Search Judgments

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) – Section 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17(4A), 18 & Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Rule 8(1) & 8(2) – This case concerns a dispute over the possession of a secured asset between the Appellant (financial institution) and the 1st Respondent (tenant). The 2nd Respondent (borrower) defaulted on loan repayments, leading the Appellant to initiate recovery measures under SARFAESI. The 1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant since 1987, but failed to provide sufficient evidence of tenancy prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI.

The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) initially rejected the 1st Respondent’s plea for interim relief.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 – The case involves appeals against a High Court order dismissing petitions to quash criminal proceedings initiated based on two FIRs. The first FIR (Crime No. 302 of 2023) was filed against the appellants in SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025 under various sections of the IPC for allegedly assaulting the complainant and her family. The second FIR (Crime No.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 37 Rules 1, 2 and 4 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the trial court’s order dismissing the application filed by the 3rd defendant (revision petitioner) seeking leave to defend a summary suit.

The plaintiff filed the suit to recover money for returned unsold stock, claiming the 3rd defendant was liable. The 3rd defendant argued there was no contract between him and the plaintiff, asserting the agreement was solely between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant (his tenant), who received the goods.

The trial court dismissed the application for leave to defend, leading to this revision petition.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(b) – This case involves contempt petitions arising from the breach of an undertaking given to the court and disobedience of court orders by the contemnor, a practicing advocate. The contemnor had promised to vacate premises by a specific date, an undertaking given following an order from the Supreme Court.

Despite multiple opportunities and extensions, the contemnor failed to vacate the premises, filing frivolous litigations to protract the matter. The court noted a history of the contemnor’s delaying tactics and scant respect for legal proceedings.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 92(1) – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contests the dismissal of a leave petition to file a suit against a Trust under Section 92(1) of the CPC. The appellants, former staff, alumni, and committee members of CBM College, alleged mismanagement, misappropriation, and violations of law by the CBM Sakunthala Memorial Trust, which manages the college.

The appellants claimed violations of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act (TNPCR Act). The respondents argued that allegations primarily concerned college management, not the Trust, and stemmed from personal animosity.

Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act – Section 37(1) & (2) – The case involves a suit for partition filed by a sister and her children against her brother, another sister, the brother’s son, and a purchaser of part of the ancestral property. The plaintiffs claimed a 1/3rd share in the ancestral property of their deceased father, alleging that the first defendant, their brother, had taken advantage of his position to exclusively enjoy the property. They challenged a sale deed executed by the brother to the third defendant, claiming it was done without their knowledge or consent.

The defendants contended that the first defendant had shouldered the family responsibilities, including repaying debts and conducting the sisters’ marriages.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Ex Parte Decree – Fraud and Collusion – Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Supervisory Jurisdiction: An ex parte decree obtained through fraud and collusion, particularly by suppressing material facts, failing to implead necessary parties, and using an improperly stamped and suspiciously dated document, is a nullity and void ab initio. The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, can set aside such a decree and any consequential proceedings, including a court-executed sale deed, even if other remedies were available.

Fraud on Court – Suppression of Material Facts – Impleadment of Parties: Deliberate concealment of prior transactions, especially when the same advocate or a closely related party is involved in successive litigations concerning the same property, and the intentional omission of bona fide purchasers as necessary parties, constitute fraud on the court. Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and proceedings.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 45 – This case revolves around a suit for partition of property purchased jointly by Govindasamy Chettiar, Alagammai, and Ramanathan in 1980. The plaintiff, claiming through a will from Govindasamy, sought 4/10th share based on the will and a purported contribution ratio of 40:30:30. The defendants contested this claim, each asserting a 40% share.

The trial court initially ruled that each party was entitled to a 1/3rd share based on the registered sale deed, which did not specify individual contributions.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 136 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 9 – Execution of Decree – Limitation Period: For the execution of a decree for specific performance, the limitation period of 12 years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, begins when the decree becomes enforceable, or from the date of default if a specific period for performance is stipulated. In calculating the limitation period, the date of the decree is to be excluded as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 – Execution Petition – Maintainability – Share of Co-owners: An execution petition is maintainable against judgment debtors to enforce a decree for specific performance, even if other co-owners of the property, not party to the original suit, are joined in the execution proceedings. The executing court can appropriately limit the execution to the share of the judgment debtors who were party to the agreement and the decree, especially when the shares of other co-owners have been determined in separate partition proceedings.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 9 – This revision petition was filed against an order of the Executing Court, which directed the judgment debtors to execute a sale deed for an undivided 4/9 share of a property. The original suit for specific performance was decreed in 1996.

The petitioner argued that the second Execution Petition was barred by limitation and the inclusion of additional parties beyond the original agreement was not maintainable. The decree holder contended that the second Execution Petition was filed within the 12-year limitation period, excluding the date of the decree as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.