Search Judgments

Passports Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 – This case concerns a writ appeal filed by an industrialist whose passport renewal application was stalled due to an adverse police verification report citing pending criminal proceedings against him under the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC Sections 370(1), 370(5), 370(a)(1). The Regional Passport Officer withheld processing the renewal based on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which mandates refusal of passport issuance when criminal proceedings are pending.

The appellant relied on a Bombay High Court decision (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992) arguing that pendency of criminal proceedings should not impede passport renewal. The court examined the notification G.S.R.570(E), dated 25th August 1993, issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(4) & (6) – This case concerns a petition filed under Section 11(4) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between the petitioner (a partner in a firm) and the respondents (other partners) arising from a reconstituted partnership deed.

The petitioner had previously filed a similar petition (O.P.No.55 of 2019) which was dismissed for default, and not restored. The respondents argued that the present petition is not maintainable due to res judicata and limitation, as the dispute originated in 2016 and the new petition was filed in 2024, outside the limitation period. They contended that the petitioner had abandoned his claim by not restoring the previous petition.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8;Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 59 – This is a case concerning a suit for partition filed by the first respondent against defendants 1 to 7, regarding properties originally belonging to Ayyappa Naicker. The plaintiff, one of the sons of the first defendant (Sathoorappa Naicker), sought partition of the properties, claiming they were ancestral and that alienations made by the first defendant (Kartha of the family) to defendants 6 and 7 were invalid. The trial court partly decreed the suit, excluding Item No. 1.

The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) Order 7, Rule 11; Limitation Act 1963 Article 58 – This Appeal Suit arises from the rejection of an unnumbered plaint by the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, on the grounds of limitation. The plaintiffs, a sister and brother, filed the suit seeking a declaration that certain sale deeds executed by the defendants are null and void, arguing that these transactions, which occurred without their knowledge, are not binding on them.

The District Court held that the cause of action arose in 1954, when the properties were initially purchased by the plaintiffs’ maternal grandfather, and thus the suit was time-barred. However, the plaintiffs contended that the cause of action arose when they became aware of the disputed transactions through a reply notice from the defendants in 2016 and subsequent examination of revenue records.

The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) Order 41, Rule 27 – This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Family Court, Dindigul, which ordered the defendant (appellant) to pay maintenance to the plaintiff (respondent), claiming to be his lawfully wedded wife. The plaintiff asserted that she married the defendant in 1973 and was later subjected to torture, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. The defendant denied the marriage, stating that he was married to another woman. The Family Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, relying on the testimony of a witness who was related to the defendant.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 05.05.2023. The dispute arose from a partnership deed between the petitioner and respondent, who are brothers, concerning a firm operating in Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

The petitioner sought to dissolve the firm, leading to the respondent initiating arbitration proceedings. Initially, the High Court designated Hosur as the seat of arbitration and instructed the proceedings to be held there.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34(2A) –  This petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the petitioners challenging the award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 25.02.2023. The dispute arose from a loan agreement dated 12.04.2018, where the respondent claimed the petitioners failed to repay a loan of Rs. 13 lakhs. The petitioners contested the loan agreement’s validity, alleging forgery and the respondent’s lack of financial capacity to lend such an amount.

University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards of Autonomous Institutions) Regulations 2023 Regulation 4 and 23, Clause 6 – This judgment pertains to writ appeals filed by a University against orders of the Writ Court directing the University to issue notifications under Regulation 4.2 of the UGC Regulations 2023, regarding the conferment of autonomous status to certain engineering colleges by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The colleges, having met the eligibility criteria, applied to the UGC for autonomous status. The University, as the parent institution, raised objections, but the UGC proceeded to grant autonomous status. Despite the UGC’s conferment of autonomous status, the University failed to issue the necessary notifications, leading the colleges to seek a Writ of Mandamus.

Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 – Section 3(b) and Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 – Rule 4 and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 9 – The case originates from a writ petition challenging a charge memo issued to the respondent, a former police officer, after his acquittal in a criminal case related to corruption charges. The writ petition was initially allowed by the Writ Court based on the interpretation of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, stating that cases involving corruption must be referred to the Tribunal.

The appellant challenged the order arguing that it’s not mandatory to refer corruption cases to the Tribunal, relying on a recent Division Bench judgment. The respondent argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after his superannuation and beyond the permissible period under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

State Financial Corporation Act, 1951; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 2, 47, Order 20 Rule 4(2); Limitation Act, 1963 Section 21; Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (Repealed).

Brief Facts: The Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC) appealed against a High Court order dismissing its challenge to civil proceedings related to interest computation on a decreed amount. The case originated from a 1988 recovery suit filed by M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries against M/s. Manorama Chemicals Works, which OSFC had taken over due to loan defaults.