Search Judgments

Constitution of India – Article 143(1): Presidential power to consult the Supreme Court.
Constitution of India – Article 200: Governor’s powers regarding assent to Bills.
Constitution of India – Article 201: President’s powers regarding Bills reserved by the Governor.
Constitution of India – Article 361: Protection of the President and Governors.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 22(2) – The Limitation Act, 1963, Section 18 – A plaintiff/appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 16.09.2007 for property, having paid an advance of Rs. 3,60,000 by 25.02.2008. Although the agreement set a one-month completion period, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s letters in 2014 acknowledged liability, thus extending the limitation period. The defendant countered that the suit, filed on 13.01.2015, was time-barred as these acknowledgments were made after the expiry of the original three-year limitation period.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 175(3) & 175(4) – This criminal revision case was filed to challenge an order from the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, directing the 2nd respondent to investigate a case under section 175(3) of the BNSS. The 1st respondent alleged forgery and fraudulent property registration by the petitioners. The Magistrate directed the 3rd respondent to investigate, leading to an FIR being filed under sections 468, 471, 419, and 420 of the IPC against the petitioners and others.

The petitioners argued that the 1st respondent did not comply with section 175(3) of BNSS by directly filing the petition after receiving a CSR (Community Service Register).

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 207, 208, 209, 227, 392, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 120B, 201, 217, 218, 302, 330, 341

Discharge Application (Section 227 CrPC) – The Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of considering a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, the Court must strictly confine itself to “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” by the prosecution. Defence materials cannot be considered. The Court’s role is to sift and weigh the prosecution evidence to ascertain if a prima facie case is made out, meaning a strong suspicion based on material brought on record, not on mere suppositions, suspicions, or conjectures.

Scope of “Sufficient Ground for Proceeding” (Section 227 CrPC) – The term “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” requires the Judge to exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial has been made out.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) – Section 36, 37, 40, 79 & Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC – The core issue of the case is whether a suit seeking a common law remedy of permanent injunction is maintainable before a civil court or barred under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, given the powers vested in the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).

The petitioner argued that the suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, contending that the RERA Tribunal alone has jurisdiction over the issues raised, citing Sections 36 and 37 of the RERA Act, which empower the authority to grant injunctions.

Conversely, the respondent/developer argued that the suit for a bare permanent injunction is an equitable remedy maintainable in a Civil Court, asserting that Sections 36 and 37 operate in different spheres and do not empower the RERA authority to grant such an injunction.

The court analyzed Sections 36, 37, and 40 of the RERA Act and concluded that the common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction is not available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaint – A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act must contain all material facts and documents. Suppression of a reply to a demand notice, which requested documents for a proper response, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. A complainant has a duty to come to court with clean hands.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 200 and 203 – Suppression of Material Facts – The JMFC must apply its mind before issuing process under Section 204 CrPC.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 Section 6(11) And 54 – This case involves multiple writ petitions concerning the Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple in Madurai. The core issues are the hereditary trusteeship, poojariship rights, and the sharing of temple income among the descendants of the founding family. The temple was declared a public temple in 1925 and an “excepted” temple in 1935, with trusteeship traditionally held within the family of Valliammal.

The court addressed three main issues:

1.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 88, 98, 99, 100 – This case concerns the granting of permits to private operators on inter-State routes overlapping intra-State notified routes, and the interplay between Chapter V (Control of Transport Vehicles) and Chapter VI (Special Provisions Relating to State Transport Undertakings) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) challenged orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the States of Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Uttar Pradesh (UP) to grant and countersign permits to private operators for plying stage carriages on inter-State routes. These routes overlapped with intra-State routes notified under schemes approved as per Chapter VI of the Act.

The UPSRTC argued that private operators cannot ply on routes overlapping notified routes, while the private operators contended that an inter-State reciprocal transport agreement (IS-RT Agreement) between MP and UP allowed such permits, especially since the Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) had ceased operations.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 – Section 10(2)(i) and 11(4) – This case involves a challenge to concurrent eviction orders issued against the tenant by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority in Chennai. The landlord sought eviction based on wilful default in rent payment from August 1998 to May 2000, claiming arrears of Rs. 6,05,710. The tenant denied the default, asserting advance payments exceeding rent liabilities and a bona fide dispute over the payable rent.

Constitution of India, 1950  Articles 14, 32, 136, 141, 142, 226, 227, 323-A, 323-B, 368; The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 – Validity Challenged – The Supreme Court addressed petitions challenging the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, focusing on its impact on the independence and functioning of tribunals in India. The petitions argued that the Act, particularly Sections 3, 5, and 7, violated the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence by diluting the judiciary’s role in tribunal appointments, tenure, and service conditions.

The court examined the historical trajectory of tribunal jurisprudence in India, citing key cases like S.P. Sampath Kumar v.