Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 (Under Section 528 of BNSS) and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17A – Quashing of FIR – FIR against a public servant for offences under Section 120B, 406, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Where the allegations relate to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory for any inquiry, inquiry, or investigation.

The case involves allegations against the petitioner, the former Commissioner of Pallavaram Municipality, for awarding contracts without following tender procedures and causing financial loss to the municipality. The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed due to personal grudge and that the approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted without proper application of mind. The respondent contended that the petitioner violated tender conditions and caused wrongful loss to the municipality.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 92; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 6 Rule 4 – This case involves an appeal against a trial court’s decision to decree a suit filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, seeking declarations and recovery of funds allegedly misappropriated by one of its clerks, the first defendant. The bank claimed that properties were purchased in the names of the defendants 2 to 5, including the appellant (defendant 3) and the deceased defendant 4, using the misappropriated funds. The trial court decreed the suit.

The primary contention of the appellant was that the bank failed to prove a direct link between the alleged misappropriation and the sale consideration for the properties purchased in their names.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 22 and Order 41 Rule 4 – The case originates from a civil suit regarding the declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits for a house. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court reversed and decreed the suit. The High Court declared the second appeal abated due to the non-substitution of legal representatives (LRs) for one of the appellants (Ram Babu) who died during the pendency of the appeal.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Section 138; Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 14 & 17; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – The case involves an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order dismissing the appellant’s petition to quash proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. The appellant, a director of M/s Xalta Food and Beverages Private Limited (corporate debtor), had issued cheques that were dishonored. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings commenced against the corporate debtor, imposing a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.

The appellant argued that since the moratorium was in effect when the cause of action under Section 138 of the NI Act arose (after the 15-day notice period following cheque dishonor), the proceedings should be quashed.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings: A bank employee, a branch manager, was dismissed from service following a disciplinary inquiry that found him guilty of irregularities, including fraudulent transactions and misappropriation of funds. The High Court overturned the dismissal, holding that the inquiry was unfair and lacked evidence. The Supreme Court, however, reinstated the disciplinary authority’s findings, asserting that the High Court’s interference was an overreach of its writ jurisdiction.

Standard of Proof & Judicial Review: The Supreme Court reiterated that an acquittal in a criminal case is not a ground to overturn disciplinary action, as the standard of proof is different.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) – Sections 16, 20, 21, 24 – Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) – Rule 39 – The petitioner challenged Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which requires an Input Service Distributor (ISD) to distribute input tax credit (ITC) in the same month the original invoice is received. The petitioner argued that this rule was ultra vires Section 20 of the CGST Act, especially for the period before its amendment on 01.04.2025, and arbitrary, as it was impossible to comply with ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16 of the CGST Act within such a timeframe.

The respondents contended that Rule 39(1)(a) was valid, procedural, and within the rule-making power conferred by Section 20, asserting that the amendment was merely clarificatory.

The Court, applying purposive interpretation, held that “input tax credit available for distribution in a month” in Rule 39(1)(a) must be read harmoniously with Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.

Income-tax Act, 1961 (I-T Act) – Section 143(2), 143(3), 271(1)(c), 281, Second Schedule (Rules 2, 11, 16, 51); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 58(f); Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(b), 17(1)(i); Chit Funds Act, 1982 – This case concerned a dispute over an equitable mortgage created by an assessee whose property was attached by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) for tax arrears. The assessee received a Rule 2 notice under the Second Schedule of the I-T Act on 26.02.2016 for outstanding tax dues. Subsequently, on 16.11.2016, the assessee mortgaged the property to the petitioner. When the TRO proceeded with auctioning the attached property, the petitioner objected, claiming a prior mortgage.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 91 & 92; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 58(c); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 4 – This case concerns a dispute over a registered sale deed and a subsequent rental agreement. The plaintiff (now deceased) claimed that the sale deed was a sham transaction intended as a security for a loan, while the defendants asserted it was an outright sale. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court then overturned the appellate court’s judgment, restoring the trial court’s decree.

Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CICRA) – Section 18 and 21 – The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) appealed against a lower court’s order that allowed an interim injunction against TransUnion CIBIL Limited (R2), preventing them from publishing data in a Credit Information Report (CIR) dated 10.07.2014. The main issue was whether R1 could invoke arbitration against R2 based on the CIR. R1 filed the original application after Andhra Bank denied credit facilities due to a negative credit score in the CIR. R1 disputed the dues reported in the CIR, leading to the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(2); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Sections 4 & 6; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 223 & 464 – This case originates from an incident where the victim, a minor, was allegedly raped by the respondents. The trial court convicted the respondents under IPC and POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment and fines. However, the High Court acquitted the respondents, citing several infirmities in the prosecution’s case, including inconsistencies in evidence, improper age determination of victim, defective charges, and violation of Section 223 Cr.P.C. regarding joint trial.