Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 – This case concerns a claim for compensation filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the family of an Excise Guard who died five months after a motorcycle accident. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the claimants, concluding that the death was a direct consequence of the accident.

The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, primarily based on the evidence of the plastic surgeon (PW-1) who treated the deceased. PW-1’s testimony revealed that the deceased had pre-existing conditions such as mild blood pressure, high cholesterol, and potential cardiac issues.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case concerns an appeal by a claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which was later reduced by the Madras High Court.

The claimant suffered 100% permanent disability in a bus accident in 2011 and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 67,83,866, but the High Court reduced it to Rs.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 Section 5 & Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 92 – The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be considered a “trust” or “constructive trust” for the purpose of instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. The case stemmed from a dispute within a not-for-profit society (Operation ASHA) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with allegations of financial impropriety and mismanagement.

The Court analyzed the essential conditions for invoking Section 92, including the existence of a public trust, breach of trust or necessity for court direction in administration, and the nature of reliefs claimed. The Court discussed various perspectives on constructive trusts, highlighting the distinct nature of remedies.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This judgment addresses two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision. C.M.A.(MD)No.40 of 2025 was filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation and the finding of negligence against its driver. C.M.A.(MD)No.553 of 2024 was filed by the claimant seeking an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The accident occurred when a Government Bus belonging to the Transport Corporation collided with a two-wheeler on which the claimant was a pillion rider, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contests the award issued in M.C.O.P. No. 410 of 2019, dated July 18, 2022, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The insurer appealed against the compensation of Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – This case involves two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against a common order from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the insurer was held liable to pay compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The claimants were traveling in a TATA 407 van, hired to attend a cattle market, when the van overturned due to a tire burst caused by the driver’s negligence.

The insurer contested the liability, arguing that the claimants were unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle not carrying goods at the time of the accident, thus violating the policy terms. The claimants argued that they were traveling to procure goods, making them constructively owners of the goods.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34 – Mandatory Injunction, Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955 Section 27(c) – This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to return an idol. The plaintiffs claimed the idol belonged to their family and was given to the defendants’ predecessors under an agreement (Ex. A1) with specific conditions, including its return upon demand. The defendants contested the idol’s identity and the suit’s maintainability, arguing it was barred by limitation.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – This appeal suit arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Court, Erode, concerning a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and declaration of a cancellation deed as null and void.

The plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, claimed ownership of the suit properties based on inheritance and a registered Release Deed obtained from Muthayammal, who later attempted to cancel the deed. The defendants, Muthayammal’s husband and children, contested the Release Deed’s validity, alleging fraud and misrepresentation.

The court examined the validity of the Release Deed and its subsequent cancellation.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Section 357A and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 396 – This case involves a Criminal Original Petition filed by a senior citizen seeking direction to the police to file a final report in a case of theft, where she and her husband were conned out of their jewelry and cash. The incident occurred in 2018, and despite a complaint, the accused remained untraced, leading the police to file a final report indicating the case as untraceable.

The court acknowledged the distress and vulnerability of senior citizens in such scams, emphasizing the importance of a victim-centric approach as enshrined in Section 357A of the CrPC (now Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). It was noted that even when the offender is untraced, the State has an obligation to provide compensation to the victim.

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Section 5B – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the appellant, Sun TV Network, to challenge the respondent’s (Central Board of Film Certification) order dated 04.08.2025, which granted an “A” (Adults only) certificate with excisions/modifications for their movie “Coolie.” The appellant sought a “U/A” (Unrestricted Public Exhibition subject to parental guidance for children below age 12) certificate instead.

The appellant argued that the “A” certificate was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Article 19(2) of the Constitution, citing that movies with more explicit violence had received “U/A” ratings. They further stated that the violence and other content in “Coolie” were justified by the storyline, which aims to portray the life of coolies.

The respondent justified the “A” rating by stating that the film contained frequent and extensive violence, strong threatening moments, sustained portrayal of smoking and drinking, and occasional bad language.