Search Judgments

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Section 72(2), 528 – The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act Section 15A – The judgment concerns a petition challenging a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against A3, a suspended police officer, in an honour killing case. The case involves grave offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act).

A3 argued the NBW was issued “straight away” without summons, despite her prior cooperation and non-arrest during investigation. She sought a direction for the Trial Court to immediately consider her recall application upon surrender.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 01.07.2019. The dispute arose between M/s. NRP Projects Private Limited (NRP), the claimant, and M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL), the respondent, concerning a contract for the design, procurement, and erection of tankages.

Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority Act, 1999 – Section 24; Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 – Rule 13(1)(d), 17(7); Indian Contract Act – Section 20, 64, 65 – The case involves multiple writ petitions concerning Life Insurance Corporation of India’s (LIC) “Jeevan Saral” policy. Some petitions were filed by LIC challenging orders directing them to refund premiums with interest, while one was filed by a policyholder seeking enforcement of an award in their favor.

The central issue is the maturity benefit payable under the policy. The policyholders contended that the maturity amount offered was less than the premiums paid, while LIC argued that the maturity amount, though not explicitly stated in the policy document, was calculated based on IRDAI guidelines and communicated to the policyholders.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34; Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 19 – This case involves a challenge to an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai (Council) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the same Act, seeking a direction for the petitioner to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.34,40,997/- along with interest.

A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 34, arguing that the mandatory deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, as required by Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, was made beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The court considered various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, Madras High Court, Kolkata High Court, and Bombay High Court, regarding the interpretation of Section 19 of the MSMED Act and its interplay with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – This petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the petitioner seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from two work orders dated 27.8.2015 and 24.2.2016, concerning electrical works and security systems for Chennai Port Trust.

The petitioner contended that disputes arose due to the respondent levying liquidated damages and withholding amounts, while the respondent argued that the petitioner’s claims were barred by limitation and accord and satisfaction, citing acceptance of final settlements.

The court considered arguments regarding the scope of Section 11(6) and 11(6A) of the Act, particularly concerning the court’s power to examine issues of limitation and accord and satisfaction. Recent Supreme Court judgments were referenced, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention at the referral stage, primarily focusing on the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This case involves two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The first appeal (CMA No. 2640 of 2021) was filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. The second appeal (CMA No.