Search Judgments

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Section 45-ZA; Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 – Rule 2(7); Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Rugulations 2016 Rule 3 – The writ petition was filed to direct the bank to transfer funds belonging to the deceased, Sri Sushil Mazumdar, to the petitioner, who was nominated as the nominee. The bank had refused, claiming the nomination was incomplete and the nominee cannot be in a representative capacity.

The petitioner, an Italian national and former president of Sadhana Ashram, was nominated in his capacity as president. The court considered whether the nomination was valid, whether Foreign Exchange Management Regulations apply, and whether Sadhana Ashram is a legal entity that can be a nominee.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 38; Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 – Rule 2.1.3(4)(i) – This case involves an appeal against an order directing the de-sealing of a petty shop that was sealed by the Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Sivagangai District, for allegedly selling banned tobacco products. The shopkeeper was also fined Rs. 25,000. The initial action was taken after the Inspector of Police registered a crime under Section 24(1) of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – This writ petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner’s maternity leave application by the third respondent. The petitioner, a Junior Assistant, sought maternity leave for her third pregnancy, having already had two children before joining the service. The respondent rejected the application, citing it as a third confinement.

The petitioner argued that she is entitled to maternity leave and benefits, regardless of whether her previous pregnancies occurred before or after her employment.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act) – Section 19 and 21; Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (the TM Rules) – Rule 10, 11, 33(1) and Entry 15 of Schedule I – The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the acceptance and advertisement of the 1st respondent’s trade mark application “SACHAMOTI”. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory petition requesting that the trade mark application not be processed, claiming that the user claim was based on fabricated documents. This petition was filed before the advertisement stage. The Registrar of Trade Marks accepted the application and directed its advertisement, without responding to the interlocutory petition.

Constitution of India Article 226 – These writ petitions challenge the District Revenue Officer’s order dismissing appeals against the cancellation of pattas belonging to residents of Shanmuga Nagar in Thiruverkadu Village. The petitioners argued they had title to the land and could not be dispossessed without due process. The District Revenue Officer relied on a Tahsildar’s report reclassifying the land as river poramboke (government land).

The court noted the land was originally classified as freehold land belonging to Amelia Sam and later sold to T.S.

Indian Divorce Act – Section 10(A) – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the Family Court’s decision to return a mutual consent divorce petition filed under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act, based on the grounds that the mandatory one-year separation period hadn’t been completed. The petitioners, a husband and wife, argued that the mandatory waiting period should be waived, citing a Kerala High Court judgment that deemed the waiting period unconstitutional and a Supreme Court ruling allowing the waiving of the cooling period under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court acknowledges the Kerala High Court’s view that the waiting period infringes upon fundamental rights and the Supreme Court’s stance on waiving the cooling period in certain circumstances. It is observed that the Family Court has the discretion to waive the mandatory waiting period in mutual consent divorce petitions under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act.

Letters Patent Clause 12 – Civil Procedure Code 1908 Section 20 – This appeal challenges the order dismissing an application for leave to sue, as the defendants reside outside the Madras High Court’s original jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against a circular issued by the first defendant in Delhi. The Single Judge dismissed the application, stating that no cause of action arose within the court’s jurisdiction.

The appellants argued that the circular impacts members of the Grand Lodge of India, many residing in Chennai, thus establishing a partial cause of action.

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Section 3(2)(a) – This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the III Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam in O.S. No. 268 of 2007. The suit was filed by the 1st plaintiff (later substituted by the 2nd plaintiff/appellant) for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction.

Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 Section 2(e) – The revision petitioner challenged the order of the District Judge confirming the order of the Commissioner and Estate Officer, Mayiladuthurai Municipality, which initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975.

The petitioner argued that the Municipality’s invocation of the Act was unsustainable because the land in question, earmarked for a children’s park in an approved layout, was never gifted to the Municipality and therefore, it did not qualify as “public premises” under the Act. The land was sold to the petitioner with a residential building.

The Municipality contended that previous litigation involving the petitioner’s predecessors estopped the petitioner from objecting and that the court had granted liberty to proceed with eviction.

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.