Search Judgments

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – Section 13; Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA) – Section 6 and 9 –This case involves an appeal against a divorce decree granted by the Family Court and upheld by the High Court, based on the grounds of cruelty. The husband filed for divorce, alleging cruelty and desertion by the wife. The wife had previously filed a petition to annul the marriage, claiming fraud, which was dismissed. The husband remarried in 2019.

The Patents Act, 1970 Section 2(1)(j), 3(k)  – The appellant challenged the order rejecting its patent application No. 4693/CHENP/2010 for “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship.” The respondent raised objections based on lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, and non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the same Act. The appellant argued that its invention provides a technical solution for tracing data lineage, offering a graphical representation of data transformations, and improving the efficiency of data relationship queries. The appellant further argued that the invention is distinct from the prior art D1 as the subject of data lineage relationships in the claimed invention is programmes and data, which is absent in D1.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 8 and 9 – The case revolves around an appeal filed by an Operational Creditor (appellant) against the dismissal of its Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor (respondent). The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had dismissed the application, stating that the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC was not validly served as it was addressed to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) and not directly to the Corporate Debtor. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld this decision.

The Operational Creditor argued that delivering the demand notice to the KMP at the registered office of the Corporate Debtor fulfills the requirements of Section 8 of the IBC, read with Rule 5(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

(Judicial Powers, Hate Speech, and Criminal Procedure)

This judgment addresses the judiciary's role in creating criminal offenses, the existing legal framework concerning hate speech, and the procedural mechanisms for registering criminal cases under the Constitution of India, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court held that the creation or expansion of criminal offenses and the prescription of punishments fall squarely within the legislative domain, adhering to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It stressed that courts interpret laws, but cannot legislate or compel legislation.

It was clarified that there is no legislative vacuum regarding hate speech.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Sections 7 and 60(2) – The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of simultaneous Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against both a principal debtor and its corporate guarantor.

The Court reiterated its precedent that such concurrent proceedings are permissible, aligning with Section 60(2) of the IBC and the co-extensive liability of a guarantor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It rejected the ‘doctrine of election’ argument, stating no statutory provision mandates a creditor to choose between remedies against the debtor and guarantor.

Concerns regarding ‘double enrichment’ were addressed by highlighting existing safeguards.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 2(1)(r), 12, 14, 22 – This judgment addresses appeals by a developer against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) orders concerning delayed possession of flats in the ‘Parsvnath Exotica’ project. Homebuyers, having paid almost the entire consideration, faced significant delays from the developer in completing construction and obtaining the necessary Occupancy Certificates.

The NCDRC had directed the developer to complete construction, hand over possession with Occupancy Certificates, pay compensation at 8% simple interest per annum, litigation costs of Rs. 25,000, and bear any increase in stamp duty.

Constitution of India Article 226 – This writ petition sought compensation for a failed family planning operation performed by the 3rd respondent on the petitioner on October 18, 2020, resulting in the birth of a third female child. The petitioner, already having two children and being of poor financial status, argued negligence, citing a similar case where Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded. The respondents acknowledged an agreement for compensation as per rules in case of operation failure.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) Sections 192, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(b), and 353(2) – The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Section 173(3) – The Constitution of India Article 19(1)(a). This criminal original petition challenged an FIR (Cr.No.47 of 2025) filed against a political leader under Sections 192, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(b), and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The complaint alleged the petitioner posted a social media video with a Tamil caption, following a tragic incident, calling for a “youth revolution” against perceived government and police excesses, akin to events in Sri Lanka and Nepal.

The petitioner argued the tweet, deleted within 34 minutes, lacked mens rea and constituted political
dissent, not incitement. He emphasized that no violence occurred and highlighted the non-conduct of a
preliminary enquiry as mandated by Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
for cases involving freedom of speech.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) – Section 2(c), 3, 4(2), 21(2)(a), 37(1)(j) – This revision petition challenges the order of the Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which dismissed an application to reject an eviction petition (R.L.T.O.P.No.96 of 2024). The eviction petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2, executors of the Trust of Late Smt. Saradambal Srinivasan, seeking eviction of the petitioners (tenants) due to unauthorized subletting. The petitioners argued that the respondents 1 and 2 are not “landlords” as defined under Section 2(c) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, as the definition doesn’t explicitly include trustees collecting rent for a Trust.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of consumerism within the constitutional framework of India. It traces the evolution of consumer rights from ancient times to the present day, highlighting its essence in the Constitution, its role in social justice, politics, economics, and environmental protection.

The judgment also addresses the deficiencies in the grievance redressal mechanism for consumers and the need for a permanent structure for Consumer Fora.
It examines the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, along with relevant Rules, and addresses challenges to the appointment and reappointment processes for Presidents and Members of State and District Commissions.