Search Judgments

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.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15(1)(a) and Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 37(2) – This Second Appeal arises from a dispute over property rights following the death of Periya Mallammal. The plaintiff, Marithoppai (since deceased, now represented by his legal heirs), claimed a half-share in the suit properties as the husband of the deceased, while the defendant, Alamelu (daughter of the deceased), asserted sole ownership based on a will and allegations of customary divorce between the plaintiff and the deceased.

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the alleged customary divorce was not proven and that both the plaintiff and the defendant were legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The First Appellate Court upheld the finding regarding the absence of proof of divorce and the legal heir status but reversed the Trial Court’s decision based on the incorrect court fee payment, asserting that the plaintiff wasn’t in joint possession.

Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules – Section 17(b) – This case involves an appeal against a prior order that modified a dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. The respondent, a Fireman, was dismissed for unauthorized absence after failing to respond to a charge memo issued under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. An ex parte enquiry found the charges proven.

The respondent claimed to have appealed to the wrong authority and later filed mercy petitions which were rejected.

Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 9(2)(b) and Fundamental Rules – Rule 56(1)(c) – This writ petition challenges an order dated 03.08.2010, by the second respondent, seeking the release of all pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, an Associate Professor, retired on 31.07.2010. His application for re-employment was rejected based on a disputed date of birth, leading to the withholding of his terminal benefits pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner argues that no charges were framed before his retirement, and no approval was granted by the Government to conduct an enquiry as required by the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

Constitution of India Article 226 – This Writ Appeal was filed by the State challenging the order of the Writ Court, which had directed the regularization of the services of the respondent (Writ Petitioner). The respondent was appointed as a part-time water woman in 1990 through the Parent-Teachers Association and sought regularization based on G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, claiming to have completed 10 years of service.

The Writ Court initially allowed the Writ Petition, directing the appellants to extend the benefits of regularization to the respondent. However, the State appealed this decision, arguing that as a part-time employee, the respondent was not entitled to regularization, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary to Government, School Education Department V.