Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A and 166 –This case concerns an appeal against the reduction of compensation awarded by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for the death of a 10-year-old boy in a motor accident involving a respondent-Corporation bus. The appellants, the parents of the deceased, were initially awarded Rs.8,55,000 by the Tribunal.

The High Court reduced this amount to Rs.5,80,000 by recalculating the income of the child based on Schedule II of the Act, adjusting the multiplier, reducing funeral expenses, and deleting amounts for transportation and damage to property, while adding a sum for loss of estate.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reliance on Schedule II, noting that it applies to ‘no fault liability’ claims under Section 163A, whereas this claim was made under Section 166, based on negligence.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal concerns the enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of Rajinder Singh Mihnas in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants, the deceased’s family, appealed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment, arguing that it failed to consider “future prospects” in calculating compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 7,80,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 147(5), 149(1), and 166 – This appeal was filed by an Insurance Company against the High Court’s decision to uphold the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation to the family of a deceased motorcycle driver. The driver died in an accident caused by a speeding truck. The Insurance Company argued that its policy for the offending vehicle had been cancelled due to non-payment of premium, relieving them of liability.

The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the claimants.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 – Compensation for Motor Accident – This case involves appeals against a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka, modifying an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 19.11.2016, when the appellant’s Omni car collided with a parked lorry on the Peenya flyover in Bengaluru, resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant.

The Tribunal had initially awarded Rs. 17,01,140, reduced to Rs.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 10 and 16; Contract Act 1872 Section 10 – This case concerns a civil appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in a suit for specific performance.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, claiming the appellant (defendant) had executed the agreement and received part consideration. The appellant contended fraud and misuse of blank signed stamp papers obtained as security for a loan.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the respondents to be professional moneylenders who obtained signatures on blank papers, and that the consideration was disproportionately low.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6), 35, 42A – This case concerns the permissibility of a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement participating in arbitration proceedings and the court’s authority to issue ancillary directions after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A family settlement (MoU/FSD) was entered into, but Rahul Gupta (RG), a non-signatory, sought to intervene in Section 11(6) proceedings for arbitrator appointment and Section 9 proceedings for interim measures. The High Court initially rejected RG’s intervention but later allowed RG and other non-signatory companies to be present in the arbitration and issued directions regarding properties subject to arbitration.

The Supreme Court held that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no right to participate in arbitration proceedings between signatories, as the arbitral award would not bind them under Section 35 of the Act.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 – This revision petition was filed by the husband challenging the order of the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, which directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to his wife and son from the date of filing the interlocutory applications. The husband did not challenge the maintenance awarded to his son or the direction to pay for his NEET coaching fees. His challenge was solely against the interim maintenance awarded to his wife.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 6 Rule 17 – This revision petition arises from the dismissal of an application to amend a plaint in a partition suit. The plaintiff sought to add a prayer for declaring a settlement deed executed by their father in favor of the 3rd defendant as null and void, arguing it was obtained through fraud and coercion. This amendment was sought after the defendants filed their written statement, which mentioned the settlement deed.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the amendment was necessary to address a potential technical defense and align with existing pleadings.

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 430 & Constitution of India – Article 227 – This civil revision petition was filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.97 of 2025, arguing that the suit’s maintainability is questionable due to the availability of remedies under the Companies Act, 2013, specifically concerning oppression, mismanagement and bar under Section 430. The petitioners contended that the plaintiff should approach the National Company Law Tribunal. They also argued the suit is an abuse of process.

The respondent countered that the plaintiff (a company) is a separate legal entity with a distinct cause of action for seeking a permanent injunction to protect its property (looms).

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 and 49; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – The petitioner, the 5th defendant in O.S. No.83 of 2014, filed a revision petition against the trial court’s order dismissing I.A. No. 2 of 2020, an application to mark an unregistered Sale Deed dated 31.10.1988 for collateral purpose which is to establish the commencement of possession.