Search Judgments

Constitutional Mandate: Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates informing arrestees of the grounds for their arrest.

Statutory Provisions: Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) and Section 50A of the CrPC 1973 now Section 48 of BNSS 2023 effectuate this mandate.
Mode of Communication: Written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee are essential.
Exceptional Circumstances: Oral communication is permissible in situations where providing written grounds immediately is impractical.

• Timeframe: Written grounds must be provided within a reasonable time, no later than two hours before remand proceedings.

The Supreme Court addressed appeals (Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.2189 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.2190 of 2025) concerning the violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC 1973”) now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS 2023”) regarding informing arrestees of the grounds for their arrest in writing.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 & 4; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order that quashed proceedings arising from an FIR filed under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant, the wife, alleged harassment and dowry demands by her husband and his family. The High Court quashed the FIR, stating that specific incidents mentioned in the FIR were not present in earlier complaints, suggesting they were an afterthought.

The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings based on the omission of specific incidents in earlier complaints, questioning if this amounted to a prohibited “mini-trial” under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections related to professional misconduct – This writ petition challenges the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a junior lawyer, by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry based on a complaint filed by the third respondent, a senior lawyer against whom the petitioner had previously filed a sexual harassment complaint. The petitioner contends that the complaint, alleging fabrication of a vakalat, is an abuse of process and lacks the necessary jural relationship to constitute professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Bar Council’s stance is that the notice issued to the petitioner was merely to solicit comments as part of the standard procedure, and a decision on the complaint’s maintainability has yet to be made. The court notes the existing complaint filed by the petitioner against the third respondent and a previous order directing the Bar Council to expedite those proceedings.

Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 – Section 3(1); Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 – Rule 4(4) – The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai, appealed against a writ order directing the reclassification of land and issuance of patta to respondents 1 to 4. The respondents sought patta for land classified as “Mudaliar Kulam,” a waterbody, in revenue records. The District Collector argued that as the land is classified as Government Poromboke and a waterbody, no patta could be issued. The respondents claimed valid title and entitlement to patta under Revenue Standing Order (RSO) No.

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 33, 38, 40, 42 & 48; Registration Act – Rule 107 – This case involves a writ appeal challenging an order dismissing a writ petition related to the demand of stamp duty on an unregistered assignment agreement. The appellant (writ petitioner) presented the agreement for registration, but after the Registering Authority deemed the stamp duty insufficient and referred the matter to the District Registrar, the appellant decided to withdraw the document and requested its return. This request was denied, leading to the initial writ petition.

The appellant argued that since the document was not registered and they did not intend to act on it, no stamp duty should be levied.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRLT Act, 2017) – Section 37(1)(j) and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and 11 – This Civil Revision Petition was filed by a tenant challenging the execution of an eviction decree passed under the TNRRLT Act, 2017. The tenant argued that the landlord, a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, failed to obtain prior permission from the Charity Commissioner, rendering the decree invalid. Additionally, the tenant claimed discrepancies in the property description hindered execution.

The landlord countered that all procedures were followed, and the trust deed was filed as evidence.

Trust Property – This case involves a dispute over the auction of 51.87 acres of land in Chennai belonging to the trust estate of Mr. C. Kandasamy Naidu, which is administered by the Administrative General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu (AG&OT). Multiple Original Side Appeals (OSAs) were filed, challenging different aspects of the auction process.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 – This judgment addresses appeals against interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court, which stayed orders passed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) in two disciplinary cases.

Case 1: SLP (Civil) No (s). 27606 of 2023

The BCMG appealed against the High Court’s stay of its order referring a complaint against Advocate Rajiv Narula to the Disciplinary Committee (DC). The complaint alleged professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, related to a consent decree obtained in a suit where the respondent-advocate had identified the plaintiff.

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) – Section 19 & Income Tax Act, 1961- Rule 53 – This case involves a dispute over the auction of a leasehold plot by Corporation Bank (the Bank) to recover dues from Sarita Vihar Club (the Club), which had defaulted on its loan. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) challenged the auction, arguing that the mortgage was created without its prior written consent, violating the lease deed terms and that the e-auction was done without properly disclosing the encumbrances

The Recovery Officer rejected DDA’s objections, leading to an e-auction where M/s Jay Bharat Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (the Auction Purchaser) was the highest bidder.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) and Section 7 – This case concerns an appeal against the High Court’s decision to dismiss an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant, a healthcare institution, and the respondent, a technology company, entered into a Software Implementation Agreement containing Clause 8.28, which outlined a dispute resolution process involving negotiation, mediation, and “arbitration” between senior management.

The High Court found that Clause 8.28 was not a valid arbitration agreement, as the term “arbitration” was loosely used and the clause lacked the essential elements of a binding arbitration process, such as a neutral adjudicator and a final, binding decision. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether Clause 8.28 constituted a valid arbitration agreement under the A&C Act.