Search Judgments

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 201 & 202 – This case involves a dispute over the validity of a Power of Attorney (POA) after the death of one of the principals. The plaintiffs (legal heirs of Palani Gounder) filed a suit for partition and declaration, claiming that the POA granted to the second defendant became invalid upon the death of their mother, Pachiammal.

The defendants argued that the POA was coupled with interest, as the plaintiffs and their mother had already received the sale consideration for the property and handed over possession to the second defendant. The receipt Ex.B.4=Ex.B.12 acknowledged the transfer of possession and passing of entire sale consideration to the 2nd defendant.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c); Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 2(1)(w) and 79; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 104, Order 43 Rule 1(r) and Order 39 Rule 2A – This case concerns an appeal against an order by the Delhi High Court, which directed Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to remove certain pages and discussions from its platform. The High Court believed the content interfered with court proceedings, violated the sub judice principle, and bordered on contempt. The content in question included an article and discussions on Wikipedia about a defamation case against ANI Media Private Limited and comments allegedly made by a Single Judge.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 500 read with Section 34 & Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – This case involves a criminal complaint filed by a developer against homebuyers who erected a banner protesting the builder’s alleged deficiencies in services. The homebuyers were summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court under Section 500 (Defamation) read with Section 34 of the IPC, which was challenged in the High Court, but the High Court turned down their plea.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the complaint made out a case for defamation, considering the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court analyzed Section 499 of the IPC, including the Ninth Exception, which protects imputations made in good faith for the protection of one’s or another’s interests.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA) – Sections 2(1)(a), 7, 11, 16, 21, 37- Impleadment of party – Notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 – Application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11- Jurisdiction of Arbitral tribunal.

The core issue revolves around whether serving a Section 21 notice and being a party to a Section 11 application are mandatory for an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction over a person, and when an arbitral tribunal can implead someone in arbitration. The appellant contested the High Court’s order upholding the tribunal’s view that these were mandatory requirements.

The Supreme Court clarified the following: While a Section 21 notice is essential to determine the commencement date of arbitration, its non-service does not prevent impleading a party.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) – Rejection of Plaint – Suit for permanent injunction based on an agreement to sell.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Agreement to sell does not create any interest in the property.

The appellant, an educational institution, challenged the High Court’s order dismissing their revision petition against the trial court’s rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint in a suit filed by the respondents. The suit sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from creating third-party interests over the suit property based on an alleged agreement to sell.

The Supreme Court held that the plaint was liable to be rejected as it did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by law. The Court emphasized that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in the property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 201 and 202; Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 and 49; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – This case involves a dispute over property ownership stemming from a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an unregistered agreement to sell executed in 1986. The original owner sold the same property to two different parties, leading to conflicting claims. The appellants claimed ownership based on the 1986 documents and a subsequent sale deed executed by the GPA holder after the original owner’s death. The respondent claimed ownership through a series of registered sale and gift deeds originating from the original owner’s legal heirs.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and Competition Act, 2002 – The case involves appeals against orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) related to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd. (HNGIL) and the approval of a combination between HNGIL and AGI Greenpac Ltd. INSCO, another resolution applicant, contested the approval of AGI Greenpac’s plan. A key issue was whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval was required before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the resolution plan.

The Waqf Act, 1995 Section 69 – This writ petition challenges a scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board concerning the Mohaideen Aandavar Periya Pallivasal Waqf, Pattukottai, as notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on July 17, 2024. The petitioners, the Secretary and a member of the Waqf, argue that the scheme, which includes provisions for elections conducted by the Board, contravenes the Waqf’s established custom of selecting the Mutawalli (administrator) by Jamath (community elders), as per the Waqf Act, 1995.

The petitioners contend that the Board lacks the power to conduct elections or alter the mode of selection, citing a previous court order. They further argue that the scheme was framed without adhering to the mandatory requirements of Section 69 of the Waqf Act, 1995, specifically: the absence of an inquiry before framing the scheme, lack of satisfaction recorded regarding the need for such a scheme, lack of consultation with the Mutawalli and others, and that the final scheme has clauses that are substantially different from the draft scheme.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order II Rule 2 – Bar to Subsequent Suit: The object of Order II Rule 2 CPC is to prevent multiplicity of suits by ensuring a plaintiff includes the whole claim arising from a single cause of action in one suit. A subsequent suit seeking a relief omitted in a prior suit, without the court’s leave, is barred if both suits arise from the same cause of action, even if the first suit is still pending.

Cause of Action – Identity Test: The “cause of action” refers to every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to obtain judgment. To determine if causes of action are identical for Order II Rule 2 applicability, courts assess whether the claim in the new suit is founded on a distinct cause of action from the former, and if the same evidence would support both claims.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Sections 138, 142, 145 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 200 – Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder for Cheque Dishonour – A complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act can be signed and filed by a power of attorney (POA) holder on behalf of the payee or holder in due course. The complaint must be filed in the name of the payee (or company, if payee is a company), with the POA holder representing them. The POA holder cannot file the complaint in their personal capacity as if they were the complainant.

The POA holder can depose and verify on oath before the court to prove the contents of the complaint under Section 200 CrPC.