Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 – Section 16(f) – This case concerns a challenge to G.O.(Ms).No.124, issued under Section 16(f) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, which allowed the government to procure rice from a specific third party (NCCFI) without following the standard tender process. The government justified this action as a necessary measure to address a shortfall in rice supply for public distribution, arguing it fell under exceptions provided in Section 16(f) of the Act.

The petitioner contended that the G.O. violated the Act’s core principle of transparency in public procurement, as it bypassed the competitive tender process and favored a trader (NCCFI) over primary producers.

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines on Wilful Defaulters – This case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging an order declaring them wilful defaulters. The petitioners, related to M/s. Cethar Limited, were served a show-cause notice regarding their wilful defaulter status due to alleged financial irregularities. They submitted an explanation, but were subsequently declared wilful defaulters.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 118 and 139; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – This case involves an appeal against an order of the Madras High Court, which had overturned a trial court’s decision regarding a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The petition was filed by the accused seeking a forensic opinion on the cheque in question. The appellant argued, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, that once a negotiable instrument is presented, a presumption of its validity arises under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 – Section 2(36) – The writ petition was filed by an association of residents seeking to prevent the construction of a Sewage Lifting Station, as part of the Tamil Nadu Urban Flagship Investment Project, on land designated for a park in their residential area. The petitioner argued that the land, gifted to the Coimbatore Corporation for public use as a park, could not be used for any other purpose and that the sewage station would cause pollution and health hazards. The respondents (Coimbatore Corporation and project authorities) contended that the project was essential for public health, would improve sanitation, and that only a small portion of the park land would be used. They assured that measures would be taken to control odour and prevent pollution and also mention that the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court held that usage of park for the sewage lift station is permissible and it is as per Rules.

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 3(1)(b)(ii) – The Insurance Company filed an appeal challenging the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai. The claimants sought compensation for the death of the deceased, who was fatally injured while working as a loadman on a tractor owned by the sixth respondent due to the driver’s rash driving.

The Insurance Company argued that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and therefore, the insurance policy did not cover the claim. The Commissioner ruled in favour of the claimants, holding the owner liable and the Insurance Company responsible for indemnification.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case involves appeals concerning a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following the death of Ramya in a road accident. The claimants (Ramya’s parents and sister) sought Rs.50,00,000/- in compensation, alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver of a load van insured by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs.20,69,000/- to the claimants (excluding claimant 2), holding the driver negligent and the insurer liable. Both the claimants and the insurance company appealed, the former seeking enhanced compensation and the latter contesting the awarded amount.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – This case involves an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar, in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2019, and a cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The claimant, a teacher, suffered the amputation of her right hand due to a bus accident in 2016. The Transport Corporation challenged the tribunal’s finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, while the claimant sought an increase in the awarded amount.

The Transport Corporation argued contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and disputed the assessment of income loss.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163 And 173- Claim for Motor Accident Compensation – This case concerns a claim for compensation filed by Respondent No. 1 (the injured party) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Chennai, seeking Rupees Twenty lakh for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor accident on 27.12.2011, involving his scooter and a lorry.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, citing the absence of evidence of a motor accident. Hospital records indicated that the injuries resulted from a skid and fall from the scooter.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal addresses the adequacy of compensation awarded to the appellant, Baby Sakshi, who sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident at the age of seven. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 5,90,750, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 11,51,000.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 149 (2) – This case involves an appeal and cross-objection arising from a claim petition filed by the respondents (claimants) seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants alleged that the rider’s rash and negligent riding caused the accident. The Insurance Company (appellant) contested the claim, asserting the rider lacked a valid license and denying negligence.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the claimants, holding the rider negligent and liable for Rs.