Act / Rules: The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR & CE Act), specifically Sections 23, 35, 36, 47, 54, 66, 86, and 87; The Constitution of India Articles 25, 26. | It also refers to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964, the Utilisation of Surplus Funds Rules, and the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015. Background: Two writ petitions were filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 08.03.2024, which sanctioned Rs.40 crore for civil works under an 'Iconic Project' at Shri Kallazhagar Temple, and a subsequent work order dated 11.10.2024. Petitioners argued that the project was initiated by the State, usurping the role of temple trustees, involved illegal diversion of temple funds (accumulated surpluses) without proper budgeting or statutory compliance, and questioned the long-standing presence of an Executive Officer appointed in 1966. Decision: Quashed Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: Constitution of India: Articles 19(1)(c), 43B, 243ZI; Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983: Sections 74, 75(1), 75(3) proviso, 32, 33; | They argued that these provisions, by establishing a common cadre for key administrative/managerial posts and centralizing control over their recruitment, transfer, and discipline, undermined the autonomy of cooperative societies, violating the fundamental right to form cooperatives and the Directive Principle of promoting autonomous functioning. The respondents contended that the issue was largely settled by C. Manoharan v. Decision: Dismissed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 6, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 100, Section 148A, Order 23 Rule 1A, Order 41 Rule 33) | The original appellant (son) sought to withdraw the appeal before its admission and before any substantial question of law was framed. The respondents (daughters) opposed the withdrawal, requesting transposition as appellants under Order 23 Rule 1A CPC and seeking an enhanced share (2/4th). They argued that, per Vineeta Sharma v. Decision: Dismissed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: The Constitution of India Article 141; The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) | It primarily interprets and applies the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, under Entry 66 of List I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government [(2009) 4 SCC 590] and the mandate of Article 141. Relevant Government Orders (G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 18.05.1985; G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009; G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 20.11.2017) and a clarificatory letter (dated 03.12.2010) are central. Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: The Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) Section 42; The Limitation Act, 1963 Sections 5 and 29(2) | The appellant sought condonation for a delay of 116 days in filing an appeal against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, citing indisposition as the cause. The respondent argued that Section 42 of the PMLA prescribes a strict limitation period for such appeals. The High Court noted that Section 42 of the PMLA mandates an appeal to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the Appellate Tribunal's order. Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules:  Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 53, 71. | He was sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 for each offence, with sentences running concurrently. The High Court reduced the substantive imprisonment to 10 years RI but upheld the separate fines. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court on two grounds: 1. Decision: Disposed of Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) Sections 138, 139, and 118; The Constitution of India Article 227 | Act), and revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the second respondent, whose Rs. 50 crore cheque, issued as a guarantor in a settlement, was dishonoured. Decision: Set aside Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 69(1)(c), Rule 9(1); Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14; Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 406, 418, 420, 120B | He was an accused in FIR No. 140/2006 concerning the 2006 Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) paper leak. Parallel departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer (IO), in a report dated 26.02.2009, found no material evidence establishing the appellant's involvement in the paper leak or violation of service conduct rules, noting that the criminal case was sub judice. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25, 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 161, 164, 313; Constitution of India: Articles 134, 136 | The appellant, Gautam Satnami @ Gautam Deshlahre, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment, and this conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's key circumstances included: Prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased. Decision: Set aside Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Sections 138, 141, 142; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 397, 482 | The company had issued three cheques totaling ₹50 lacs for the supply of iron and steel, which were dishonoured due to "DRAWERS SIGNATURES DIFFERS AND ALTERNATIONS/CORRECTIONS ON INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN DATE." The Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge, and High Court had sustained the summons against the appellant. The rationale was that her signing of a Board Resolution ipso facto evidenced her involvement in the day-to-day management of the company. The High Court also held that a Section 482 