Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – This case involves appeals against a Delhi High Court judgment concerning an arbitration award between Puri Construction Private Limited (PCL) and Larsen and Toubro Limited (L&T) regarding a land development agreement.

Background:

PCL possessed land in Gurgaon with licenses to develop residential group housing.
L&T and PCL entered into a Development Agreement in 1998, later modified by a Supplementary Agreement in 1999 and a Tripartite Agreement with Lord Krishna Bank in 2000.
Disputes arose, and PCL terminated the Development Agreement in 2000, leading to arbitration.

Arbitration Award:

The Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of PCL, finding L&T in breach of contract and awarding damages, directing L&T to settle a bank loan, return documents, and refrain from interfering with PCL’s development.

The Factories Act, 1948 – Section 59(2) – This case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against a High Court (Madras) order, which had set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order. The core issue is whether compensatory allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA), and Small Family Allowance (SFA) should be included in the “ordinary rate of wages” for calculating overtime wages under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948.

The Union of India argued, citing various government letters and memoranda, that these allowances should be excluded from the calculation of overtime wages. They contended that including these allowances would lead to disparities in overtime pay due to varying amounts and applicability among employees.

Breach of Contract for Film Production and Recovery of Advance

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 2 Rule 2 – Limitation Act, 1963: Section 18 – This Original Side Appeal challenged the learned Single Judge’s order in C.S. No. 153 of 2013, which decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of money.

The plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 27.11.2008 (Ex.P1) with Defendants 1, 3 & 4 (a partnership firm and its partners) for the production of an un-titled Tamil movie, Production No.

Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 92, 94, 95 – The appeals challenge the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s (APTEL) order, which modified the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (CERC) decision regarding compensation claims by Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd. (APNRL) against West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (WBSEDCL).

The dispute involved APNRL’s entitlement to compensation for additional coal costs incurred due to (i) procurement through e-auction/import to meet a shortfall in tapering linkage pending operationalization of its Ganeshpur captive coal block, and (ii) ‘Change in Law’ events following the cancellation of the Ganeshpur coal block.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 (unamended) – This case involves a dispute over the partition of joint family properties. The appellants, legal heirs of Defendant 5, challenged the High Court’s decision affirming the Trial Court’s preliminary decree for partition. The central issues revolved around the validity of registered release deeds executed by Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 3, and the admissibility of an unregistered partition deed (palupatti) for collateral purposes.

The Supreme Court addressed the following:
1.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Section 3, 17 & 42 – This case involves two writ petitions challenging actions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against R.K.M. Powergen Private Limited (RKMP) concerning allegations related to a coal block allocation and associated financial transactions. The ED initiated investigations under the PMLA, suspecting money laundering, and froze fixed deposits of RKMP.

The petitioner argued that the coal allocation never materialized into actual mining or profits, negating the existence of “proceeds of crime.” They also contested the ED’s reliance on alleged “round tripping” of funds and other financial irregularities, contending that these issues fall under the purview of other laws like FEMA and the Income Tax Act, and that no predicate offense exists to justify PMLA action.

Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 (Act 4 of 1997) – Section 5 and 6 – This Writ Petition challenges an order suspending the license of “Irudhayams Hospital,” owned by the petitioner, a medical doctor, by the second respondent, the Joint Director. The suspension was based on allegations that the petitioner, with only an MBBS qualification, was treating cardiac patients using specialized equipment like EECP and Electro-cartogram without proper consultation from a qualified cardiologist, charging exorbitant fees, and advertising unrecognised degrees, violating the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments Act and National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines.

The petitioner argued that the suspension violated natural justice principles, as he wasn’t provided with inspection reports or allowed a fair hearing. He contended that EECP and Electro-cartogram do not require cardiologist’s opinion and were performed with online consultation.

Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(d) & Family Courts Act 1984 Section 7 And 19 –  This case involves a civil revision petition filed by a husband seeking directions for the expedited disposal of his divorce petition (O.P.No.4126 of 2024) filed before the Family Court in Chennai under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, citing cruelty and adultery as grounds for divorce. The husband also sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain his wife from pursuing divorce proceedings in the United States of America (USA) or Singapore.

The couple married in Chennai under the Special Marriage Act and later relocated to the USA and then Singapore. The wife initiated divorce proceedings in Washington, USA, based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” a ground not recognized under the Special Marriage Act.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 2(a), 2 (d), 2(g) and Section 4 – The case revolves around a senior citizen (3rd respondent) who initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, against his daughter-in-law (petitioner) and grandchildren concerning property and business disputes. The senior citizen claimed he was not being maintained and was dispossessed from his properties, including two shops (Door Nos. 306 & 309, Big Bazaar Street, Trichy) unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner and her parents. He also sought cancellation of settlement deeds executed in favor of his deceased son (petitioner’s husband), alleging they were made under the promise of care, which was not fulfilled.

Constitution of India – Article 12, 19, 21 and 226 – This case involves a writ appeal filed by the management of Bharathidasan Institute of Management (BIM) challenging the order of a single judge, who quashed the termination order of an Assistant Professor (writ petitioner). The writ petitioner, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was terminated during his probation period.

The single judge ruled in favor of the writ petitioner, stating that the termination order was stigmatic, passed without adhering to principles of natural justice, and issued by an authority without jurisdiction. The management argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as BIM is not a State or State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution.