Search Judgments

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 – This Second Appeal was filed by the defendants challenging the findings of the first appellate court, which reversed the trial court’s decision in a suit for declaration of title based on a registered Will. While the first appellate court ruled in favor of the defendants by dismissing the plaintiff’s suit, it also made adverse findings against the validity of the defendants’ own claimed Wills. The defendants, despite succeeding in the appeal, filed the current Second Appeal solely to challenge these adverse findings.

The court considered the maintainability of an appeal filed only against adverse findings when the operative decree favored the appellants (defendants).

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 7 & 8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – This case involves a challenge to the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to hear a suit seeking a declaration that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that the plaintiffs are his legal heirs, and consequently, directing the defendant to release terminal benefits. The defendants argued that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matrimonial disputes under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and filed I.A.No.3/2024 in O.S.No.6025 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint.

The plaintiffs contended that the suit is for declaration of legal status under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, not for dissolution of marriage, and therefore, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not barred. They argued that Section 8 of the Family Courts Act only excludes Civil Court jurisdiction in matters between parties to a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act.

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Section 5A, 5B, 5C – This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the recommendations of the Revising Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) regarding the film “Manushi.” The petitioner seeks a direction for the 1st respondent to issue appropriate certification for the movie, contending that the directed excisions/modifications infringe upon their fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The court reviewed the statutory framework for film censorship, including the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and relevant guidelines. It emphasized the importance of balancing artistic freedom with permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The court applied the proportionality test, ensuring that any interference with freedom of speech is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim of censorship.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 and Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – The case concerns an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, for the murder of Promila. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the recovery of a country-made pistol and live cartridges from the appellant’s house, which were linked to the bullets found in the deceased’s body through a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

However, key witnesses, including the deceased’s brother (PW-1), who was the initial complainant and claimed to be an eyewitness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version of events. The recovery of the pistol was made from a place accessible to other family members, and no independent witness was present during the recovery.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Section 9(m) and 10 – This appeal was filed by the appellant-convict challenging the High Court of Chhattisgarh’s judgment dated 06.03.2025, which upheld the trial court’s judgment dated 18.04.2023. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 9(m) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act for committing sexual assault on a minor girl and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine.

The prosecution’s case was based on the victim’s mother’s testimony, who found the appellant in a compromising position near her 4-year-old daughter. The victim complained of pain in her private parts, and medical examination revealed redness in the vagina.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29, 30, 35 and 37 – The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed appeals against the Bombay High Court’s orders granting bail to Vigin K. Varghese, who was prosecuted under the NDPS Act. The accused was allegedly involved in importing 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine concealed in a shipment of pears from South Africa. The High Court granted bail based on the lack of evidence directly linking the accused to the contraband, absence of prior criminal record, and the potential delay in the trial.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – This case revolves around whether a company that purchased software to automate its export/import documentation system qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, a company engaged in the export and import of medical devices, alleged deficiency in service regarding software purchased from the respondent. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission both ruled against the complainant, stating the purchase was for a commercial purpose, thus disqualifying the company as a ‘consumer’.

The appellant argued the software was for self-use and not for resale, and thus should fall under the ‘consumer’ definition.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 2(9), Order XX Rule 4(2), Section 33; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114(e); Indian Succession Act – Section 213 – This case involves a Second Appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the lower courts’ decisions that dismissed their suit. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and partition of properties, also challenging a prior decree (O.S. No. 269 of 1978) obtained by the respondent against their father, Thambusamy.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – The petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement in 2010 for the construction of a concrete retaining wall. The project faced delays due to rains, water stagnation, and other issues, leading to the respondent only completing a portion of the work. The petitioner eventually terminated the contract, prompting the respondent to invoke arbitration, claiming payment for work done, compensation for wrongful termination, and other reliefs.

The arbitrator found that the initial estimate was not prepared according to site requirements and there were delays from the petitioner’s side in furnishing clarifications.

Registration Act, 1908 Section 22A, 71; Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949   – This case involves an appeal against a writ order directing the registration of a partition deed. The State argues that the subject property is notified as forest land under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 and falls under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, without any government exemption. The Tahsildar had petitioned under Section 22A of the Registration Act to prevent registration.

The respondent argued that the partition deed was based on a civil court decree and should be registered.