Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(4) – This appeal addresses whether the High Court should have allowed the appellant’s application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate. The appellant had a works contract with a respondent, which led to disputes and subsequent arbitration proceedings.

The statutory 12-month period for making the award, extendable by another 6 months with mutual consent, was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court had previously ordered the exclusion of the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 when computing limitation periods under Section 29A of the Act.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) – This appeal concerns a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale initiated by Respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) based on an unregistered sale deed. The original owner of the property, after agreeing with the plaintiff, sold the property to Appellants (original defendants Nos. 2 and 3).

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 10(i) – This case involves cross-appeals concerning the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to a wife during divorce proceedings. The wife sought enhancement of the maintenance amount, while the husband sought its reduction. The Family Court had initially awarded Rs. 1,75,000 per month as interim maintenance, but the Madras High Court reduced it to Rs.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 5, Section 100; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 35; Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – This case concerns a dispute over land ownership between Shri Amin Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar (plaintiffs/respondents) and the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD) (defendants/appellants). The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, claiming ownership based on revenue records. The defendants contested, asserting adverse possession since 1879-80.

The Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership and the defendants had perfected their title through adverse possession.

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 – This case concerns the unjust removal of a young, elected female Sarpanch (appellant) of Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in Chhattisgarh, who was dedicated to village development under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park Scheme (RIPA). Despite her efforts, the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat issued a work order with an unreasonably short deadline, which was then belatedly served, leading to accusations of delay against the appellant. A show-cause notice and chargesheet followed, culminating in her removal from office.

The appellant challenged her removal, arguing that she was not responsible for the delay.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 122 & Indian Contract Act, 1872  Section 2(d) – This case concerns a dispute over property rights arising from a settlement deed executed in 1963. The core issue is whether the deed, which granted Govindammal 2/3rd share of the property, was a gift deed or a settlement deed.

Balu Reddy had three sons: Venkatarama Reddy, Venkata Reddy @ Pakki Reddy, and Chenga Reddy. Venkatarama Reddy had a son, Markandeya Reddy; Venkata Reddy @ Pakki Reddy had a daughter, Govindammal; Chenga Reddy was issueless.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16 – The case originated from a suit (OS No. 364/1988) filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The petitioners (original defendants) claimed protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, asserting a sale agreement dated 25-11-1968.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision upheld by the First Appellate Court and subsequently by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 23, Rules 3 and 3A – The case concerns the restoration of a first appeal after a compromise decree was passed based on an agreement between the appellant and respondent. The appellant filed a suit initially which was dismissed, then he filed a first appeal. During the appeal, a compromise was reached, and the High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly.

However, when the respondent failed to adhere to the compromise terms (cheques were dishonored), the appellant sought restoration of the appeal.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6); Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 15(2), 22, 23; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(A) – This case involves an appeal against the High Court of Madras’ decision to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant argued that the dispute with their employer, M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd., falls under the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, making arbitration inappropriate. The employer filed for arbitration claiming non-payment of wages, legality of termination and violation of a non-disclosure clause.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 11, 18 and 28A – The appeal concerns the validity of an order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) enhancing compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had quashed the LAC’s order, relying on the judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, which held that applications under Section 28-A must be filed within three months of the Reference Court’s judgment under Section 18, not from the date of the High Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Ramsingbhai case did not consider the earlier judgment in Union of India v.