Search Judgments

Constitution of India Article 226 – The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the first respondent’s communication to the fourth respondent, dated 06.05.2019, and the subsequent order of the fourth respondent, dated 10.05.2019, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,03,00,000/-. The dispute arose from a contract awarded to the third respondent for construction work, for which the petitioner provided a bank guarantee. The first respondent invoked the bank guarantee due to the third respondent’s failure to extend its validity, leading the fourth respondent to demand the balance amount from the petitioner.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151 and Order 41 Rule 27; Town and Country Planning  – This case concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a suit filed by the plaintiff, a Flat Owners Association, against the first defendant, a property developer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Corporation of Chennai, regarding unauthorized construction. The plaintiff sought recovery of damages, a permanent injunction against further construction on the fourth floor of the suit property, and a mandatory injunction directing the authorities to demolish unauthorized structures. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit.

The appellant court found that the first defendant had indeed constructed additional structures without sanctioned plans, violating building regulations.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 5 & Article 227 of the Constitution of India –  This Civil Revision Petition was filed to challenge an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator, citing grounds such as violation of natural justice, lack of reasoning, failure to disclose interest, and non-furnishing of the award copy. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator’s actions were against the fundamental policy of Indian law and constituted a legal nullity. The petitioner also challenged the attachment of immovable property ordered by the arbitrator.

The primary issue was whether a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 38 Rule 5 & Transfer of Property Act – Section 128 – The case revolves around a dispute between two brothers regarding the division of compensation received for land acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking the recovery of a balance amount with interest, claiming that the appellant/defendant did not disclose the actual compensation received.

The respondent filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC, seeking security for the suit amount, alleging that the appellant was attempting to sell his assets. The appellant executed a settlement deed in favor of his wife after the suit was filed.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 15; Limitation Act – Section 5 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order dated 19.03.2024 in I.A.No.100 of 2022 in HMOP.No.33 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam. The husband (revision petitioner) filed HMOP.No.33 of 2020 for divorce, which was granted ex parte on 01.04.2022 as the wife (respondent) remained absent. The wife then filed I.A.No.100 of 2022 seeking to condone a 53-day delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree, citing her daughter’s illness as the reason for the delay.

The husband opposed the condonation, stating that he had remarried after the ex parte decree and that the wife’s reasons were insufficient.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 7 and Order 9 Rule 14 – This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) challenges the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur in I.A.No.19 of 2024 in O.S.No.444 of 2014, which allowed the 1st defendant’s application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC to set aside an ex parte order. The petitioner, the 2nd defendant, argues that the 1st defendant’s application was wrongly allowed.

The 1st defendant, after initially being set ex parte in a partition suit filed by his children (the plaintiffs), sought to file a written statement and contest the suit, citing illness as the reason for his initial absence. The 2nd defendant, who had already filed a written statement asserting his rights based on a prior specific performance decree against the 1st defendant, was not made a party to the Order IX Rule 7 application.

Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Liabilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – Section 4(2) and 21(2)(a); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 and 340; Indian Penal Code – Sections 193, 196 & 209 – The petitioner, a tenant since 1970 under an oral agreement, challenged an order that returned his application (M.P.SR.No.12561 of 2024) seeking action against the respondent/landlord for offences under IPC Sections 193, 196, and 209, and an inquiry under Cr.P.C. Sections 195 and 340. The landlord had filed RLTOP No.117 of 2023 seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Liabilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, due to the lack of a written rental agreement after the Act’s commencement.

The petitioner argued that the return of the application was unjustifiable, as the trial court should have investigated the alleged perjury.

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) Order 7 Rule 11; Limitation Act 1963 Article 59 –  This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of the Additional District Munsif, Vellore, in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2021, dated 19.01.2024, which dismissed the 7th defendant’s application for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff, a Church, claims ownership of the property based on sale deeds and a settlement deed executed by one Jeevarathinam in 1970 and 1971. The 1st defendant, Jeevarathinam’s wife, executed a cancellation deed in 2008, followed by sale deeds and a power of attorney in favour of the other defendants. The plaintiff alleges interference with possession in 2021, leading to the suit for declaration and injunction.

Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 – Rule 4, 6 and 7 – This civil miscellaneous appeal challenges the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, which confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli, regarding a deficiency in stamp duty for a sale deed.

The appellant argued that the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) did not follow the proper procedure as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, specifically pointing out that Form Nos. 1 and 2 were issued on the same date, violating the sequential process outlined in the rules.

The respondent argued that the assessment was based on the property’s location, amenities, and surrounding sales.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 1 – This civil revision petition challenges an order from the City Civil Court at Chennai, which allowed the second defendant to file a written statement six years after being impleaded in a suit concerning the administration of Sri Prasanna Vinayagar Temple. The plaintiff argued that the written statement should not have been accepted due to the delay and the absence of a formal application to condone it, citing Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court observed that the plaintiff did not challenge the initial order permitting the filing of the written statement. The Court noted the absence of a specific provision in the CPC mandating a formal application to condone delays in filing written statements, unlike procedures in the Original Side Rules of the High Court.