Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 8; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) and 1(5); Constitution of India – Article 227 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges the trial Court’s order allowing the respondent/plaintiff to submit additional documents that were not initially filed with the plaint. The suit is for recovery of money based on business transactions, where the respondent claims the petitioner owes money for supplied lubricants and a Marketing Assistance Programme Agreement (MAP).

The petitioner contested the suit, alleging product returns and disputing the amount owed under the MAP agreement. The respondent sought to introduce tax invoices and a return invoice after the examination of PW1, which the trial court allowed subject to proof and relevance.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 93 & 118 – The appeal challenges the Trial Court’s decree for recovery of money based on a pronote and dishonored cheques. The plaintiff claimed the defendant borrowed Rs. 8 lakhs and issued a pronote. Upon repeated demands, two cheques were issued, one of which was dishonored due to account closure.

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.

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 18 –  This case revolves around a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of Rs. 13,30,637, claiming it as the balance due. The defendant contested the suit, arguing that no amount was due and the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 148, 302, 341. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 161, 212 – This judgment pertains to criminal appeals filed by A2, A3, A4, A6, A11, and A13 against their convictions by the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, for offences including criminal conspiracy and murder.

The High Court scrutinized the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony of PW1, the deceased’s wife. It found PW1’s account unreliable due to corrections in her initial complaint, the absence of a Test Identification Parade for most accused, and the significant delay in recording and forwarding her Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Section 26E, Section 13, Section 35, Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF&MP Act)- Section 11(2) and Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP). – The case involves a dispute between a secured creditor (Co-operative Bank) and the dues of workmen and provident fund regarding a defunct sugar factory owned by a Co-operative Society. The bank sought to recover its dues by proceeding against the mortgaged properties, arguing that its claim had priority under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act due to registration with the Central Registry. The workmen claimed unpaid wages and Provident Fund dues, asserting that the provident fund had a first charge.

Partition Act, 1893 Section 2, 4 –  Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 21 Rule 84 – This case concerns a dispute among siblings and family members regarding the partition of properties from their deceased father’s estate. The appellant challenged an order directing the Advocate Commissioner to proceed with the sale of a specific property at St.Mary’s Road, Chennai, after a preliminary decree for partition was passed in 2016. The appellant argued that the sale procedure violated provisions of the Partition Act and the Civil Procedure Code, particularly regarding timelines for deposit of purchase money and that the property should have been divided instead of sold.

The court, however, noted that the appellant had received notice of the sale proceedings but did not participate.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 and Order 22 Rule 4(4) – This Civil Revision Petition was filed against an order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, regarding an application to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 55 of 2020. The plaintiffs sought declarations, injunctions, and easement rights concerning the suit properties.

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 – This case concerns the unjust removal of a young, elected female Sarpanch (appellant) of Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in Chhattisgarh, who was dedicated to village development under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park Scheme (RIPA). Despite her efforts, the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat issued a work order with an unreasonably short deadline, which was then belatedly served, leading to accusations of delay against the appellant. A show-cause notice and chargesheet followed, culminating in her removal from office.

The appellant challenged her removal, arguing that she was not responsible for the delay.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 r/w Section 34, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 374(2), Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25, 27 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – The case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant and three others for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 302 of the IPC (murder). The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses.

The Supreme Court noted significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, particularly regarding the genesis of the incident, the location of the crime, and the presence of other witnesses. The Court categorized one witness as “wholly unreliable” and the other as “partially reliable” requiring independent corroboration, which was lacking.