Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 – This criminal appeal was filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court. The case originated from an accidental fire report, which later was altered to murder under Section 302 of the IPC after the victim, the accused’s wife, gave a dying declaration.

During the trial, the prosecution presented twenty-three witnesses and several documents to support the charge. The accused denied the allegations.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This petition was filed to set aside the adjudication order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, and to extend the time for depositing 20% of the cheque amount as directed while suspending the sentence.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an appeal. The Sessions Judge suspended the sentence on the condition of executing a bond and depositing 20% of the compensation amount. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner could not comply.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 & Bharathiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 39 – This criminal revision petition was filed to challenge the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Sivakasi, dismissing Cr.M.P.No.12 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.862 of 2019. The revision petitioner/accused sought to send a sale agreement (Ex.D1) and the complainant’s vakalatnama to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for signature verification under Section 39 of the Bharathiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque issued by the accused was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused did not deny signing the cheque.

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 38H(6) – This case involves a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the New Delhi Nature Society regarding the translocation of deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park in Delhi to wildlife sanctuaries in Rajasthan and Delhi, due to alleged overcrowding and mismanagement. The petitioner raised concerns about violations of guidelines under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Central Zoo Authority norms, and IUCN guidelines.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) established the Deer Park in 1968.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 302/120B; The Arms Act, 1959 Section 25/27 – This case involves applications related to the bail of SK. Md. Anisur Rahaman, who is facing trial for murder under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The brother of the victim, Afjal Ali Sha, sought cancellation of Anisur’s bail, while Anisur applied for modification of a condition restricting him to Kolkata.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6; Transfer of Property Act
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Civil Procedure Code

This case originates from a suit filed in 1989 for partition and separate possession of properties. The plaintiff, Chakrapani, sought a 3/7th share in the properties, claiming they were joint family properties inherited from his father, Govindasamy Padayatchi. Defendants 1 to 4 are the plaintiff’s siblings, with Defendants 5 and 6 being the wife and son of the first defendant, respectively. The plaintiff contended that properties were purchased in the names of the first defendant and his family members using joint family funds.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 – This petition was filed to relax a condition imposed in Crl MP.No.14954 of 2024 in Crl OP.No.3649 of 2024, which required the petitioner to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, once every three months, starting from November 2024.

The petitioner, an accused in Crime No.3 of 2023, was initially granted bail, which was later cancelled. Subsequently, the High Court allowed the petitioner’s petition in Crl.OP No.3649 of 2024, reinstating bail with the condition to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate weekly until the final report was filed. This condition was later modified to once every three months.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Section 8 & Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 354A(2) – This appeal challenges the judgment dated 25.04.2022 in Special Session Case No.9 of 2020, by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur District, convicting the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) of IPC. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant sexually assaulted the 13-year-old victim.

The appellant argued that the case was fabricated due to political rivalry and a delay of two days in filing the complaint. The prosecution argued that the victim’s testimony and supporting witnesses established the assault.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Sections 3(1)(zx), 3(1)(zz)(viii) & (xi), 26(1)(2)(i)(ii) & (v), 27(1), 27(2)(c) and 46(4) – This case involves a challenge to a private complaint filed by the Food Safety Officer against several parties, including the Managing Director of a retail store (A2), for offences related to substandard Aloe Vera Syrup. The Food Safety Officer alleged that the syrup contained excessive benzoic acid, rendering it unsafe. The central issue revolves around the delay in analyzing the food sample and the implications for the accused’s right to appeal.

The petitioner, A2, argued that the delay in analysis, which occurred beyond the product’s expiry date, deprived him of his right to appeal under Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 & 37 – This judgment addresses a legal issue arising from orders of remand passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These appeals challenged orders passed by single judges under Section 34 of the same Act, where the single judges had modified arbitral awards.

The Division Bench remanded the cases for a de novo hearing under Section 34, without going into the merits of the individual cases, in light of the NHAI v. M.