Search Judgments

(Medical Negligence and State's Vicarious Liability)

This judgment involves Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, dealing with Second Appeals, and Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India, concerning the right to life and public health obligations of the State.

The plaintiffs (husband and daughter) sought Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation for the death of Jayalakshmi, alleging medical negligence by defendants 1-3 (nurses and medical officer) at a Primary Health Centre (PHC). Defendant 4 (District Collector) was impleaded as the administrative head.

(Right to Irrigation and Evidentiary Value of Revenue Records)

This case primarily involves the interpretation of property rights, specifically the right to draw water for irrigation, and the evidentiary weight of registered sale deeds versus revenue records. It touches upon principles of easements (Servitus aquae haustus) and injunctions under civil law.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunctions to prevent the defendants from alienating or encumbering the 'C' schedule property (a pond) and from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. They claimed a right to draw water from the 'C' schedule pond for irrigating their 'A' and 'B' schedule agricultural lands, citing French notarial sale deeds from 1915 (Ex.A12) and 1942 (Ex.A2) which explicitly conferred this right.

(Hereditary Poosariship and Temple Administration Disputes)

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22/1959) - Sections 54(1), 55 (amended), 63. Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Rules, 1964 Rule 5 - This batch of writ appeals challenged the denial of hereditary poosariship and trusteeship rights at Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai, by the HR & CE Department, upheld by the Writ Court.

Appellants, claiming to be legal heirs of the temple's founders, asserted hereditary rights to perform poojas and receive a share of offerings, citing past compromises and orders (e.g., O.A. No.

(Maintainability of Appeal against Execution Petition Order)

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Section 13, 13(1A), 13(2)); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 5, 34, 37); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 21 Rule 32(2), 32(5), Order 43 Rule 1); Letters Patent (Clause 15) - The appellants challenged an order dated 06.10.2025 issued by the Commercial Division of the High Court in Execution Petition No. 4 of 2025. This EP was filed by Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd.

(Maintainability of Section 9 Application by Unsuccessful Party Post-Award)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 2(h), 9, 34, 36, 37 - The Supreme Court considered whether a party unsuccessful in arbitration, and without an enforceable award, can seek Section 9 interim measures post-award. High Courts were divided: some (Bombay, Delhi) denied this, arguing Section 9 protects only "fruits of the award" for successful parties; others (Telangana, Gujarat) allowed it.

The Court held that Section 9's plain language, read with Section 2(h) defining "a party" broadly, includes all parties. Restricting it based on the arbitral outcome would constitute a judicial amendment.

(Sexual Harassment at Workplace and Victimization)

This case references the National Commission for Women Act, 1990 (Sections 8, 10), the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the Indian Penal Code (Sections 354, 506(i), 385, 294(b)), and the Constitution of India (Articles 12, 14, 19, 21, 226, 243-ZH to 243-ZT). It also relies on the Vishaka and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others guidelines.

The employee, D.

(Fairness of Domestic Enquiry and Judicial Review of Preliminary Issues)

This writ appeal concerned the challenge to a Labour Court's finding on the fairness of a domestic enquiry, subsequently upheld by the Writ Court.

The core of the dispute involved the Industrial Disputes Act (implied) and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court, in ID.No.74 of 2022, had decided a preliminary issue, holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper. This finding was then challenged before the Writ Court in W.P.No.36929 of 2025, which confirmed the Labour Court's order.

(Challenging Administrative Transfer Orders)

The Constitution of India Article 226; The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Petitioners, bus drivers and conductors, challenged transfer orders, alleging they were punitive, arbitrary, 'mala fide', and void as the respondent Corporation's Standing Orders lacked a transfer clause. They cited instances of false complaints, victimization, and personal hardship. Respondents asserted transfers were administrative, an incidence of service, and justified for efficiency, denying 'mala fide' and arguing against judicial interference.

The Court held transfers are an incidence of service, challengeable only for incompetent authority or proven 'mala fide', finding the latter unsubstantiated.

(Rejection of Compassionate Appointment)

This petition challenged the rejection of a compassionate appointment request made by the petitioner. The petitioner's father, an employee of the respondent company, tragically passed away on 23.03.2010 while heroically preventing a Hydrogen Sulphide gas leak at the plant. Immediately after his demise, the petitioner's mother sought compassionate employment. At that time, the respondent company did not have an existing policy for compassionate appointments.

(Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Non-Consummation)

Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Section 10(1)(x) - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenged the dismissal of a husband's divorce petition, filed on grounds of alleged cruelty and non-consummation by the wife. The husband claimed the wife had incurable diseases, concealed her age, was disinterested in sexual life, and displayed cruel behavior.

The wife denied all allegations, asserting dowry demands and ill-treatment by the husband's family, and that disease claims were fabricated to escape matrimonial obligations. She consistently expressed willingness to reconcile.