Search Judgments

The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 7 – Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 Rule 19 – The appellant, Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, challenged a writ order allowing a retired Block Development Officer (1st respondent) to include his second wife as a nominee for Family Pension. The 1st respondent married his second wife in 1992 while his first wife was alive, leading to the initial rejection of his application.

Following his first wife’s demise in 2020, the 1st respondent renewed his claim, which the writ court allowed based on a ‘presumption of marriage’.

The High Court, in appeal, found that the writ court overlooked crucial provisions.

The Income Tax Act, 1961 under Section 44AB; The Constitution India Article 19(1)(g)  – This judgment pertains to a challenge by Chartered Accountants (CAs) against Clause 6 of Guidelines No. 1-CA(7)/02/2008, issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The clause imposes a limit on the number of tax audits a CA can accept in a financial year under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued the restriction violates Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) and Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution.

Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Sections 7, 28, 29, 31, 32 & 112 and Insolvency Rules, 1958 – Order 17 Rule 10 – The Official Assignee filed an application protesting against the deduction of 7% Government commission on amounts recovered from debtors and sale proceeds of insolvent properties. This deduction, based on Order XVII Rule 10(i) of the Insolvency Rules 1958, was challenged as reducing the dividend payable to creditors.

The applicant argued that the commission should only apply to amounts paid to creditors under a composition or scheme of arrangement, as per Section 28 of the Act. The respondents contended the deduction was lawful and long-standing practice, authorized by the High Court’s rules.

Service Rules and Pension Rules – The petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged an order revising her pension downwards and ordering recovery of excess pension paid. She argued that the revision was made without notice and without valid reason, and that recovery was impermissible as she belonged to Group C service, relying on the judgment in State of Punjab and others V. Rafiq Masih (White Washers) and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. The respondents contended that the initial pension calculation erroneously included her part-time service, which was later corrected based on GO.Ms.No.408 Finance (pen) Department dated 25.08.2009 and that the petitioner had consented to the revision.

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 54(6) and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 49(6) – The case concerns the denial of family pension to dependents with intellectual disabilities, specifically the son of A. Varuvel and the daughter of Justice T.S. Arunachalam. Varuvel’s son, Jerald, is mentally retarded and was denied family pension after his parents’ death.

The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, This judgment concerns writ petitions filed by lessees seeking to quash an eviction order issued by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-III), Chennai. The petitioners, commercial tenants paying substantial monthly rent, faced forceful eviction despite having made significant investments in the property.

The property is subject to conflicting claims: a mortgage by the respondent bank, leading to DRT proceedings and an eviction warrant, and an attachment by the Income Tax Department under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, pending confirmation before the SAFEMA Tribunal. The validity of the Bank’s e-auction sale certificate is also sub-judice in connected writ petitions.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 19, Article 113 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 29 Rule 1 – Running Account – Territorial Jurisdiction. A suit for recovery of dues on a running account is governed by the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, providing a limitation period of three years from when the right to sue accrues. The right to sue accrues from the date of the defendant’s denial of liability. A part payment on a running account can extend the limitation period under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The non-production of account ledgers by the defendant to prove discharge of a debt, despite admitting their existence, can lead to an adverse inference being drawn against them.

Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 Section 19 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RECTLARR Act, 2013) Section 25 – This writ petition challenges an award passed concerning land acquired for the four-laning of the Gopichettipalayam – Chithode highway (SH-15). The petitioner contested the compensation fixed for her land, arguing that mandatory procedures under the RECTLARR Act, 2013, were not followed.

Initially, a smaller portion of the land was proposed for acquisition via a Section 15(2) notification of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 but later, the area was increased.

The petitioner also raised objections regarding the market value assigned to her land, claiming disparities compared to adjacent properties.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37; Bombay Stock Exchange Bye-laws, 1957 – Bye-law 248(a) – This case concerns the enforceability of an arbitral award against a husband (Respondent No. 1) for the debit balance in his wife’s (Respondent No. 2) trading account with a stock broker (Appellant). The Appellant initiated arbitration under Bye-law 248(a) of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) Bye-laws, 1957, claiming that both respondents were jointly and severally liable due to an oral agreement.

The Registration Act Section 17(1) – A dispute arose regarding M/s.Shree Arunachaleswarar Mills between the plaintiffs (the re-registered firm and its current partners) and the defendants (original partners). Plaintiffs contended the defendants retired in 1999, making the 2nd plaintiff the sole proprietor who cleared substantial firm debts before re-registering the firm. They sought to declare the defendants’ subsequent registration of a new firm with the same name (Regn.No.821 of 2016) as null and void and sought a permanent injunction against interference.

Defendants disputed their retirement, alleging fabricated documents and the 2nd plaintiff’s failure to discharge firm liabilities as per an MoU.