Search Judgments

Constitution of India Article 21 and 226 – This writ petition was filed by an advocate and CPI council member seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order denying him personal security at the state’s expense and to direct the respondents to provide him with such security.

The petitioner claimed threats due to his father’s murder by a notorious rowdy and a subsequent attack on himself. He had previously received state-funded police protection, which was withdrawn after he was implicated and arrested in the murder of the rowdy who killed his father, despite his detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 being later quashed.

The respondent denied the request, citing the petitioner’s involvement in the rowdy’s murder, numerous criminal cases against him, and his status as a history sheeter.

Constitution of India Article 226 – The writ petitions challenge orders from the Labour Court that deemed Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (petitioner) a necessary party in computation petitions filed by workmen. These petitions arose from Labour Court awards ordering reinstatement with back wages against Vardhman Life Sciences (P) Ltd., the original management. The petitioner, as a secured creditor, sold the company’s assets under the SARFAESI Act.

The Labour Court dismissed the petitioner’s applications questioning the maintainability of the computation petitions against them, stating that the issue of liability would be determined after an inquiry.

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 31 and 32 – This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to complete the registration of a settlement deed executed by the petitioner’s brother, Kanimurugan, who later passed away. The registration was initiated via a special attendance at Kanimurugan’s residence due to his health condition. The Sub-Registrar completed the formalities in the presence of witnesses on September 23, 2022.

A discrepancy arose because the online thumb impression of the settlee did not match the Aadhaar card, leading to a technical error in the online registration process.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – This Second Appeal arises from a suit for a permanent injunction regarding a property originally belonging to Saradambal. The plaintiff, claiming to be Saradambal’s heir, sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with his possession. The defendants contested the claim, asserting their ownership through adverse possession and sale deeds.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

Constitution of India – Article 227 – This civil revision petition was filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.138 of 2023, pending before the Additional District Munsif, Alandur. The petitioner, the 1st defendant in the suit, argued that the suit was frivolous and vexatious, instigated by a dismissed Village Administrative Assistant (VAO), A.R. Sridharan, who had lost previous legal battles regarding the same property.

The 1st defendant purchased the suit properties in a public auction conducted by the 2nd defendant, State Bank of India (SBI), under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 9 – This case involves Civil Revision Petitions filed by the Registrar of Alagappa University against orders passed in C.M.A.Nos.9 and 10 of 2014 by the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The dispute concerns land originally belonging to Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Education Trust, later transferred to the Tamil Nadu Government, and subsequently granted to Alagappa University.

The respondents allegedly trespassed on the land, leading the University to file suits for recovery of possession.

This case concerns a petition filed by Battu Devanand seeking compassionate appointment in Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) after his father, an employee, passed away in 2005. The petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment in 2006 but also passed away in 2007. The petitioner, after obtaining a Diploma in Electrical Electronics Engineering, applied in 2018.

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) – This case involves a writ appeal against the order of a single judge who quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA. The notice was initially issued to Smt. Mohammed Thahaumma, wife of a detenu Mr. S.S.A.

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) & Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 23 – The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant, an advocate, had no right to a well and threshing floor (Nerkalam) and to restrain him from using the well water, claiming the defendant had encroached on the property. The defendant contended that he had leased the land, including the well, and that the cultivating tenant rights were later transferred to his brother through an oral partition.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – This case revolves around an insurance policy dispute between an Insurer (Petitioner) and an Insurance Company (Respondent) following a fire incident at the Petitioner’s plant in 2020. The Petitioner sought arbitration, as per the policy terms, to resolve disputes over material damage and business interruption claims. The Respondent admitted part of the material damage claim but repudiated the business interruption claim, arguing it was not subject to arbitration due to a clause stating that arbitration isn’t applicable if liability isn’t accepted.

The Petitioner contended that the business interruption claim was directly linked to the material damage, making it arbitrable.