Search Judgments

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VIII Rule 1, Order V Rule 1, Section 148, Section 151 – The case revolves around a commercial suit filed by M/s. Aroush Motors (Plaintiff) against M/s. Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Article 40 and 57 of Schedule 1-B – The case involves two civil appeals concerning the appropriate stamp duty applicable to “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deeds” under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The central question is whether the deeds should be charged under Article 40 (Mortgage Deed) or Article 57 (Security Bond) of Schedule 1-B of the Act.

In the first case, Meerut Development Authority allowed Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3, 4; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 41A; Constitution of India – Article 226 – The appeal concerns the quashing of FIR No.347 of 2023, registered under Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act, against the appellant, brother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant alleged dowry harassment by her husband, mother-in-law, and the appellant. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR, leading to this appeal.

The Supreme Court observed that the FIR contained vague and omnibus allegations, lacking specific details of harassment, time, date, place, or manner of occurrence.

Fundamental Rules (FR) – Rule 56(j) – This case involves a challenge to an order of compulsory retirement issued to the respondent, a Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, by the Commissionerate of GST and Central Excise under FR 56(j). The respondent challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai.

The CAT set aside the compulsory retirement order, deeming it punitive and passed in lieu of punishment, after considering the respondent’s Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) from 2006 to 2015, which rated his performance as “predominantly excellent” with no adverse reports on his integrity, and noting the pending departmental action against him. The Government appealed this decision via a Writ Petition.

The Constitution of India Article 30(1);Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 – The case concerns an appeal by the State against a Writ Court order that directed authorities to grant minority status to Muthiayar Higher Secondary School. The school, originally established in 1901 by Mr. P. Muthaiyar and managed by his family as a secular institution, was later acquired in 1997 by the Sisters of St.

Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 – Section 13 – This case involves a writ petition filed by the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris, challenging the rejection of their application for recognition and registration by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Association, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, sought recognition under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.

The Bar Council rejected the application based on an enquiry that found a division among women advocates in the Nilgiris district, with a majority preferring to remain with the existing Nilgiris District Bar Association. The Bar Council also cited a resolution to recognize only one association per court centre.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114(g)  – The case revolves around a dispute over the partition of ancestral properties. The plaintiffs claimed to be the children of Dasabovi through his first wife, Bheemakka, while the defendants (Dasabovi’s second wife and son) denied the first marriage and the plaintiffs’ right to a share in the properties. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The High Court reversed this decision, relying on the testimony of a witness (P.W.2) who testified to the marriage between Dasabovi and the plaintiffs’ mother.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 – A dispute arose between Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited (CESC – Appellant) and M/s Saisudhir Energy (Developer – Respondent No. 1) regarding a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for a solar project. The Developer failed to meet project deadlines due to delays by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL – Respondent No. 2) in commissioning evacuation lines.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 50, 100, 104 and 114(g);& Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 27, Rule 1 – This case concerns a dispute over the partition of family property. The plaintiffs claimed they were the children of Dasabovi through his first wife, while the defendants, Dasabovi’s second wife and their son, denied the first marriage. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit for partition in favor of the plaintiffs.

The key issue revolved around proving the marital relationship between Dasabovi and the plaintiffs’ mother.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 406 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Section 202, 482 – This case originates from a private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging non-payment of dues for yarn supplied to the Petitioner. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, which was rejected.