Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 341, 342, 366 & Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) Section 5(j)(ii) and 5 (l); Juvenil Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 Section 94 –  This criminal appeal contested the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the Special Court under the POCSO Act for offences including kidnapping, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, and sexual assault.

The prosecution’s case involved allegations of the appellant abducting a minor girl, confining her, and committing penetrative sexual assault, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim’s statement, medical evidence, and DNA testing supported the prosecution’s claims. The defence raised concerns about delays in reporting, the victim’s age, and the lack of evidence for mental retardation.

Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 Section 4,6, 34-A, 38, 52; Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rule 1978 Rule 3 and Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 Section 4-A – The batch of writ petitions were filed to address the issue of Recreation Clubs operating as liquor shops under the guise of Recreation Clubs, causing nuisance and potential illegal activities. The court noted that many such clubs, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, obtain FL2 licenses to sell liquor, often violating the Act’s intended purpose and causing inconvenience to residents.

The court scrutinized the relevant rules and affidavits, emphasizing the need for coordination between registration, police, and excise departments. The court observed that the term “Recreation” is not defined within the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, or the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, but should not be misinterpreted to allow liquor-only businesses.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 58(c); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114– Several sections were discussed – This case involves two appeals (A.S.No.84 of 2023 and A.S.No.86 of 2023) against a common judgment concerning a property dispute in Salem, Tamil Nadu. The core issue revolves around the title and possession of land originally belonging to Palaniammal. Two suits were filed: O.S.No.69 of 2012 by Gnanasekaran seeking a declaration of title and injunction, and O.S.No.164 of 2012 by Vellachi and others (daughters of Ellappan) seeking partition of the same property. Gnanasekaran claimed title through a chain of sales originating from Siddha Gounder to Palanisamy, and finally to his father, Dharmalingam.

The Industrial Disputes Act Section 12(3) – The writ petition was filed by a trade union (petitioner) seeking recognition by the first respondent, a container terminal, and a direction to implement a check-off system to determine the relative strength of trade unions operating within the company. The petitioner claimed to be the second largest union but was not recognized, while respondents 4 and 5 were recognized unions with whom the first respondent had existing settlements under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner argued that the management should negotiate with unrecognized unions as well and that its representation deserved consideration.

The first respondent contended that it already had peaceful industrial relations with the recognized unions and that the check-off system was not a legal right enforceable through a writ petition.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 13 & 16, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 55(1)(a), Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – This case involves two appeals against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7191 of 2010 regarding specific performance of a sale agreement dated 19.01.1994. The plaintiff, V.Chandra, sought specific performance against the defendants, Kasturi Bai and her brother, Balakrishnan, concerning property owned by Kasturi Bai and their deceased father, Ramakrishna Reddiar. The agreement involved the sale of land for Rs.10,50,000/-, with Rs.2,00,000/- paid as advance.

A subsequent agreement between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant/R.V.Arul was entered to sell the same property for Rs.

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 12; Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 41; Family Courts Act – Section 7 – This order addresses multiple applications filed by the father seeking interim custody and guardianship of his minor child. The father initially pursued similar relief under the Divorce Act, 1869, before the Family Court, which granted visitation rights but denied interim custody. He then filed the present applications seeking various forms of interim custody, including weekend custody, holiday custody, custody on birthdays, and permission to take the child for international and national travel. The mother opposed the applications, arguing forum shopping and res judicata.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 154, 156, 190, 300 & Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 420, 120-B, 34 – This case involves multiple Special Leave Petitions challenging a High Court judgment that dismissed petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings related to FIR No. 380/2005 and FIR No. 326/2004. The FIRs stemmed from disputes arising from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Sunair Hotels Limited (SHL) and VLS Finance Limited (VLS).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Order 41 Rule 27 Section 96 – This case involves a dispute over the estate of Bhakthavatchala Reddy, who died in 2011. One of his daughters, Vasantha (later represented by her son Venkatesan), filed a suit seeking a declaration that a Will dated 08.09.2000, bequeathing the suit property to Bhakthavatchala Reddy’s grandson, E. Ravikumar, was illegal and a partition of the property. The defendants included Bhakthavatchala Reddy’s wife, other daughters, and the grandson, E.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 376, 397 and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act) – Section (3)(2)(v) – This case concerns the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of two individuals and rape of one, based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s case involved the “last seen” theory, recovery of material objects, a test identification parade (TIP), and DNA evidence. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death, which was affirmed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and raised concerns about the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly the “star witness,” and the gaps in the chain of custody of the DNA evidence.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 52A, 60; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Section 452(2) – This criminal appeal challenged the order of the Additional District Court, Pudukottai, dismissing the appellant’s application for the release of a lorry seized in connection with a NDPS Act case that resulted in acquittal. The appellant sought the vehicle’s return under Section 452(2) CrPC, claiming ownership after the trial court directed release to the “rightful owner” post-appeal period, despite no specific confiscation order under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed, citing the appellant’s delayed claim and the need for Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) involvement under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and related rules.

The court noted the appellant’s suspicious timing in claiming ownership only after acquittal and the investigating officer’s failure to initiate pre-trial disposal under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.