Search Judgments

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – This Second Appeal was filed by the defendants challenging the reversal of the Trial Court’s decision by the First Appellate Court in a suit concerning the declaration of title and permanent injunction related to a property. The plaintiffs claimed the property was the separate property of their vendor, Johny Basha, while the defendants contended it was joint family property.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that Muslim law, which governs the parties, does not recognize joint family property, and the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff was valid.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 69; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 1, Order 34 Rule 4; Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 12; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 34 – This case involves an appeal by the plaintiff, a Mutual Benefit Fund Company, against the defendant, a borrower, concerning a mortgage suit for foreclosure of a loan. The defendant had executed two simple mortgage deeds in 1994, mortgaging property as security. The plaintiff initiated a public auction due to the defendant’s default. Subsequently, the defendant filed a redemption suit that was later dismissed, with the court determining a substantial amount was owed.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 2(h); Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 3; Hindu Succession Act – Section 8 – This case involves a dispute over the partition of property originally belonging to Navaneetham, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff sought a 1/3rd share, claiming the property belonged to his deceased mother. The first defendant, the appellant, contested this, asserting that she purchased the property in her mother’s name and that her mother had bequeathed the property to her via a Will.

The Trial Court rejected the first defendant’s claims regarding the purchase and disbelieved the authenticity of the Will.

Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 25 and 27; Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act – Section 11 – This Second Appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the defendant has no common ownership in the suit property, a mandatory injunction to remove trespass, and a permanent injunction restraining interference with the property. The defendant claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased 1st plaintiff and his wife, while the plaintiffs contested this claim and asserted the 2nd plaintiff’s adoption.

The court framed substantial questions of law, including whether the mandatory injunction was properly valued and if the plaintiff could prove the negative aspect of the defendant not being the adopted son or common owner. The court found that the plaintiffs had not proven the defendant’s trespass and that their negative prayer for declaration was an attempt to evade proper court fees, which should have been calculated under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18 & 19; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 11, Explanation IV; Constitution of India – Article 226 – This case concerns an appeal against a decision where the appellant challenged an award passed by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The appellant initially filed a writ petition challenging the award but withdrew it with liberty to pursue remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Instead of pursuing the Section 34 remedy, the appellant filed another writ petition raising new grounds, particularly questioning the Facilitation Council’s jurisdiction. The High Court rejected the second writ petition, stating that the issue of jurisdiction should have been raised in the first writ petition and that the appellant could not re-agitate the issue after withdrawing the initial petition.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 5(7), 5(8), 3(6), 3(11), 14, 15 and Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 126, 127 – This case concerns appeals against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment, questioning if the appellants are ‘Financial Creditors’ under Section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Doha Bank challenged the appellants’ classification as Financial Creditors, arguing they weren’t direct lenders to Reliance Infratel Limited (RITL). The appellants claimed status based on Deeds of Hypothecation (DoH), where RCom entities, including RITL, provided security for loans, promising to cover any shortfall in debt repayment.

The NCLAT deemed the DoH not a guarantee, however, the Supreme Court held that clause 5(iii) of the DoH, read with the Master Security Trustee Agreement (MSTA), constitutes a guarantee under Section 126 of the Contract Act.