Today's Updates

(Partition of Joint Family and Partnership Properties)

The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Section 14), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Order I Rule 9, Order VI Rule 4, Order XIV Rule 2), and Tamil Nadu Court-Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1965 (Section 41) - The plaintiff sought a 1/4th share in suit properties and rendition of accounts, claiming they were joint family assets. The defendants contended an oral partition had occurred, which was later recorded in an unregistered family arrangement (Ex.B.70), and that the plaintiff had acted on it by executing sale deeds to the fourth defendant.

The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court observed that many properties in the suit schedule belonged to registered partnership firms, not solely a Hindu Joint Family.

(Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree and Interpretation of Order 17 CPC)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 13, Order 17 Rules 2 & 3(a), Section 80 - This Civil Revision Petition challenged the Subordinate Judge's order allowing an appeal and setting aside an ex parte decree. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The 3rd defendant was set ex parte after his counsel reported 'no instructions' and failed to cross-examine a witness, leading to an ex parte decree dated 21.08.2013. The 3rd defendant subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, which the Trial Court dismissed, deeming the decree as 'on merits'.

(Quashing of Private Complaint and Interpretation of Cognizance under BNSS)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Section 223 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 356 (old Section 500 IPC) - This petition was filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4 seeking to quash a private complaint filed under Section 356 of BNS. The respondent had lodged the complaint, following which the Judicial Magistrate recorded the complainant's sworn statement and issued a notice for the petitioners' appearance. 

The petitioners contended that by recording the sworn statement and issuing what appeared to be a 'summons,' the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence, thereby violating the first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS, which mandates giving the accused an opportunity of being heard *before* cognizance is taken. They also argued the complaint lacked merit. 

The respondent argued that recording a sworn statement is merely a process of gathering material and does not amount to taking cognizance.

(Recall of Witnesses in Prevention of Corruption Act Case)

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973 Section 311. The petitioner, an accused, faces trial under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He sought to recall P.Ws.2, 6, 8, and 16 for further cross-examination. The trial court, designated for Prevention of Corruption Act cases, had dismissed the petitioner's application. The petitioner contended that recalling these witnesses was crucial to prove his innocence and that the dismissal was unsustainable.

(Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Initiated by State Women's Commission)

This writ petition sought to quash proceedings and a recommendation for criminal prosecution initiated by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women (TNSCW) against the petitioner, a Member of Parliament, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

The core issues involved compliance with the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008, specifically Sections 3(2) (Constitution of Commission), 7(3) (Functions and Investigation), and 9(3) (Authentication of Orders and Decisions), and the nature of the petitioner's speech - The High Court found that the TNSCW committed significant procedural violations. The summons and the subsequent recommendation for prosecution were unilaterally signed by the Chairperson, lacking authentication by the Member Secretary, which contravened Section 9(3) and the collective decision-making requirement under Section 3(2) of the TNSCW Act.

Further, the Commission failed to conduct a thorough 'investigation' as mandated by Section 7(3) before concluding a prima facie case.

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c) - The respondents (plaintiffs) had entered into an unregistered sale agreement with the appellant (defendant) for house plots for Rs. 19,25,000/-. An advance of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid in two installments, with a four-month completion period stipulated.

(Power of Magistrate to Order Further Investigation on Protest Petition)

This Criminal Revision Petition challenged an order by a Judicial Magistrate directing further investigation into a case after a protest petition was filed.

The case involved allegations that the petitioners fraudulently obtained signatures on blank papers from the de facto complainant, a Trustee, relating to a loan and subsequent claim of partnership rights. The police had initially filed a final report classifying it as a "mistake of fact."

Upon the de facto complainant's protest petition, the Magistrate, noting infirmities in the initial investigation, ordered further investigation.

Petitioners argued that the Magistrate should have treated the protest petition as a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) or had no power to order further investigation, especially with specific directions.

(Property Dispute & Will Interpretation)

Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 - This second appeal originated from a property dispute concerning the interpretation of a Will and challenges to land subdivision orders. The plaintiff (appellant), younger son Thompson, sought to enforce his claim over 19.5 cents bequeathed by his father, Appavu Nadar, arguing that the elder son (Raj, whose wife is the first defendant) was only entitled to the "remaining" land and thus should absorb any shortage.

