Search Judgments

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 11-A – This writ petition challenges the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), which upheld the dismissal of a workman. The workman, a clerk at Federal Bank, was dismissed for allegedly colluding with another bank employee to fraudulently withdraw money from a customer’s account. The Labour Court initially dismissed the Industrial Dispute (I.D.), which was challenged in a writ petition. The High Court set aside the award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, a decision upheld by a Division Bench.

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 5-A, 7-A, 7-L, 19, 20 and 21 – This writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Tribunal. The key issue was whether the Board of Trustees could challenge an order passed by the appellate authority (Tribunal) without express permission from the Central Government.

The court analyzed Sections 5-A, 19, 20, and 21 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, emphasizing that while the Board of Trustees manages the fund, it requires specific authorization from the Central Government to challenge orders passed by the Tribunal. Without such authorization, the Board of Trustees stands in a similar position to the Assistant Provident Fund authority, who is the original authority under section 7-A of the Act.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 342, 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – The accused appealed his conviction for the murder of his wife, who was fatally attacked with a knife following a marital dispute stemming from his suspicion of her chastity. The Fast Track Mahalir Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for murder and six months simple imprisonment for Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement), to run concurrently.

The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony from the deceased’s parents (PW1, PW2), who stated the attack occurred in an open field. The defence contended this account was unreliable, pointing to the deceased’s statement to the doctor, recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P9), indicating the assault happened inside her house.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1, Order III Rules 1 & 2, Order XXVI Rule 4-A- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 118 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101 & 114 – This appeal challenged the dismissal of a money suit where the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 20,00,000/- with 12% annual interest. The plaintiff alleged the defendant borrowed this substantial amount via a promissory note. The defendant, however, contended that he had borrowed only a smaller sum of Rs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Sections 118, 138, 139, 142, and 20. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 200, 207, 255(1), 357 – This criminal appeal contested the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complainant asserted that the accused borrowed Rs. 14 lakhs, issuing a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured due to an ‘account closed’ status.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7 & 10A – This writ petition was filed by the Shareholders and suspended Directors of Evershine Wood Packaging Private Limited, challenging an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that admitted a Company Petition filed by Indian Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The NCLT order also appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Corporate Debtor, Evershine Wood Packaging Private Limited, had availed credit facilities from Indian Bank since 2017 and defaulted on payments, leading to its account being declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in March 2021. Indian Bank initiated CIRP under Section 7 of IBC.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 147; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 – This Criminal Revision Case was filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, which confirmed the conviction and sentence made by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The initial case involved a cheque dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the conviction of the revision petitioners and a sentence of one-year simple imprisonment, along with a compensation order.

During the pendency of the Revision Case, both parties entered into a compromise, leading to a settlement agreement where the revision petitioners agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000 to the respondent.

(Murder)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 - Bombay Police Act: Section 135 - The appellant was convicted for the murder of Somabhai Sankabhai Rabari after an altercation. The prosecution primarily relied on the deceased's oral dying declarations to his brother (PW-1) and the eyewitness testimony of PW-12, who saw the appellant inflict the fatal knife blow. The appellant argued that the dying declarations were unreliable due to the deceased's injuries, and that hostile witnesses undermined the prosecution's case. He also sought remission for time served.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 498-A; BNS 2023 Section 85 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the appellant (mother-in-law) under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant’s son’s wife died within a year of marriage, leading to allegations of dowry harassment. The complainant, the deceased’s father, alleged that his daughter was found dead in her matrimonial home and suspected foul play, stating his daughter had mentioned sarcastic comments from her mother-in-law regarding dowry.

The trial court acquitted the father-in-law and brother-in-law but convicted the appellant under Section 498-A based on the testimony of the deceased’s mother and brother, who claimed the deceased had informed them of dowry harassment.

Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 149 – Murder with Common Object – Appreciation of Evidence – Contradictions in Witness Testimony: Minor contradictions or inconsistencies in witness testimonies are not sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case if the core narrative is trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence. The principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to Indian criminal jurisprudence.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – Delay in FIR/Defective Investigation: Defective or delayed investigation alone does not entitle the accused to acquittal if there is otherwise reliable and clinching evidence, such as consistent eyewitness accounts and medical reports, proving guilt. Courts must examine evidence independently of investigative lapses.