Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11(a); Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8 – This appeal challenges the trial court’s decision to reject a plaint filed by the plaintiff, who sought a declaration of a 1/8th share in properties and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants (4 and 5) filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, arguing that the plaint lacked a cause of action.

The core dispute revolves around whether the properties in question are ancestral or self-acquired. The plaintiff contended they are ancestral, entitling him to a share as the grandson of the first defendant.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 2(1)(s), 3, 17, 19, 50, 54, 70 – Challenges to search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) at the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) headquarters and connected locations.

The writ petitions filed by TASMAC and the State of Tamil Nadu challenge the validity of search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioners argued that the search was illegal, arbitrary, and violated the basic structure of federalism and separation of powers. They also alleged harassment of TASMAC officials during the search.

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act), 1963 (MOFA) – Section 11: This appeal concerns the deemed conveyance of land to a cooperative society of flat purchasers (1st respondent) under Section 11 of the MOFA. A partnership firm, M/s CH Shah & Sons, owned a larger plot of land which was partitioned upon dissolution. The dispute arose when the 1st respondent sought a deemed conveyance of the entire larger plot, including a portion (the Arun Plot) belonging to the appellant, Arun Hiralal Shah HUF, under a deed of dissolution. The competent authority allowed the application, granting deemed conveyance of the entire plot subject to the 1st respondent executing a perpetual lease in favour of the appellant for the Arun Plot.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5, 6 and 7 – An appeal for enhanced compensation filed by children, who were minors when the original claim petition was filed by their father as natural guardian, was challenged due to significant delay after one child attained majority.

The primary issue was whether the legal disability of minority under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be used to extend the limitation period for filing an appeal, considering the original claim was instituted by their father.

The Court referred to Section 2(l) which provides that ‘a suit does not include an appeal or an application’. An appeal, an application and a suit are hence dealt with differently insofar as the Limitation Act is concerned, as evidenced from Section 3 also.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 61 – This case involves appeals against an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed appeals due to the dismissal of applications for condonation of delay.

The appellant, a shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited, filed appeals against two orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). These NCLT orders concerned the dismissal of the appellant’s application under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(N) of the IBC and the approval of a Resolution Plan under Section 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC.

The appeals before the NCLAT were filed without an initial application for condonation of delay, falsely claiming compliance with Section 61 of the IBC.

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – This case involves a dispute over the entitlement of teachers in engineering and technical institutes, managed by a private society, to revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Act of 1987 empowers AICTE to set qualifications for teachers in technical institutions.

The key issue is whether teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 without a Ph.D., and who failed to obtain one within seven years as required by AICTE notifications, are entitled to the higher pay scale and redesignation as Associate Professors as per the 2010 AICTE notification. The teachers argued that a 2016 AICTE clarification meant non-completion of Ph.D.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894  Section 16 and 48 & Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Section 34 and 37 – This case involves the acquisition of land by the Government for the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Bhagwan Devi, claiming ownership of a portion of the acquired land, challenged the acquisition. The Board then decided to settle the matter out of court by agreeing to return half of the land to her.

An agreement was executed on 30.09.1988, but later the Board realized they couldn’t release the land.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Section 115 Order 9 Rule 13; Limitation Act Section 5 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order that condoned a delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree and subsequently set aside the decree itself, restoring the suit. The appellants (plaintiffs) had obtained an ex-parte decree for specific performance after the respondents (defendants) failed to file a written statement. The respondents then filed applications for condonation of delay and setting aside the decree, which were initially dismissed by the Trial Court.

The High Court, in revision, condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte decree.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27 & Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 96  – This appeal challenges a decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which imposed penalties on the appellant for failing to deliver residential units to homebuyers on time. The appellant sought a stay on these penalties, citing the interim moratorium triggered by their application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The central question is whether execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can be stayed during an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.

The appellant argued that Section 96 of the IBC creates an absolute bar on proceedings related to any debt and contended that NCDRC penalties are effectively debt recovery.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves two Original Petitions (O.P.s) filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 20.08.2017. O.P.No.122 of 2018 was filed by the Insurance Company, primarily challenging the award. O.P.No.2 of 2018 was filed by the claimant, who was aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and sought to confirm a dissenting award. The Insurance Company raised three main grounds of challenge: violation of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006; the erroneous application of a reinstatement clause (RIV) despite its absence in the policy; and failure to consider the scope of coverage concerning the location of the losses.