Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Section 173; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 151, 152; Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – The appeals challenged High Court orders concerning the deduction of compassionate assistance from motor accident compensation. Initially, the High Court ordered deduction of amounts received under the 2006 Rules. Subsequently, in a ‘clarification’ order, it reversed this, stating the entire 2006 Rules amount was not deductible.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its consistent position that only financial assistance under the 2006 Rules that directly replaces loss of income (pay and allowances) can be deducted from MVA compensation, to avoid double recovery.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – This writ petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, an Anesthesia Technician, by the respondent management. The petitioner was accused of illegally collecting money from a patient’s relative for medicines. The Labour Court initially ruled that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. The Court also mentioned that non-issue of a second show-cause notice and non-furnishing of the enquiry report did not vitiated the enquiry, and subsequently, upheld the dismissal.

Indian Penal Code (IPC); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Arms Act; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act)

• Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

Summary:

The Supreme Court heard appeals against the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail to several individuals accused in FIR No. 59 of 2020, related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. The accused face charges under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and PDPP Act. The prosecution alleges a pre-planned conspiracy culminating in violence against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 498A and 306 – This criminal appeal was filed by the accused (husband and mother-in-law) challenging their conviction and sentence in S.C.No.93 of 2018 for offenses under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution’s case was that the husband and mother-in-law subjected the victim to cruelty, including demanding dowry, which led her to commit suicide.

The prosecution examined 18 witnesses, including the victim’s mother (P.W.1), who alleged that the appellants demanded Rs. 5,00,000 as dowry.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that overturned a Family Court’s decision, granting a divorce decree and awarding Rs. 30 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife. The husband, a judicial officer, had filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, finding the husband guilty of cruelty.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302; The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 147 and Section 148 – This case involves an appeal against the High Court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s conviction of the accused-appellant, Raj Kumar @ Bheema, for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the injured eyewitness, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati, her identification of the appellant in court, the appellant’s refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and the recovery of a weapon (chheni) stained with human blood.

The Supreme Court found significant flaws in the prosecution’s evidence.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 53 & 53A; Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417 & 420; Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act – Section 4(1) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that directed the appellant to undergo DNA testing based on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1, alleging offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The respondent claimed that the appellant had physical relations with her while she was married, resulting in the birth of a child. The primary issue was whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing to determine the child’s paternity.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) & 20 – This case involves an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The plaintiff sought specific performance of agreements dated 18.09.2006 and 27.12.2007, concerning land in Dindigul. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

The plaintiff then sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer for refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.31,75,000 with interest which was allowed by the court.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 & 139 – This case involves an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonor case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 7,00,000 and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the accused, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 179, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [BSA] – Section 132, Advocates Act, 1961 – Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India – The case originated from a reference made by a two-judge bench regarding a notice issued to an Advocate under Section 179 of the BNSS. The notice directed the Advocate to appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to provide details about a case in which he represented the accused. This raised concerns about the extent to which investigating agencies can summon lawyers for questioning, especially considering Section 132 of the BSA, which protects privileged communications between lawyers and clients.

Various bar associations intervened, arguing that such notices infringe upon an Advocate’s right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution, and violate the statutory protection afforded to client-lawyer communications.