Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10(2)(i) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order affirming an eviction order against the heirs of a lessee, based on wilful default in rent payment. The landlord, M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd., sought eviction due to the lessee’s failure to pay the fair rent as determined by the Rent Controller.

Constitution of India – Article 129, 137, 142, 145; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24, 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 164; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order 48 – This curative petition addresses a grave miscarriage of justice stemming from the Nithari killings, specifically the case involving the death of Rimpa Haldar. The petitioner, Surendra Koli, was convicted and sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment) based on a confession and recoveries. The court noted the curative jurisdiction exists to prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 193, 209, and 319 – This case concerns a challenge to an order by the Allahabad High Court upholding a trial court’s decision to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section 193 of the CrPC, despite the police initially dropping his name from the chargesheet. The original case involved offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The petitioner argued that the trial court could only summon him after recording oral evidence under Section 319 CrPC, and that Section 193 CrPC could not be invoked as the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence when committing the case to the Sessions Court.

The Supreme Court framed the main issue as whether a Sessions Court can summon a person as an accused under Section 193 CrPC, without recording evidence, based on materials in the police report, independently of Section 319 CrPC.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Section 413 of BNSS), Section 378(4) (Section 419(4) of BNSS); The Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 – This case concerns the maintainability of a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), challenging an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A notification had been issued by the High Court directing the registry not to entertain petitions seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. after 07.07.2025.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8, Rule 6A – This appeal concerns the maintainability of a counterclaim against a co-defendant in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff filed a suit against the first defendant seeking specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land. The second and third defendants were later impleaded and raised a counterclaim against the first defendant, seeking the same land. The Trial Court allowed the counterclaim, and the High Court affirmed this decision.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8, 106 – The appellant was convicted by the Mahila Court, Salem, under Section 302 IPC for the murder of a woman and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, alleging the accused was seen with a knife at the crime scene (a hotel where he worked), and the victim’s body was found shortly after.

Key prosecution witnesses testified to the accused’s presence at the hotel, his fleeing the scene with a knife, and the subsequent discovery of the deceased with severe injuries. Forensic evidence, including DNA analysis, identified the deceased as the mother of PW8 and linked the blood on the knife to the deceased.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 376(2)(l) and 294(b) – This criminal appeal was filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court for offences under Section 376(2)(l) (rape) and Section 294(b) (obscene acts) of the IPC. The prosecution’s case was that the accused sexually assaulted the victim (PW7) while she was attending nature’s call, by touching her private parts and forcing his penis into her mouth. The complaint was filed after a delay of three days.

The defense argued that the case was fabricated due to prior enmity between the families and that the medical examination did not support the allegations of sexual assault.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) & 20 – This case involves an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The plaintiff sought specific performance of agreements dated 18.09.2006 and 27.12.2007, concerning land in Dindigul. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

The plaintiff then sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer for refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.31,75,000 with interest which was allowed by the court.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), and 2(c) – This criminal appeal was filed by the accused against the judgment of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai District, which convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution’s case was that the accused, a Commercial Tax Officer/Assistant Commissioner, demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000 from the complainant for processing his applications to shift his shop and open new branches. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting Rs.3,000.

The appellant argued that there was a delay in filing the complaint, that he had already initiated action on the complainant’s applications, and that the shadow witness’s testimony was inconsistent.

Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 – Section 2(5), 2(6), 3(1) – This case involves a challenge to a writ court order that directed the state government to grant patta (land ownership documents) to individuals, primarily Scheduled Tribes, who had been cultivating lands in the Kalvarayan Hills. The State appealed, arguing that the lands were classified as forest lands, making the patta grants a violation of the Forest Act. The respondents, however, contended that they were entitled to patta due to their long-term possession and cultivation of the lands.

The District Collector’s proceedings from 1999 revealed that the lands were classified as “Kadu Poramboke” (forest land) due to a misinterpretation of the local term for cultivated land.