Search Judgments

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Section 33A – The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 Section 31A – The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) appealed a High Court judgment restricting its power to levy compensatory damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The High Court had held such levies as penalties, exclusively within the courts’ purview under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts.

The Supreme Court distinguished between restitutionary/compensatory damages and punitive penalties. It held that environmental regulators, guided by the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’, are empowered to impose restitutionary and compensatory damages as remedial or ex-ante measures for environmental harm.

(Trademark Rectification and Non-Use)

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act) Sections 47, 57, and 55 - The petitioner sought removal of the first respondent's registered trademark (a pictorial representation of Lord Ayyappa for rice products) from the register on three primary grounds:

1. A discrepancy in the user date between the application (14.01.1999) and the advertisement (13.07.1992), alleged to be a contravention under Section 57(1).

2. Significant differences between the registered mark and the mark as actually used, indicating non-use under Section 47 of the TM Act.

(Constitutional Validity of Tamil Nadu Information Commission Rules)

The Tamil Nadu Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2012 5(1)(vii) and Rule 10, alleging they are ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Sections 20(1), 27) and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner contended that Rule 5(1)(vii) allows the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to issue orders without affording a personal hearing, thereby infringing fundamental rights. The Court examined Rule 5(1)(vii) in conjunction with Rules 7 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Rules, which mandate that appellants/complainants and Public Information Officers (PIOs) be informed of hearing dates and be present.

It was clarified that while Section 20(1) of the RTI Act guarantees PIOs a hearing before penalty, Rule 5(1)(vii) is for exceptional circumstances. It allows orders based on available material without personal enquiry, primarily when no adverse orders are passed against an absent party or when parties fail to appear despite opportunities.

(Maintenance for Child and DNA Paternity Dispute)

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 112 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) - Mother's challenge against the High Court's denial of maintenance for her daughter from the alleged father. The legal issue revolves around the interplay between which establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, and the scientific accuracy of a DNA test report.

The appellant, a domestic worker, married the respondent, and a child was born shortly after. Matrimonial issues arose, leading to a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance for herself and her child.

Withholding of Gratuity during Pending Criminal Proceedings

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 69(1)(c), Rule 9(1) – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14 – Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 406, 418, 420, 120B – The appellant, a retired Senior Assistant of the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, superannuated on 28.02.2009. He was an accused in FIR No. 140/2006 concerning the 2006 Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) paper leak. Parallel departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against him.

Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 (Murder) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25 (Confession to police officer not to be proved), 27 (How much of information received from accused may be proved) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 161 (Examination of witnesses by police), 164 (Recording of confessions and statements), 313 (Power to examine the accused) – Constitution of India: Articles 134 (Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters), 136 (Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court)

Factual Background: The deceased, Dhumman @ Surjeet Bhattacharya, was found murdered in his house with multiple incised injuries. The appellant, Gautam Satnami @ Gautam Deshlahre, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment, and this conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s key circumstances included:

Prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased.