Search Judgments

(Summoning of Court Witnesses and Production of Documents in a Corruption Case)

Cr.P.C. Sections 91, 161, 173, 207, 243, 311; BNSS Section 348; Indian Evidence Act Sections 65B, 125, 154, 165; IPC Sections 120B, 409, 467, 471, 477A; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The petitioners, Mr. Dayanidhi Maran and Mr. Kannan, challenged a Trial Court order denying their request to summon specific Court witnesses and produce key documents in a corruption case (C.C.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(G) and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 374 – This criminal appeal challenged the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment affirming the conviction of appellants under IPC Sections 376(2)(G) for gang rape and 506 for criminal intimidation. They were sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court.

The prosecution case was based on the victim’s report of a gang rape on April 7, 1998. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged over three months later, with the victim citing fear and threats for the delay.

(Adverse Possession vs. Pending Partition Suit)

The Limitation Act. The conditions for adverse possession (Section 27, Articles 64 & 65) – The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Order 23 Rule 1(3); Constitution of India Article 227 – This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order refusing to reject a plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2019, a suit for declaration of title and possession. The plaintiffs, relying on leave granted under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), claimed title by adverse possession over property previously subject to a partition decree in O.S.No.183 of 1967.

(Partition, Will, and Inheritance Rights)

This appeal dealt with partition of ancestral and joint family properties, validity of a Will and sale deed, and inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Sections 8, 15, 16(3)) and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 16(3)) - The Court held that Item No.1 property, inherited by A.S. Muthusamy Gounder from his father before the 1956 Act, became ancestral upon the birth of his son, Selvaraj. Items No.2 to 4, purchased by Muthusamy Gounder, were deemed joint family properties, acquired from the substantial income of the ancestral land, as no convincing proof of separate income was presented.

The Will (Ex.B12) executed by Muthusamy Gounder in favour of his grandson (4th defendant), bequeathing his 1/3rd share, was held valid and true.

Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act, 1922 – Article 47A, Schedule I-A – This case concerns the interpretation of Explanation I to Article 47A of Schedule I-A of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act, 1922, regarding whether an agreement to sell should be treated as a conveyance deed for stamp duty purposes. The appellant, a tenant for 50 years, entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the respondent-landlady. A dispute arose when the appellant sought to admit the agreement as evidence in a specific performance suit, but the respondent objected, claiming it was insufficiently stamped as a conveyance deed.

The Trial Court directed the appellant to pay stamp duty and penalty, which the High Court upheld, relying on precedents that linked possession to the agreement.

Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) – Section 269ST and 271DA – The Civil Revision Petition challenged a trial court order requiring the petitioner (plaintiff) to provide their PAN number to the defendants and forward suit documents to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 80,00,000, allegedly lent in cash on 21.06.2016, based on a promissory note.

The petitioner argued that IT Act Section 269ST, which prohibits cash transactions of Rs.

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 58(3) – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a Company Law Board (CLB) order condoning a 249-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent, sought registration of inherited shares, which was refused by the appellant company. The respondent initially delayed action under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. After the new Act, 2013 came into effect, a fresh appeal was filed with a delay, which the CLB condoned.

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A, 75, and 77 – This case involves an appeal against the Madras High Court’s judgment, which upheld the Employees Insurance Court’s order confirming the Employees State Insurance Corporation’s (ESIC) assessment of dues against the appellant, M/s. Carborandum Universal Limited, under Section 45A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The assessment was for the period from August 1988 to March 1992.

The appellant argued that the ESIC wrongly invoked Section 45A, which is meant for cases where employers fail to produce records or obstruct inspections.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and Order 21 Rules 58, 89-92 and 99-104 – This case concerns a dispute over property sold in execution of a decree. The respondents (original purchasers) bought land from a judgment-debtor (JD) after a bank had initiated recovery proceedings but before the execution sale. Appellants (auction purchasers), sons of another JD, bought the entire mortgaged property in the auction. The respondents filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction, claiming the auction sale was void and not binding on them.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – This case involves an appeal against the rejection of a plaint in a suit seeking a declaration that a sale deed is null and void, along with a consequential injunction. The plaintiff claimed the sale deed was a sham, executed only to facilitate a bank loan for the defendant, with a prior agreement to re-transfer the property. The defendant argued that the sale was genuine, consideration was paid, and the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act, given the plaintiff’s awareness of the sale deed.

The trial court rejected the plaint, holding that the suit was filed beyond the limitation period since the plaintiff was an attesting witness to the sale deed and was aware of the transaction.