Search Judgments

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Appeals against a Calcutta High Court judgment regarding the return of properties to a divorced Muslim woman, Rousanara Begum, from her former husband, S.K. Salahuddin. The key issue is whether goods given to the daughter (Appellant) at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be returned to the daughter, considering the marriage ended in divorce.

The Appellant sought the return of Rs.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order I Rule 8 and Madras High Court Original Side Rules (OS Rules) – Order 3 Rule 2 – This appeal challenges the order of a single Judge, allowing the respondents/plaintiffs to sue in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), representing the interests of the primary members of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). The suit sought declarations and injunctions against certain resolutions and actions of the AIADMK, including amendments to the party’s constitution.

The appellant argued that the respondents were not AIADMK members and that the suit itself was infructuous due to subsequent resolutions passed by the party. Further, the appellant contended that the procedure under Order I Rule 8 of CPC and Order III Rule 2 of the OS Rules was not properly followed, particularly regarding the affidavit required to support the application for leave to sue in a representative capacity.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the Special Judge, CBI, Madurai, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, an Inspector of Central Excise, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 300 for the issuance of a central excise registration certificate.

The prosecution’s case rested on the complaint lodged by the affected party, the testimony of witnesses, and the positive result of the sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test conducted on the appellant’s hands, confirming the acceptance of tainted money.

The Constitution of India – Article 226 – This writ petition challenges the termination notice dated 30.04.2024, issued by the second respondent, which terminated the contract with the petitioner effective from 01.05.2024. The petitioner, a provider of mechanized housekeeping services, was awarded a contract via G.O.Ms.No.139 dated 09.02.2024, following an e-tender process for services at the State Guest House, Chennai, and the New Government Rest House.

The termination was based on alleged deficiencies in service, including inadequate manpower. The second respondent argued that the petitioner failed to rectify these deficiencies despite being notified, and questioned the maintainability of the writ petition due to the arbitration clause in the tender.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 38 Rule 5 & Transfer of Property Act – Section 128 – The case revolves around a dispute between two brothers regarding the division of compensation received for land acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking the recovery of a balance amount with interest, claiming that the appellant/defendant did not disclose the actual compensation received.

The respondent filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC, seeking security for the suit amount, alleging that the appellant was attempting to sell his assets. The appellant executed a settlement deed in favor of his wife after the suit was filed.

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Section 45-ZA; Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 – Rule 2(7); Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Rugulations 2016 Rule 3 – The writ petition was filed to direct the bank to transfer funds belonging to the deceased, Sri Sushil Mazumdar, to the petitioner, who was nominated as the nominee. The bank had refused, claiming the nomination was incomplete and the nominee cannot be in a representative capacity.

The petitioner, an Italian national and former president of Sadhana Ashram, was nominated in his capacity as president. The court considered whether the nomination was valid, whether Foreign Exchange Management Regulations apply, and whether Sadhana Ashram is a legal entity that can be a nominee.

Companies Act, 1956; SARFAESI Act; Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 171 – This writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent (Bank) to disburse Rs. 10.50 Crores deposited by the petitioner in a “No Lien” account, with 24% interest from 12.07.2016. The petitioner, a third party to a loan between the Bank and the 2nd respondent (borrower), deposited the amount for a One Time Settlement (OTS) on the understanding that it would receive mortgaged properties.

The borrower proposed an OTS, with the petitioner funding part of it.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 354 and 452; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2) – The case revolves around an appeal against a lower court’s conviction and sentencing of the appellant for offences related to house trespass, sexual harassment, and offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The defacto complainant (PW1), belonging to a Scheduled Caste, had a prior relationship with the appellant, resulting in a child. Despite this, the appellant refused to marry her due to her caste. Later, PW1 married another man.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal arises from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The tribunal had awarded compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased person who died in an accident involving a TATA 407 Truck. The Insurance Company contested the claim, citing violations of the policy, including the lack of a valid permit, registration, and fitness certificate for the vehicle, as well as the driver not possessing a valid license.

The Tribunal held the owner and driver jointly liable, exonerating the insurance company, noting the driver only had a license for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and not a commercial vehicle.

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) – Section 9(4) and Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 – Rule 10 – This case involves a batch of writ petitions challenging orders from the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) that confirmed the partial cancellation of Merchandise Exports Incentive Scheme (MEIS) scrips. The petitioners, manufacturers and exporters of commercial vehicles, claimed MEIS benefits at 3% by classifying their goods under ITC(HS) code 87060042.

The DGFT issued a show cause notice based on inputs from the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, alleging misclassification and claiming excess MEIS benefits were obtained. The petitioners replied, but the Adjudicating Authority partially canceled the MEIS scrips to the extent of the excess amount availed (1%).