, while the 1st Defendant contended it granted comprehensive authority, including alienation.

The Trial Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, declaring the sale deeds invalid, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding the PoA valid and the sales legitimate. The High Court, in a second appeal, overturned the First Appellate Court’s judgment, restoring the Trial Court’s decision.

The Town and Country planning Act Section 54 read with Section 2(15) Section 36 – This case concerns a dispute over the proposed conversion of land reserved for a school and playground into a community hall in a residential layout in Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner association, representing plot owners, challenged the decision, arguing that the land was designated for public use and could not be altered.

The respondents, including the State government, municipality, and private landowners, contended that the change was permissible under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and that the municipality had deemed to have approved the change request due to lapse of time as per the old District Municipalities Act. The private respondents also argued that the land had not been handed over to the municipality and that the petitioner’s claim was barred by laches.

The Constitution of India Article 142 and 226 – PG Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 – The appeal challenged a Single Judge’s order for an additional mop-up counselling round for NEET SS 2024-25 super-specialty seats. Private respondents (writ petitioners) sought this round, contending seats remained unfilled due to administrative inaction, violating principles of fairness and optimal resource utilization. The Single Judge had concurred, noting the non-utilization of resources contrary to the PG Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019, and the lapsing of Tamil Nadu quota seats.

Appellants argued that the counselling schedule, defined by the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2015, and approved by the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan, mandates August 31 as the final admission deadline.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Sections 296(b), 353(1)(c), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) – This case involves a petition filed by the State seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to A. Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, the respondent’s son, in connection with Crime No.519 of 2025. Interim bail was initially granted due to the accused’s claimed serious medical conditions.

The petitioner-State argued that the accused violated the bail conditions by exaggerating his medical condition, engaging in social media activities, threatening witnesses, interfering with the investigation, and failing to inform his place of residence to the Investigating Officer.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable  Endowments Act  (1959) Section 63(e); The Constitution of India Articles 19(1)(a), 25(1), 29(1) – This case involves a dispute over the lighting of a lamp during the Karthigai Deepam festival at the Thiruparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu. The core issue is whether the Executive Officer of the Thiruparangundram Devasthanam can be directed to light a lamp at the stone lamp pillar (“Deepathoon”) on the hill, near a Dharga.

The High Court considered previous litigations, including a Privy Council judgment and earlier writ petitions, which have shaped the rights of Hindu and Muslim communities concerning the hill. Arguments were raised about the historical context, the terrain of the hill, Agama Shastra, and potential disturbances to public peace.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Section 45; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 483 – This appeal challenges the High Court of Delhi’s order rejecting the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 45 of the PMLA. The appellant, a former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd., is accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on which the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIRs alleging money laundering.

The appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024 and is one of the 28 individuals accused. He argues prolonged custody violates Article 21, emphasizing that he cooperated with the investigation and the investigation is concluded qua him.