Search Judgments

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68; Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) – This case involves an appeal against a preliminary decree passed by the Additional District Court, granting partition of the suit property between the plaintiffs (sisters) and the defendants (brothers). The plaintiffs claimed their father died intestate, entitling them to a 1/4th share each.

The defendants contested, producing a registered Will (Ex.B-1) purportedly executed by their father, bequeathing the property to them. The plaintiffs disputed the Will’s genuineness.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – An appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court at Dharmapuri in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015. The original petition was filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant (wife) on the grounds of cruelty.

The husband claimed that the wife was rude, quarrelsome, and had left the matrimonial home.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Appeals against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Awards – These appeals, C.M.A(MD)No.1205 of 2022 and C.M.A.No.1266 of 2024, were filed by the insurer challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No. 944 of 2019 and M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2019, respectively.

The first claim petition (M.C.O.P.No. 944 of 2019) was filed by the injured pillion rider, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 148 – This Criminal Original Petition challenges the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as a condition for suspending the sentence in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lower court failed to provide a reasoned order for the deposit and highlighted the petitioner’s incarceration until the trial court’s judgment, preventing him from arranging the funds. The counsel also cited a previous ruling emphasizing that courts should not mechanically impose the deposit condition under Section 148. He requested complete exemption from the deposit, offering to cooperate in expediting the appeal process.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) –  Appeal concerns the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s decision to grant bail to Accused-Avinash Kumar under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 187, registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar. The FIR was lodged by the Complainant, a Chartered Accountant for Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited, alleging that the Accused, a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, misappropriated over Rs.

Passport Act, 1967 – Issuance and Re-issuance of Passport – This writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the re-issuance of the petitioner’s passport. The Passport Authority had previously declined re-issuance due to pending criminal cases against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that despite the pendency of criminal cases, his passport should be re-issued, citing previous court orders and representations made to the authority.

The court noted that the respondents had filed status reports detailing multiple cases pending against the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, primarily related to Red Sander Smuggling.

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) – This writ petition challenges the orders directing the shifting of a TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) shop owned by the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the orders were passed without assigning proper reasons and without considering the objections raised against the relocation. The petitioner’s primary contention is that the impugned orders are mere reproductions of an earlier order with minor modifications, failing to address the specific objections raised by the petitioner regarding the shop’s relocation. The respondents claim that the orders were passed after due enquiry based on reports from relevant officers.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302/34 and 460; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161, 164 & 313 – This case involves an appeal against the conviction of Govind Mandavi by the High Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision finding him guilty under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the IPC. The charges stemmed from the murder of Bivan Hidko, based on the testimony of the deceased’s wife, Sukmai Hidko, who claimed to have witnessed the crime.

The initial FIR, lodged by Heeralal Hidko (father of the deceased), did not name Govind Mandavi as an assailant, stating only that unknown masked individuals were responsible. Sukmai Hidko later identified Govind Mandavi, claiming his mask slipped during the attack.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court’s decision to refuse the quashing of an FIR filed against the appellants. The FIR alleges that the appellants criminally conspired to interfere with the informant’s possession of land, fabricated documents, and abused the informant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, using casteist slurs.

The appellants argued that the dispute was civil in nature and that the FIR was a counterblast to a complaint lodged by one of the appellants regarding extortion attempts. They also pointed out discrepancies between the FIR and a civil suit filed on the same day, particularly regarding the description of the alleged incident.

The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 48; The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 4 – The appeal was filed against the High Court’s order, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision to deny pensionary benefits to the deceased employee of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The employee had resigned in 2014 after approximately 30 years of service and later requested withdrawal of his resignation and release of retiral benefits, which were denied by the DTC. The employee then approached the Tribunal, which dismissed his application. The High Court also dismissed his writ petition.