Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case concerns an appeal by a claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which was later reduced by the Madras High Court.

The claimant suffered 100% permanent disability in a bus accident in 2011 and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 67,83,866, but the High Court reduced it to Rs.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149 & Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 235(2), 428 – The case involves appeals (Crl.A.No.202 of 2019 and Crl.A.No.205 of 2019) against a judgment in S.C.No.21 of 2011, where nine accused (A1-A9) were convicted for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC) and rioting (Section 148 IPC) stemming from a double murder.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, driven by past enmity related to illegal sand transportation, attacked the deceased and others.

However, the defense argued that the prosecution suppressed material facts, namely a counter-complaint (Crime No.151 of 2009) filed by the accused (A4) and the injuries sustained by accused persons (A1, A3, and A4) during the same incident. A1 suffered grievous injuries.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – Section 13(1)(a) and 24 – The case involves an appeal by the wife against a High Court order that upheld a divorce decree granted by the Family Court and confirmed a permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000. The husband had filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA, citing mental cruelty. The wife counterclaimed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA and sought maintenance under Section 24 of the same Act.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 498A and 304B; Indian Evidence Act – Section 113B – This case involves a criminal appeal filed by Accused 1 and 3 against the judgment of the Mahila Court, Madurai, convicting them under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The deceased, wife of Accused 1 and daughter-in-law of Accused 3, allegedly committed suicide due to harassment for dowry.

The prosecution’s case rested on the claim that the accused repeatedly demanded money from the deceased to establish an electrical shop for Accused 1, causing her severe distress. The father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  – This case originated from a transfer petition seeking to move a criminal petition from the Telangana High Court to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The transfer was sought due to apprehension of partiality and procedural discrimination against the single judge of the Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition but issued show-cause notices for contempt of court to the alleged contemnors, including the petitioner and their advocates, due to scandalous remarks made against the High Court judge.

The Supreme Court referenced prior judgments emphasizing the duty of lawyers to the court over their clients and cautioning against unfounded criticism of judges.

The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 Section 26(2) – The case pertains to a challenge against notices issued under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, concerning the removal of encroachments on National Highways. The petitioners argued that the Divisional Engineer of National Highways (a wing of the State Administration) lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notices, as they were not the competent authority under the Act.

The National Highways wing of the State Highways Department is in charge of the maintenance of the National Highways within the territory of Tamil Nadu. The Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, authorized the Divisional Engineers of the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu to exercise the powers and functions of the Highways Administration conferred under Sections 24, 26, 27, 30, 33, 36, 37 and 43 of the Act, 2002 within their territorial jurisdiction.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 187(3) and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29(1) – This case concerns a Criminal Revision Petition filed against an order dismissing a petition for default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, related to offences under the NDPS Act. The petitioner (A4) was arrested in connection with a case involving the trafficking of Ketamine and Methamphetamine. He applied for default bail on the 179th day of his custody, arguing that the final report had not been filed.

The Trial Court initially adjourned the matter.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304, 300; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8, 21, 25, 27, 145, 157; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – This case revolves around an appeal against a High Court judgment that partially allowed an appeal, altering a conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. The appellant (original accused) had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) confessing to the crime. The High Court relied on this FIR, along with medical evidence, to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part I, citing Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC (sudden fight).

The Supreme Court found several errors in the High Court’s judgment:
1.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal was filed to seek an increase in the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyveli, concerning MCOP No.9 of 2018, dated 29.01.2024. The appellants, parents of the deceased, argued that the compensation wasn’t equally distributed among the legal heirs, specifically the wife and parents, and that the notional income considered by the Tribunal was inadequate.

The court acknowledged that while the deceased was employed, there was no formal employment proof. The court also recognized that the deceased had filed for divorce before the accident due to a strained relationship with his wife.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia)(1A)(ii) – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises from a husband’s petition for divorce, which was initially dismissed by the Family Court in Karur. The husband sought dissolution of his marriage based on grounds of cruelty and desertion, citing that his wife left the matrimonial home without his consent and refused to return despite a court order for restitution of conjugal rights.

The husband claimed that his wife’s behavior caused him significant mental distress. The wife, on the other hand, alleged that the husband drove her away and made false accusations.