Search Judgments

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO Act) – Section 9(3), 9(5); Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 (TOHO Rules) – Rules 7(3), 14, 17, 19 – The petitioners challenged the Authorisation Committee’s rejection of their organ transplantation application. The 1st petitioner suffered from chronic kidney disease, requiring a transplant. The 2nd petitioner, a non-near relative (brother of the 1st petitioner’s maternal aunt’s husband), volunteered to donate a kidney. Their Form-11 application under the TOHO Rules was rejected with a non-speaking order stating, “Relationship not established.”

The Court clarified that for non-near relatives (third-party donors), Section 9(3) of the TOHO Act requires establishing affection, attachment, or special reasons to prevent commercial exploitation.

Constitution of India Article 226 –  NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL) vs Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association – This case concerns the legality of toll collection on the Delhi-Noida Direct Flyway (DND Flyway) based on a Concession Agreement between NTBCL, NOIDA, and Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS). The Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the imposition of toll fees, arguing that NTBCL had already recovered its costs.

The Supreme Court addressed several issues, including the maintainability of the PIL, the lack of competitive bidding, the delegation of power to levy fees, the validity of the cost recovery formula, and whether NTBCL had recovered its project costs. The court scrutinized the Concession Agreement, particularly the clauses relating to cost calculation and fee collection.

Service Law – Pay Revision – Vocational Teachers – Fixation of Pay – Recovery of Excess Payment: A retired Part-Time Vocational Teacher, regularized and granted selection/special grades, faced recovery of alleged excess pay after pay scale revisions. The dispute centered on the applicability of the “additional fitment table” and Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009, to his pay fixation, particularly concerning his selection grade awarded before January 1, 2006. The Court determined that based on various Government Orders and prior judicial pronouncements, the petitioner, being a Vocational Instructor equated with BT Assistants, was eligible for the higher pay scale (Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs.

Companies Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) – Sections 66, 102, 133, 138, 230, 232, 236, 244, 418A, 419, 423 –  Minority shareholders (appellants) challenged the reduction of share capital by the 1st respondent company (BTL) under Section 66 of the Act, alleging arbitrary removal and unfair share valuation. They contended procedural flaws (Section 102) like a ‘tricky notice’ and biased valuation, and that the Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) was wrongly applied for a forced exit, resulting in an unreasonably low share price. The NCLT and NCLAT had sanctioned the reduction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Sections 18, 36; Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 4; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) - This case addressed whether spectrum, a natural resource held by the Union of India as a public trustee under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, could be treated as an asset under IBC. Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) had sought to invoke moratorium under IBC to avoid paying licence dues to the Department of Telecommunication (DoT). The Court clarified that spectrum grants TSPs only a conditional, revocable privilege to use, not ownership. While TSPs record spectrum usage rights as intangible assets in their balance sheets, this reflects control over economic benefits, not legal ownership.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 141, and 148 – The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a director of a company convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) can be compelled to deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148, even if the company itself isn’t convicted due to legal reasons like winding up.

The case originated from a dispute between Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and Shiv Mahima Ispat Private Limited, where a cheque issued by the company, signed by its director (the appellant), was dishonored. Subsequently, the company was ordered to be wound up, and the director alone was convicted. The appellate court ordered him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspending his sentence, a decision challenged by the director.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 141, 142 – The appeals concern the validity of a notice issued under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the amount demanded in the notice differed from the amount for which the cheque was originally issued. The High Court of Delhi quashed the criminal complaint filed under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the NI Act, holding the notice invalid due to the discrepancy in the amounts. The appellant argued that the incorrect amount in the notice was a typographical error, but the court rejected this argument.

The key issue was the interpretation of the phrase “said amount of money” in Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act.

(Counting of Part-Time Service for Pensionary Benefits)

The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (Rule 11), Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Pension Rules, 1995 (Rule 4(a)), and Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (Rule 10(a)(i)), in light of G.O. (Ms) No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995. The central question was whether 50% of service rendered by Part-Time Village Assistants prior to their regularization (effective 01.06.1995) should be considered for pensionary benefits.

Petitioners cited judgments that had allowed such counting, including one upheld by the Apex Court for specific Thalayaris in cadre posts. Respondents relied on the Full Bench decision in *R.Kaliyamoorthy* and the Division Bench ruling in *E.Balachandran*, asserting that only service in a sanctioned 'cadre post' (temporary, officiating, or permanent) qualifies for pension.

Motor Vehicle Act Negligence for Compensation – This case concerns a writ petition filed by coolie workers seeking compensation for the deaths of their daughters (aged 11-13) who drowned in the Cauvery River. The incident occurred after the girls participated in a state-level Republic Day football tournament, organized by the Education Department, and were accompanied by their school’s headmaster and teachers (respondents 10-13).

After losing the tournament, the teachers took the students to the Cauvery River to bathe. During this time, the teachers failed to adequately supervise the students, resulting in four girls drowning.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 9; Mohameddan Law Section 149 –  This case involves two appeals (A.S.No.223 of 2017 and A.S.No.224 of 2017) arising from a partition suit (O.S.No.1 of 2014) and a counter-claim filed in the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur. The plaintiff, son of the first defendant and brother of defendants 2 and 3, sought partition of a property purchased by his deceased father, Samsudeen. The defendants contested, claiming the plaintiff had relinquished his share due to prior debts settled by their father and further sought partition of a readymade cloth shop.

The defendants also attempted to introduce a Hiba deed, claiming the father gifted the suit property to the first defendant, but the Trial Court rejected it.