Search Judgments

(Criminal Contempt and Senior Advocate's Conduct)

This appeal challenged the conviction of Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza, a senior advocate and President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association, for criminal contempt under Sections 2(c)(i)(ii)(iii) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 15 of the 1971 Act, after his 2020 press conference where he made "unwarranted and contentious allegations," calling the High Court a "Gambling Den."

The Appellant tendered unconditional apologies, citing emotional distress during COVID-19. However, the High Court rejected these apologies, noting a history of similar misconduct in 2006 and 2016, where prior apologies were accepted but conduct repeated. His senior designation was also recalled by the Full Court under Rule 26 of the Gujarat High Court Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018.

(Murder)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 - Bombay Police Act: Section 135 - The appellant was convicted for the murder of Somabhai Sankabhai Rabari after an altercation. The prosecution primarily relied on the deceased's oral dying declarations to his brother (PW-1) and the eyewitness testimony of PW-12, who saw the appellant inflict the fatal knife blow. The appellant argued that the dying declarations were unreliable due to the deceased's injuries, and that hostile witnesses undermined the prosecution's case. He also sought remission for time served.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

(Quashing of Charges under SC/ST Act and IPC)

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of  and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - The complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, alleged that Appellant No. 1 (not SC/ST) hurled casteist abuses, and all appellants issued threats during a property dispute at their residential house. The High Court had dismissed the appellants' petition to quash these charges.

The Court reiterated that a crucial ingredient for offences under the SC/ST Act, specifically Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), is that the incident must occur "in any place within public view." Referring to precedents such as Swaran Singh and Hitesh Verma, it clarified that this requires the act to be exposed to public gaze, even if in a private place, implying the presence of independent public witnesses or visibility from a public area.

(Contractual Breach and Recovery of Dues)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VII Rule 1, Order 13-A Rule 1 & 2), Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Sections 16(c), 20) - The appellant (plaintiff), a Wind Energy Generator supplier, sought Rs. 72,15,000/- from the respondent (defendant) as outstanding balance for a supplied and commissioned generator. The respondent contended the appellant breached a fundamental contractual obligation to provide suitable land with adequate pathway rights for vehicle movement, essential for maintenance. The provided land lacked free access, hindering generator use.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the appellant failed its reciprocal promise to provide a proper pathway.

(Allegations of Corruption and Cartelization in Transformer Procurement)

This judgment addresses three writ petitions filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitions sought the registration of an FIR and a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged corruption in the procurement of Distribution Transformers by TANGEDCO. 

Petitioners alleged a scam of Rs. 397-1182 Crores, citing cartelization, identical bids, and tenders awarded at exorbitant rates between 2021 and 2023. Despite complaints, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) delayed action for nearly three years.

(Rejection of Plaint based on Benami Transaction and Disqualification from Inheritance)

The Supreme Court addressed an appeal regarding the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit sought a declaration of ownership based on a Will, but the transaction was found to be benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Additionally, the plaintiff was accused of murdering the testator, triggering disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The underlying agreements (MOUs) were also deemed void due to an unlawful object under Sections 10 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they aimed to circumvent the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

The Court clarified that Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits early rejection of frivolous or legally barred suits, even if cleverly drafted, by a meaningful reading of the plaint and documents.

(Specific Performance, Rescission, and Extension of Time for Deposit)

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 28, concerning specific performance decrees, alongside Order 20 Rule 12A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provisions. Appellant obtained a specific performance decree on 03.03.2017, requiring balance payment (Rs. 57,50,000) within one month. Despite initial non-compliance, the appellant deposited the amount on 26.11.2020 following inconsistent court directions. The judgment-debtor subsequently sought rescission of the contract under Section 28 for delayed payment.

(Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Common Intention – Alteration of Offence)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 34, 307, 147, 148, 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of the deceased, who succumbed to firearm injuries during an incident in 1999.

The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC, which requires "common intention" based on a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds. The Court found the prosecution failed to establish common intention for murder.

Evidence revealed the Appellant arrived at the scene after the principal accused and from a different direction, negating prior concert.

(Dismissal for Fraud, Impersonation, and Dual Employment in Police Service)

This appeal concerns disciplinary action taken against a police constable involving fraud, impersonation, and securing simultaneous employment in the Jharkhand and Bihar Police forces.

The case involves the Jharkhand Police Manual, Rule 828 read with Appendix 49, and the constitutional powers under Articles 136, 142, 226, and 227. Offences under the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are also implicated.

Respondent No. 1, Ranjan Kumar, was appointed as a Constable in the Jharkhand Police.

(Arbitration Invocation by a Non-Signatory Collaborator)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6), challenging the High Court's refusal to appoint an arbitrator - The central question was whether a Collaborator, a non-signatory to the main contract, could invoke its arbitration clause. The Collaborator's technical expertise was indispensable for the Contractor to meet the bid's eligibility criteria for an integrated bulk material handling plant. This necessitated the execution of a 'Deed of Joint Undertaking' (DJU) by both the Contractor and the Collaborator in favour of the Employer.

The High Court had rejected the Collaborator's arbitration request, citing a lack of privity of contract and interpreting the Collaborator's Section 21 notice as an admission of no existing arbitration clause, as it sought consent for arbitration.