Search Judgments

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 – This case concerns an appeal against an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) regarding a plot booking in a real estate project. The appellant booked a plot in 2006 and made substantial payments. However, the possession was delayed, and the respondent offered an alternative plot in 2011, demanding additional charges. The appellant terminated the agreement in 2017 due to the continuous delay and sought a refund with interest.

Hindu Law – Legal Necessity and Karta’s Power of Alienation – This case concerns the validity of a sale deed executed by the Karta (manager) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in favor of the appellant (5th defendant) and the challenge to it by one of the coparceners (Plaintiff). The plaintiff claimed the sale was not for legal necessity but to meet the Karta’s extravagant habits. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the sale was for legal necessity (marriage of daughter). The High Court reversed this, decreeing partition in favor of the plaintiff.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 & 37 – This case addresses whether an Execution Court should halt proceedings to execute an arbitral award solely because an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending against the rejection of an application under Section 34 of the same Act. The appellant argues that the execution should proceed, while the respondents contend that certain objections regarding the award’s executability exist.

The core issue revolves around the execution of an arbitral award when an appeal against the rejection of objections to that award is pending, but no stay order is in effect. The Executing Court had previously adjourned the execution proceedings due to the pending appeal.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed a Family Court’s decree of divorce. The husband had filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty. The wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Family Court granted the divorce, which was upheld by the High Court based on the constant acrimony and the wife lodging complaints to the police.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VIII Rule 6A – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order that allowed the defendant to amend their written statement and file a counterclaim in a property dispute suit. The appellant (plaintiff) originally filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that her sister-in-law (defendant no. 1) had no right to sell a portion of the joint family property to respondent no. 1 (defendant no.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 47 Rule 1 – This case concerns the maintainability of a review petition filed after a significant delay, based on a subsequent judgment favoring another employee in a similar situation. The original writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed, a decision affirmed in a writ appeal. The employee sought stagnation increment which was denied due to the Bipartite Settlement terms.

The employee filed a review petition after eight years, citing a similar case where relief was granted to another employee.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 147; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 359 – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed to challenge the judgment confirming the petitioner’s conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was initially sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs.4,51,973 to the respondent. This decision was upheld by the Principal District and Sessions Court.

During the revision proceedings, both parties submitted a joint compromise memo, stating that the petitioner had paid the full cheque amount of Rs.4,51,973 to the respondent via demand draft.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – The applicant filed O.A. No. 997 of 2025 and O.A. No.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 147; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 359 – This criminal revision petition was filed to challenge the lower court’s judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to 1 1/2 years simple imprisonment with a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The Additional District Judge had confirmed this conviction.

During the hearing, both parties submitted that they had settled the matter amicably outside of court.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 & 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – This case involves an appeal by Nilesh Baburao Gitte against his conviction for the murder of his mother. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the postmortem report indicating a homicidal death, the appellant’s presence and failure to report the death, his hasty arrangement of cremation, attempts to dispose of the body without legal procedures, discovery of blood-stained clothes matching the appellant’s blood, and an alleged motive of acquiring the deceased’s property.

The appellant argued that the cause of death was uncertain, possibly suicide, citing the absence of ligature marks around the entire neck in the postmortem report and the deceased’s history of schizophrenia. He also challenged the reliability of the recovery evidence and the testimony of a key witness (PW-3) due to existing property disputes and inconsistencies in statements.