Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules – Section 17(b) – This case involves an appeal against a prior order that modified a dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. The respondent, a Fireman, was dismissed for unauthorized absence after failing to respond to a charge memo issued under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. An ex parte enquiry found the charges proven.

The respondent claimed to have appealed to the wrong authority and later filed mercy petitions which were rejected.

Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 – Sections 5(1), 5(2), 30 – Liability of National Textile Corporation (NTC) for pre-acquisition debts: Under Section 5(1) of the Act, any liability of a sick textile undertaking for a period prior to the “appointed day” (date of nationalization) is solely the liability of the original owner and not enforceable against the Central Government or the NTC, unless it falls within the exceptions specified in Section 5(2).

Interpretation of “Contract for Service, Sale or Supply” under Section 30: A loan agreement or credit facility provided by a bank to a sick textile undertaking does not fall under the purview of “contracts for any service, sale or supply” as defined in Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, NTC is not obliged to ratify such financial contracts.

Acquisition of Sick Undertakings – Effect on Liabilities: Upon nationalization of a sick textile undertaking, while assets vest in the NTC, liabilities, especially those pre-dating the appointed day, are generally not transferred to the NTC unless specifically provided for by the Act.

Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 – Rule 4, 6 and 7 – This civil miscellaneous appeal challenges the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, which confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli, regarding a deficiency in stamp duty for a sale deed.

The appellant argued that the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) did not follow the proper procedure as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, specifically pointing out that Form Nos. 1 and 2 were issued on the same date, violating the sequential process outlined in the rules.

The respondent argued that the assessment was based on the property’s location, amenities, and surrounding sales.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a revision petition filed against a lower court’s order. The initial suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court initially directed only a refund of the earnest money, but the appellate court ordered specific performance, directing the appellants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration within two months.

The decree-holders filed an execution application.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9; Constitution of India – Article 142(1) – Divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The appellant and respondent, married in 2004, experienced marital discord after relocating to India in 2011. The respondent refused to cohabitate, leading the appellant to file for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court and High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to prolonged separation and the respondent’s unwillingness to reconcile.

 Matrimonial Dispute and Divorce under Article 142

Constitution of India, Articles 32, 142, 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, Order 39 Rule 11 (Bombay Amendment) – Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 340 -Indian Penal Code, 1860 (various sections, including 498A) – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Advocate’s Act, 1961, Section 35 – This appeal concerned a protracted and bitter matrimonial dispute spanning nearly a decade between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband. The marriage, solemnized in 2010, resulted in two minor sons. Following their separation in 2016, the Family Court granted the wife interim maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per month for herself and the children, alongside children’s educational expenses, and an injunction regarding the matrimonial home.

(Governor's Power of Remission and Premature Release)

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 161, Article 200, Article 201
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197

Issues for Determination:
1. Whether His Excellency The Governor is bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release.
2. If so bound, under what circumstances does the Governor have the discretion to take a view different from that taken by the Council of Ministers.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) – Section 33 & 34, and Gazette Notification No. 38-16/2020-DD-III dated 4th January, 2021 – This appeal addresses the rejection of appointment for PwD candidates, including Respondent No. 3 (Amit Yadav) and the Appellant (Sudhanshu Kardam), for ‘Auditor’ posts under the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Combined Graduate Level Examination-2018 (CGLE-2018). Respondent No.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 306 and 309 – The case involves the death of Ms. Pratyusha, a South Indian actress, and the attempted suicide of the Appellant-Accused, an engineering student. The duo wished to marry, but the Appellant’s mother strongly opposed the union, even threatening suicide. On February 23, 2002, both consumed Organophosphate poison and were admitted to CARE Hospital.

Industrial Relations Code, 2020 – Section 14 & Section 2(zr) – This writ petition challenged a notification for the recognition of trade unions within the first respondent Corporation, arguing that it improperly included Class I and II officers and seasonal workers as voters. The petitioner contended that Class I and II officers are not workmen and seasonal workmen are not on the regular rolls. They also claimed inadequate time was granted for campaigning, deviating from the schedule set by the Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India case.

The Corporation countered that the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, defines “worker” broadly, including Class I and II officers for Chapter III purposes, which covers trade union recognition.