539 Madras High Court judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 18 of 23.
Madras High Court holds that convicting a partner under Section 138 NI Act after acquittal of the firm is legally unsustainable without proper pleading of vicarious liability.
Madras High Court holds that undue delay in deciding revenue revisions violates Article 21; mandates disposal within 16 weeks to uphold right to effective remedy.
Madras High Court clarifies that ancestral property claims require documentary proof; mere assertion of joint family income is insufficient under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Madras High Court clarifies that courts cannot grant liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC merely due to formal errors or impleadment needs.
Madras High Court holds that registering officers cannot refuse deed registration based on third-party names in patta; title disputes must be resolved in civil courts.
Madras High Court holds that unstamped partition chits recording past oral family arrangements are admissible as evidence, subject to final determination of intent at trial.
Madras High Court holds that co-terminous employment clauses are unenforceable unless explicitly communicated post-contract expiry, rendering termination illegal under Section 25F of the ID Act.
Madras High Court holds that relitigation of property title after final adjudication constitutes abuse of process; prior decrees bind all family members.
Madras High Court clarifies that a suit filed against a deceased defendant is not a nullity if legal heirs exist; proper impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC is mandatory.
Madras High Court holds that Sub-Registrars cannot initiate Section 33A proceedings for deficit stamp duty; only District Registrar has statutory authority.
Madras High Court directs revenue authorities to act on land survey requests under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 within twelve weeks.
Madras High Court upholds validity of arbitration award where MCCI, a historic institution, appointed the arbitrator per parties' agreement, clarifying unilateral appointment jurisprudence.
Madras High Court holds that cash seized under NDPS Act cannot be retained indefinitely without invoking Section 68-F; procedural compliance is mandatory.
Madras High Court holds that habeas corpus cannot be invoked when a married woman leaves her home voluntarily due to marital discord, clarifying limits of Article 226 jurisdiction.
Madras High Court clarifies that limitation under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be decided at threshold if it depends on factual disputes requiring evidence.
Madras High Court holds that civil contempt is established when authorities disburse funds despite clear interim orders, regardless of statutory records or bona fide belief.
Madras High Court upholds arbitral award holding that completion certificate does not extinguish liability for defective pile design under Section 34 of Arbitration Act.
Madras High Court holds that RON value of 90.6 under BIS 2017 cannot be rounded to 91; marginal deviations cannot override statutory specifications in petroleum quality cases.
Madras High Court holds that Enforcement Directorate's statutory disclosure under PMLA Section 66(2) triggers mandatory FIR registration; no preliminary inquiry permissible.
Madras High Court holds that failure to file counter before State Human Rights Commission amounts to tacit admission, validating compensation award for police brutality.
Madras High Court rules that insolvency adjudication can be annulled when debts are fully paid and estate becomes surplus, releasing property to rightful owner.
Madras High Court holds that imposing cash deposit as a condition for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC frustrates its purpose, aligning with Supreme Court precedent in Saravanan and Rakesh Kumar Paul.
Madras High Court rules that mere pendency of civil suits does not bar registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908. Key implications for property registration.
Madras High Court holds that denying promotion to a disabled employee solely on physical standards violates Section 20(3) of RPwD Act, 2016 and Article 14 of the Constitution.