Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97 and 102, Section 47 – This revision petition arose from the dismissal of an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, challenging its maintainability. The petitioner, a subsequent purchaser of the property, claimed the right to obstruct the execution of a decree for specific performance passed in favor of the respondent. The petitioner’s earlier applications to implead himself in the suit and set aside the decree had been unsuccessful, with the impleadment issue reaching the Supreme Court.

The petitioner argued that the Executing Court erred in dismissing the application without numbering it and conducting a full inquiry.

Passports Act, 1967 (Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 22), Passport Rules, 1980, and notification GSR 570(E).
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, facing pending criminal proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Indian Penal Code, 1860, and a subsisting conviction (sentence suspended), sought renewal of his ordinary passport. The NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court had granted “no objection” for renewal for ten years, with conditions prohibiting foreign travel without prior permission and requiring passport re-deposit.

The Regional Passport Office (RPO) and the Calcutta High Court denied renewal, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which bars issuance/renewal when criminal proceedings are pending.

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47A – This appeal challenges the order of the Inspector General of Registration, confirming the Special Deputy Collector’s order, which demanded deficit stamp duty on a property purchase by the appellants. The Sub Registrar had initially referred the sale deed to the Collector of Stamps, believing the transaction value to be undervalued.

The Collector then determined a higher value for the land and building, leading to the demand for additional stamp duty. The appellants argued that the valuation was illogical and didn’t consider the prevailing market and guideline values.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Section 100 – A dispute over property ownership. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession, claiming that the defendant fraudulently obtained sale deeds using blank stamped papers signed by the plaintiff under the false pretense of creating a mortgage deed. The defendant argued that the sale deeds were valid, executed willingly by the plaintiffs, and supported by consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

(Legality of Undertaking Transfer and Re-employment Claims)

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Sections 25F, 25FF, and 25FFF, which deal with conditions precedent to retrenchment and the effect of transfer of undertakings. Nava Bharath Ferro Alloys Limited (NBF Alloys) sold its Pugalur sugar mill to EID Parry India Limited (EID Parry) on November 13, 1992. The agreement specified that EID Parry would not take over NBF Alloys' employees, whose services were terminated with statutory notice pay and compensation as mandated by Section 25FF of the ID Act.

Aggrieved by the non-employment, the workmen initiated an Industrial Dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, in its award, held the transfer of ownership to be valid and genuine, but deemed the resultant non-employment of workmen unjustified, ordering their re-employment from December 1, 2008.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114(e); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 4; Transfer of Property Act Section 52 – This case involves three second appeals challenging the lower court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s judgment in two original suits, O.S.No.123 of 1985 and O.S.No.144 of 1985. The dispute centers around property originally owned by the 4th defendant, K.P.M.Mohideen Meera Sahib, who mortgaged it to Balasundara Mudaliar. After foreclosure proceedings and a court auction, Balasundara Mudaliar purchased the property. Plaintiff Sivagami Ammal, Balasundara Mudaliar’s wife, claimed ownership through an oral gift and filed O.S.No.123 for declaration of title and possession.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) and 11(12)(a) – This judgment addresses an Arbitration Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) and subsequent contracts. The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, sought to include Fludor Benin S.A. (Respondent No. 1), M/s Vink Corporations DMCC (Respondent No.

All India Judges Association (AIJA) Proceedings – Interlocutory Application Regarding Seniority in Higher Judicial Services (HJS) – The Supreme Court addressed an interlocutory application concerning the determination of seniority within the HJS cadre across all states. This cadre consists of Regular Promotees (RP), Limited Departmental Competitive Examination promotees (LDCE), and Direct Recruits (DR). The Court reviewed the history of the AIJA proceedings and the powers of the High Courts under Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution of India.

Various proposals were considered, including quota systems, seniority weightage for prior service, and separate seniority lists based on the source of recruitment.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31 and 34 –  Involves three second appeals arising from a dispute over property ownership and possession. The initial suits, O.S.No.236/1985 (declaration & injunction), O.S.No.304/1985 (injunction), and O.S.No.305/1985 (injunction), were filed in the Subordinate Court at Sankari. The trial court dismissed O.S.No.236 and 304, while decreeing O.S.No.305. However, the first appellate court reversed these decisions, decreeing O.S.No.236 and 304 and dismissing O.S.No.305.

Constitutional Mandate: Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates informing arrestees of the grounds for their arrest.

Statutory Provisions: Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) and Section 50A of the CrPC 1973 now Section 48 of BNSS 2023 effectuate this mandate.
Mode of Communication: Written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee are essential.
Exceptional Circumstances: Oral communication is permissible in situations where providing written grounds immediately is impractical.

• Timeframe: Written grounds must be provided within a reasonable time, no later than two hours before remand proceedings.

The Supreme Court addressed appeals (Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.2189 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.2190 of 2025) concerning the violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC 1973”) now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS 2023”) regarding informing arrestees of the grounds for their arrest in writing.