| Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Rules, 1964 (Rules 1964), specifically Rule 5. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.Key Findings: The Court found no legal basis for the appellants' claims of hereditary trusteeship under Section 54(1) of Act 22/1959, noting that past orders only permitted pooja performance and share reception, not formal recognition as hereditary trustees. Decision: Dismissed Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) Section 228 | The appellant, the deceased testator's wife, sought Ancillary Probate for Indian properties mentioned in a Will already probated in the USA. The testator's Will, which bequeathed properties in India to the appellant, was duly proved in the Middlesex County Surrogate-s Court, State of New Jersey, USA, leading to the issuance of Executor and Letters of Testamentary Certificates. However, the Indian Probate Court dismissed the plea, citing the appellant's non-appearance, non-production of the original Will, and lack of re-proving it in India. Decision: Set aside Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act, 1994) - Sections 2(a), 17, 23, 28(1), 30(1). | The appellant challenged the prosecution, arguing the raid conducted under Section 30(1) of the Act was illegal. The core contention was that the 'Appropriate Authority,' a multi-member body for the district (comprising the Civil Surgeon, District Programme Officer, and District Attorney), did not collectively authorize the search. Instead, only the Civil Surgeon, who was the Chairman, signed the order. Decision: Set aside Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Section 31(i) and 34 | They claimed the property was agricultural land, exempt under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. The 1st respondent/Bank contended that the loan was for constructing a godown, which altered the land's character to commercial. It argued that the applicants defaulted on the loan, leading to SARFAESI proceedings, and the property was sold through public auction to the 2nd respondent. Decision: Dismissed Non-Reportable Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 13(1)(a) | The plaintiff (1st respondent) sued defendants 1 to 3 for failing to execute a sale deed after the plaintiff had fulfilled their obligations under the agreement, including paying the full sale consideration. Defendants 4 and 5 (appellants), the daughter and son-in-law of the 1st defendant, contested the suit, arguing the agreement was unenforceable due to restrictions on alienation in the Housing Board's rules and the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. They also claimed the agreement was fabricated. Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Constitution of India - Article 142; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 379 | The couple's marriage, solemnized in 2012, lasted only 65 days, after which they became embroiled in numerous legal battles. The Supreme Court, noting the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the extensive litigation between the parties, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court considered factors such as the short duration of cohabitation, prolonged separation, and failed attempts at reconciliation. Decision: Disposed of Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | The claimants sought compensation for the death of their son. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 22,12,000 with 7.5% interest per annum. The insurance company contested the awarded amount, arguing that the deceased's income was not adequately proven and that the deduction for personal expenses was incorrectly calculated considering the deceased was divorced. Decision: Partly allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65(40), 65(41), 65(105)(zu), and 73 | The appellant, who conducted the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, engaged booking agents to secure speakers, including international figures like Tony Blair and Al Gore. Show cause notices were issued under the Finance Act, 1994, proposing to impose Service Tax on fees paid to the speakers through these booking agents, classifying it as "Event Management Service" under Section 65(105)(zu). The Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service Tax, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, along with interest and penalties. Decision: Allowed Non-Reportable Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 29, 43, and 101 | The challenged rules, specifically Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9), were deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court's decision was based on the grounds that Rule 6(9) grants uncontrolled discretion to the Selection Committee, lacking transparency and fixed criteria for selection. The High Court also noted that the Selection Committee is empowered with the uncontrolled discretionary power to determine its procedure to recommend candidates to be appointed as President and Members of the State and District Commission. Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Patents Act, 1970 - Section 2(1)(ja), 3(k), 10(5) | The appellant argued that their invention provides a method and system where a command surface is coupled to more than one component on a page, even when those components are associated with different applications. This addresses the problem of conventional systems' inability to process different unrelated applications simultaneously. They further argued that the invention possesses technical effect and technical contribution, improving system functionality. Decision: Allowed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Sections 5, 36, 48 | The plaintiff trust filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the suit property, claiming it had been fraudulently obtained by the defendant. The defendant argued he had been in possession for over 40 years and had acquired prescriptive title. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing lack of proof of the trust's establishment and non-registration under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Decision: Dismissed Court: Madurai Bench

Act / Rules: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and Section 147 | The Trial Court initially convicted the appellants, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision. The High Court then overturned the Appellate Court's order, restoring the initial conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants and respondent submitted a settlement agreement, where the appellants paid the respondent Rs. 5,25,000, and the respondent agreed to settle the matter and had no objection to setting aside the conviction. Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 307 | The FIR was filed by the complainant Farzan Ali, alleging that the appellant, along with other accused, assaulted his son Imran and his friends with knives and lathis. The High Court partially allowed the appeal against the acquittal order of the Trial court, sentencing the Appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and confirmed the acquittal of the other two accused. The primary contention revolved around whether the evidence justified the appellant's conviction for attempted murder. Decision: Allowed Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Section 94 (d) R/w Order 41 Rule 1  | The appellant, claiming a share in the HUF property, argued against the receiver's appointment, citing a prior status quo order and questioning the respondent's tenant status. The respondent filed a commercial suit seeking permanent alternative accommodation and requested a receiver to prevent property alienation. The City Civil Court initially rejected the receiver's appointment, deeming an injunction sufficient. Decision: Allowed Court: Supreme Court

Act / Rules: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 & 53 | The original suit was filed for recovery of money against the Revision Petitioner, which was decreed in favor of the Respondent. The E.P. sought to recover the decreed amount along with interest. The execution court ordered the attachment of the Revision Petitioner's 1/3 undivided share in the property. Decision: Set aside Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 2(9), 96, 100, 103, 107(d), Order XX Rule 4(2), Order XX Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 27 and 28, Order 9 Rule 13; Transfer of Property Act - Section 52; Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act - Section 40 | The appellant, Chinnappa, purchased the property from the legal heirs of Mallamma (who was granted 1/7th share in the first suit and possession through court), defendants in the second suit. The lower appellate court dismissed Chinnappa's appeal (A.S.No.30 of 2011) against the second partition decree, deeming him a lis pendens purchaser without the right to appeal. The High Court addressed whether a second partition suit is maintainable, whether the trial court's judgment met the requirements of a judgment under the CPC, and whether a lis pendens purchaser can maintain an appeal. Decision: Set aside Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 14(3), Order XLI Rule 25, Section 105(2) | The original suit, filed by the deceased M. Natarajan, sought a permanent injunction against interference with his property possession, claiming he was a tenant of the 3rd defendant (Temple). The 1st defendant contested this, asserting ownership based on a purchase by his wife in 1954. Decision: Set aside Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) - Section 3, 21(2)(a); Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Section 13; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 122 | The landlord filed for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, arguing that the tenancy agreement was not registered after the Act came into force. The tenant argued that the land belonged to the HR&CE Department, thus exempting the property from the Act under Section 3(c). The court noted that the tenant's induction was undisputed. Decision: Dismissed Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 41 Rule 31 | The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property based on sale deeds and revenue records, alleging that the defendants attempted to trespass. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim, asserting their own title dating back to 1914, supported by various documents and a genealogy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff's sale deeds not genuine and the defendants' title better established. Decision: Dispose of Court: Madras High Court

Act / Rules: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 and 8 | The plaintiff, the appellant, sought partition of joint family properties. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. However, the first appellate court overturned this decision, leading to the current Second Appeals. Decision: Partly allowed Court: Madras High Court