Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37 – This case involves an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had overturned a Single Judge’s decision to set aside an arbitral award. The dispute arose from a construction contract between Software Technology Parks of India (respondent) and Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. (appellant). The appellant was contracted to construct an office building but completed the project with a delay of approximately 10 months.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 2(6), 2(7), 2(10), 2(11), 2(42), 34, 39, 42 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Interpretation of Section 34 regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) – Maintainability of Revision Petition under Article 227 against DCDRC order.

This case concerns a dispute between the petitioners and the respondent over car parking spaces and a lumber room in a premium apartment complex, for which the petitioners paid a total consideration of Rs. 7,61,47,021. The petitioners were allegedly denied access to the lumber room due to the respondent’s prior allotment of two car parking spaces to third parties, which blocked the access.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 27, 28, 33, 34, and 12 – This case concerns a dispute between the plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the trademark “BILTEN” for pharmaceutical preparations, and the defendant, using the trademark “BELATIN” for similar products. The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant claimed prior adoption, honest and concurrent use, and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found that while the defendant adopted the “BELATIN” trademark earlier, the plaintiff was the prior user in the market.

Electricity Act, 2003—Section 135(1)(a)

This case originates from a Criminal Original Petition filed to quash Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2018, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. The petitioner was accused of electricity theft under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, based on a complaint from TANGEDCO (Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, running an ice factory, illegally used electricity from a free agricultural service connection meant for his father, resulting in a loss of Rs. 3,384,345 to TANGEDCO.

Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 – Rule 21 – This case involves appeals against a Gujarat High Court order regarding the principle of stepping up pay for senior employees whose juniors, who were previously ad hoc lecturers, now earn more due to the counting of their ad hoc service for Senior Scale/Selection Grade benefits. The appellants, directly selected Assistant Professors, sought pay parity with these juniors under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002.

The core issue is whether Rule 21, which allows for stepping up pay to match a junior’s higher salary, applies when the pay disparity arises from considering the junior’s past ad hoc service. The appellants, despite acknowledging the legality of granting Senior Scale/Selection Grade to the junior lecturers (appointed as ad hoc lecturers between 1984-95), claimed that Rule 21 should bridge the resulting pay gap.

The Constitution of India Section 226 – This writ petition was filed seeking a directive for the third respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the list of eligible candidates for admission under the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota for postgraduate medical courses in Tamil Nadu for the 2025-2026 session. The petitioner, an Indian citizen, was sponsored by his maternal uncle, who holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card issued after the Government of India’s notification on March 4, 2021. The Selection Committee rejected the petitioner’s application, stating that OCI cardholders issued after the specified date do not have the right to sponsor candidates under the NRI quota, as per the notification and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anushka Rengunthawar v. Union of India.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – This case revolves around whether a company that purchased software to automate its export/import documentation system qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, a company engaged in the export and import of medical devices, alleged deficiency in service regarding software purchased from the respondent. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission both ruled against the complainant, stating the purchase was for a commercial purpose, thus disqualifying the company as a ‘consumer’.

The appellant argued the software was for self-use and not for resale, and thus should fall under the ‘consumer’ definition.

Case Summary: Undervaluation and Guideline Value Disputes

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47A; Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instrument) Rules, 1968 – Rule 4(4), Rule 5 – A partnership firm appealed an order from the Inspector General of Registration concerning a differential stamp duty demand. The firm purchased a property for Rs. 64,00,000/-, paying 7% stamp duty. They later received a Form-I notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, alleging undervaluation based on the East Coast Road (ECR) guideline value and demanding additional duty.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 126(2), 189(2), 192, 292, 132 – The Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 Sections 4A(1-a), 4B – Petitioners sought to quash an FIR (Crime No. 38 of 2025) lodged under Sections 126(2), 189(2), 192, 292, 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4A(1-a), 4B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners unlawfully assembled, obstructed a public pathway, and protested against a TASMAC shop without obtaining prior police permission.

The petitioners argued their protest was peaceful, conducted to demand the closure of a TASMAC outlet located in a residential area, causing disturbance to residents, and was an exercise of their democratic rights.

The Arms Act, 1959 Section 13(2); The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 197 – The appellant, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), challenged a Patna High Court judgment that refused to quash an order taking cognizance against him. The case originated from a 2005 FIR alleging irregularities in the issuance of arms licenses during his tenure as District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority in Saharsa, Bihar. The appellant was accused of violating Section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution argued that the appellant issued licenses without proper verification, even to individuals who were physically unfit or fictitious.