Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TGST Act) and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) – Section 74(5), Section 2(102), Section 11, Section 168(1) – This case addresses writ petitions challenging notices of liability under the TGST Act for affiliation fees collected by Bharathidasan University. The core issue referred to the Division Bench was whether affiliation charges collected by a University from affiliated institutions are amenable to Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The University contended these fees are exempt under Notification No. 12/2017 as services provided to educational institutions for recognized courses.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Rules of Legal Education – Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centers of Legal Education, 2025This judgment involves multiple existing Law Colleges (CLEs) seeking approval from the Bar Council of India (BCI) for additional student intake for the Academic Year 2025-26, having already secured No Objection Certificates and affiliation from the State Government and University. Their applications to the BCI were either returned or pending.

Initially, the BCI justified its inaction or rejections by citing a 13.08.2025 notification, which imposed a three-year moratorium on establishing new CLEs or increasing intake, with limited exceptions for socially disadvantaged communities. However, after the Court’s intervention, the BCI subsequently passed a new resolution on 11.01.2026, effectively replacing the earlier moratorium and proposing a new evaluation process.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 29 – This Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which had confirmed the Rent Controller’s order partly allowing the landlord’s (respondent) petition for eviction on the grounds of willful default and own use, while dismissing the claim of subletting.

The petitioners (tenant) argued that the lower courts erred in their conclusions and that there was no willful default in rent payment. They also contended that an unregistered society cannot file a RCOP and that the society was exempted from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as per G.O.Ms.No.2000, dated 16.08.1976. Furthermore, they argued the landlord did not have a bona fide requirement for own occupation.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11, Section 2(2) & 96, Article 227 of the Constitution of India – The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by various revenue officials, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a prior decree (O.S. No.320 of 2007) was null and void, and for a permanent injunction against its execution. The Subordinate Court, Namakkal, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, citing concerns about maintainability. The plaintiffs appealed this rejection via a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 114 and Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) – Regulation 10 and 16 – The writ petitions were filed by a Customs House Agent (CHA) challenging two orders: one imposing a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 114 of the Customs Act for allegedly aiding and abetting the exporter in attempting to export prohibited goods, and another suspending the CHA’s Customs Broker License under Regulation 16 of the CBLR, 2018. The allegation was that the CHA aided the exporter in illegally exporting prohibited “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox) meat” by mis-declaring it as “Boneless Buffalo Meat.”

The CHA argued that they had no knowledge of the misdeclaration, relied on the exporter’s documents, and had no duty to physically inspect the goods. They further contended that even the Customs Authorities couldn’t identify the goods initially without a lab report.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – This appeal concerns a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of a sale agreement and a declaration that a subsequent sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant is null and void. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant agreed to sell the property for Rs. 24,00,000/-, received Rs. 21,00,000/-, and executed a sale agreement and a power of attorney.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 62, 64, 65, 74 and Registration Act, 1908 – Section 57(5) – This Second Appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding property in Krishnagiri. The plaintiffs claimed ownership through their father, Eswarappa Gounder, based on ancestral oral partition and subsequent transactions. The defendant contested this, asserting ownership through a later sale deed.

The Trial Court partially decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs but excluded property covered by a sale deed in favor of the defendant.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16 & Limitation Act 1963 Article 54- This judgment concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property in Kerala. The plaintiff-appellant sought to enforce an agreement made with the defendant-respondent’s brother, acting as her power of attorney, for the sale of her 1/11th share of land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit citing limitation, and the High Court upheld the dismissal, citing lack of readiness and willingness on the plaintiff’s part and limitation.

The key issues revolved around the validity of the power of attorney, the defendant’s ratification of actions taken under it, and the commencement of the limitation period.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order I Rule 10(2); Constitution of India – Article 227; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – The plaintiff initiated a money recovery suit against the first defendant, premised on a dishonoured cheque (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881). The first defendant contested the claim, alleging the cheque’s fraudulent creation and asserting that his wife, Meena, was the proprietor of M/s. Sri Shastivel Garments, while he was only an authorized signatory. Given this defence, the plaintiff moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to implead Meena as the second defendant, contending her proprietorship of the business made her a necessary party for proper adjudication.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 63, read with The Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 68 –  proving the Will – Permanent injunction decree – This Second Appeal contested the First Appellate Court’s reversal of a permanent injunction decree. The plaintiffs asserted rights over suit properties based on a Will (Ex.A.2) by Chellamuthu, bequeathing his share to his wife Perumayee for life, then to plaintiffs 3 & 4. They claimed common enjoyment and challenged Perumayee’s subsequent settlement deed (Ex.B.1) to her father as invalid.

Conversely, the defendants argued an oral partition among the brothers, denying the Will’s authenticity due to suspicious circumstances.