CrPC petition, filed after a revision under Section 397 CrPC on the same grounds, was subject to narrower jurisdiction. Decision: Set aside Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: The Constitution Article 329(b) | State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1457, Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar (2011) 5 SCC 607). Decision: Dismissed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1); Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 16(c)); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 91, 92). | The agreement involved a total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-, with an advance payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- and the balance of Rs. 5,00,000/- due within one year. The Plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness, and issued a legal notice for performance. The Defendant (Appellant) countered that the agreement was merely security for a Rs. 15,00,000/- loan, denying any intent to sell or the Plaintiff's readiness and willingness. Decision: Allowed in part Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Constitution of India, Articles 32, 142, 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, Order 39 Rule 11 (Bombay Amendment) - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 340 -Indian Penal Code, 1860 (various sections, including 498A) - Advocate's Act, 1961, Section 35 | The marriage, solemnized in 2010, resulted in two minor sons. Following their separation in 2016, the Family Court granted the wife interim maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per month for herself and the children, alongside children's educational expenses, and an injunction regarding the matrimonial home. The respondent-husband consistently defaulted on maintenance payments and engaged in extensive litigation. Decision: Quashed Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427, 354); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 161, 164, 482); Constitution of India (Article 136). | Brief Facts: The appellants (Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, Sautrik Joardar) appealed against a High Court judgment that refused to quash a chargesheet filed under various IPC sections. The charges arose from an FIR lodged by the complainant alleging assault and threats during an altercation over an apartment building's entrance and parking. While the High Court quashed proceedings for two co-accused, it denied similar relief to the appellants, allowing the prosecution against them to continue. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 336, 201, 465, 471, 88, 92 | No. 13 of 2008) against an operating surgeon. The de facto complainant alleged that his 1.5-year-old son underwent Orchidectomy (removal of testicle) instead of Orchidopexy (repositioning of testicle) without proper consent, and the consent form was forged by interpolating "Orchidectomy." An FIR was lodged under various IPC sections, and a charge sheet was filed. The High Court initially ordered a Medical Board and further investigation. Decision: Set aside Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 302); Arms Act, 1959 (Section 27). | The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and seven years, respectively, for allegedly gunning down his superior officer due to a denied leave request on May 18, 2014. The prosecution's case primarily relied on the testimony of PW-3 (informant) and circumstantial evidence. PW-3 initially claimed to have seen the appellant holding the weapon and confessing to the crime. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 325, 302, 304 Part II, 34. | Facts:  The case involves a boundary dispute between two branches of a family, Senthil (A-1) and Sivakumar (A-2) along with their relatives (A-3, A-4), and the deceased, Kaliyamurthy. During an altercation on 20.09.2014, A-1 attacked PW-4 (the deceased's brother) with an Aruval, causing non-grievous injuries. A-2 then struck the deceased on the head with a log, causing a depressed skull fracture and brain injury, leading to his death. Decision: Partly allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 37), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Section 14), Constitution of India (Article 142). | During the arbitral proceedings, the respondent was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 14 of the IBC, imposing a moratorium. Despite the moratorium, the arbitral tribunal continued proceedings between 17.03.2022 and 25.08.2022, rejecting a Section 16 challenge to its jurisdiction and passing Section 17 interim orders allowing the sale of flats. Subsequently, liquidation proceedings against the respondent began, and the arbitrator terminated the arbitration. Decision: Set aside Court: Supreme Court

| The respondents, farmers, had filed complaints under Section 12 of the Act, alleging that substandard groundnut seeds (TAG 37A) purchased from the appellants led to significant crop failure. An investigation committee formed by the Deputy Director (Agriculture) submitted a report dated 09.10.2013. This report noted that 8-10% of the plants were of mixed species, implying defective seeds. Decision: Allowed in part Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 Rule 2A, Section 151; Constitution of India – Article 227 | The core grievance of the appellants concerned the High Court's decision to overturn the trial court's order. The trial court, in its order dated 07.09.2019, had initiated contempt proceedings against the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC, directing parties to lead evidence and ordering a separate record for the contempt trial, independent of the main Title Suit. However, the trial court did not fully adjudicate the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Decision: Set aside Court: Supreme Court