Appavu Nadar's Will (1969) distributed 54 cents: 11.5 cents to Rajamani (son from first wife), 19.5 cents to the plaintiff, and 19 cents to Raj. Raj's share was subsequently transferred to his wife (first defendant) and later sold to the fourth defendant.

(Requirement of Sanction for Prosecuting Central Government Employees under Factories Act)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) Section 197, for prosecuting Central Government employees for alleged offences under the Factories Act, 1948 and Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 - The petitioners, an Occupier and a Manager of a Heavy Vehicles Factory (a unit of Armoured Vehicles Nigam Ltd.), faced charges under Sections 33(1), 32(a), 21(1)(iv)(c), and 87 of the Factories Act, 1948, and Rule 95 Schedule XXVIII Part A Item 3(6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950. These charges arose from safety violations observed during an inspection, including uncovered trenches, unfenced machinery, and inadequate worker health examinations.

The petitioners challenged the prosecution, arguing that as Central Government employees (appointed to Class I Gazetted posts in the Ministry of Defence), prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory.

(Environmental Clearance for Educational Institution)

This petition challenged criminal proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for alleged offences under Sections 15 and 16, ibid. The case arose from a medical college and hospital (petitioner) expanding its premises without prior environmental clearance as mandated by the EIA Notification, 2006.

The respondent (Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board) filed a complaint.

(Recovery of Marketing Commission)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 12 Rule 8; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65-B - This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 22,87,000/- with interest, claimed as marketing commission.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement from 1986 with the defendant company to pay a 5% commission on product sales. The defendant contended the arrangement was ad-hoc, denying a formal contract, and stated the plaintiff refused to sign a proposed written agreement in 1990.

(Amendment of Plaint to Include Mandatory Injunction)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 39 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 - This Civil Revision Petition challenged the dismissal of an amendment application in O.S.No. 1111 of 2015. The plaintiff, who initially sought a permanent injunction, moved to amend the plaint after an Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the second defendant's encroachment and construction on his property *pending litigation*. The amendment sought to add a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove these superstructures.

(Arbitration - Jurisdiction and Seat Determination)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) Section 34, Sections 2(1)(e), 9, 20(2), 34, 42 and Order 7 Rule 10 CPC -  The petitioner filed a Section 34 petition before the Principal District Judge, Salem, challenging an arbitral award. The first respondent sought its return, arguing New Delhi was the competent jurisdiction. The District Judge allowed this, directing re-presentation in New Delhi, which was then challenged.

The core dispute centered on whether New Delhi was the arbitration 'seat' and which court had jurisdiction.

(Competence of Drugs Inspectors and Regulation of Objectionable Advertisements under Drugs and Magic Remedies Act)

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Sections 2(a), 3(c), 3(d), 7(a), 8, 8(1), 9A, 11); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 190, 200, Ch. XII & XXXVI) - This reference addressed the competence of Drugs Inspectors to initiate prosecution under the 1954 Act for objectionable advertisements and the regulation of online advertisements.

Referring to Supreme Court directives in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, the Court clarified that Drugs Inspectors with Section 8(1) search/seizure powers cannot directly file criminal complaints before a Magistrate.

(Quashing of Proceedings against Advocates for Contempt in Court)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) Sections 384, 385, and 528 - The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) Section 267, and  of the Advocates Act, 1961 Section 30 - Practising advocates and Bar Association office bearers (petitioners) sought to quash proceedings in M.C.No.07 of 2026, initiated by a Judicial Magistrate.

The Magistrate acted under Section 384 BNSS, 2023, for alleged "intentional insult or interruption" (Section 267 BNS) during a remand hearing.

Petitioners contended the proceedings lacked jurisdiction, citing non-compliance with the "before the rising of the Court on the same day" requirement and absence of specific allegations.

They also alleged predetermination/bias due to the use of "offenders" and challenged the denial of legal representation by refusing vakalaths.