Topic
The Madras High Court is one of India's oldest high courts, exercising original and appellate jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu and Puducherry under the Constitution and various statutes.
The Madras HC held that 'spell' in Rule 22(2)(c) of the TN Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 means an instalment, entitling prisoners to forty days of leave in two instalments, and granted the petitioner fourteen days of leave without escort.
The Madras High Court ruled that a registered will cannot be presumed genuine in partition proceedings and must be proved strictly under Sections 63 of the Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act. This clarification affects legal heirs who may now claim a one tenth share in the deceased's property when such proof is lacking.
Madras HC Madurai Bench held that an acquittal from total lack of evidence is honourable under G.O. Ms. No.1410/2008, lifting the police recruitment bar. It orders appointment within twelve weeks, aiding candidates cleared on evidentiary grounds.
A Madras High Court second appeal confirmed that an ex-parte decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be set aside when the balance sale price is deposited after an unreasonable delay. The decision upholds the 1988 sale deed and signals that delayed payments defeat specific-performance orders, affecting buyers and sellers in property deals.
The Madras HC held that a claim for refund of a Rs 2 lakh advance under a 2004 sale agreement is barred once the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act lapses. Since Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act creates a charge only after sale completion, buyers must sue within that window or forfeit the advance.
The Madras High Court held that a discharge petition under Section 227 CrPC is barred when the prosecution has shown a prima facie case under the UAPA, meaning terrorism charges cannot be sidestepped by early release. This sets a clear precedent for all UAPA-accused awaiting trial.
Madras HC dismissed a civil revision, holding that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is valid despite technical non-compliance or a more specific rule, and that internal society election disputes lie with the Registrar of Societies. Litigants can therefore amend pleadings without risk of dismissal on procedural grounds.
Applicants seeking fresh compensation for land acquired under the National Highways project were denied because the court held that the statutory limitation period under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, had expired, invoking the fence-sitter doctrine. The ruling confirms that delayed claims for re-determination are barred, affecting all land-acquisition claimants.
Madras High Court rules that violations of the Motor Vehicles Act, such as not wearing a helmet, do not automatically constitute contributory negligence unless a direct causal link to the accident is established. The court enhanced compensation to ₹14.07 lakh, emphasizing that disability assessment must align with medical evidence and that insurers cannot evade liability based on mere statutory violations.
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) ruled that a plea for transfer of investigation under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must be backed by concrete evidence, not just allegations. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that interference is unwarranted post-charge sheet filing, especially in property disputes involving familial conflicts.
Madras High Court ruled that disability assessments in motor accident claims must correspond with medical evidence, rejecting arbitrary tribunal determinations. The Court enhanced the disability percentage from 40% to 60%, raising compensation to ₹18.89 lakh with 7.5% interest, setting a precedent for evidence-based disability evaluations under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Madras High Court reinforces employers' obligation to compensate retired employees for administrative delays in pension disbursement, mandating 6% interest from the retirement date until payment. The ruling sets a precedent for timely settlement of terminal benefits under Service Law, impacting public sector employees across Tamil Nadu.
Madras High Court reaffirms that a biological father, as the natural guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, holds primacy in custody matters unless formal legal proceedings challenge his right. The ruling underscores that grandparents or third parties must initiate proper guardianship proceedings to displace the father’s presumptive custody, even in cases of prior informal care arrangements.
Madras High Court grants bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, emphasizing that prolonged undertrial detention without evidence tampering risks violates the right to liberty. The ruling underscores that gravity of offence alone cannot override constitutional safeguards for undertrials.
Madras High Court rules that daily wage employees of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation are entitled to family pension under the TNSTCE Pension Scheme 1998, counting their service from the date of appointment. The Court directed payment of pensionary benefits within eight weeks, reinforcing that arbitrary exclusions violate judicial discipline and service law principles.