Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 438 (Anticipatory Bail); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification): Anticipatory bail in corruption cases is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances where there’s a prima facie case of false implication, political motivation, or frivolous allegations. Mere demand or solicitation of a bribe by a public servant constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the PC Act.

Anticipatory Bail vs. Regular Bail – Distinction and Considerations: The principles governing anticipatory bail are distinct from those for regular bail.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 8(C), 21, 29 and 69
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 362 and 439 – This appeal was filed by the Union of India through the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against an order of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, directing the NCB to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the respondent for alleged wrongful confinement. The NCB arrested the respondent based on the seizure of an alleged narcotic substance. Initial lab reports were negative for heroin, but a second test was conducted, which also came back negative.

The Registration Act, 1908 Section 17 and 18; The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 2(14) – This writ petition was filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent (Registration Department) to delete an entry made in the encumbrance certificate of the petitioner’s property. The entry was based on an order dismissing a temporary injunction application (IA No. 1 of 2023 in OS No. 238 of 2022) by the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 92 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 95 – This case involves two appeals (A.S.No.39 of 2022 and A.S.No.40 of 2022) arising from two suits (O.S.No.42 of 2017 and O.S.No.72 of 2019) that were tried together. The first suit, O.S.No.42 of 2017, was filed by the appellant seeking cancellation of a power of attorney and a subsequent sale deed, arguing that the power of attorney was given only as security for a loan and that the life certificate attached to the sale deed was forged. The second suit, O.S.No.72 of 2019, was filed by the purchaser (defendant in the first suit) seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant.

The Trial Court dismissed the first suit (O.S.No.42 of 2017) and decreed the second suit (O.S.No.72 of 2019).

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 (amended in 2005) and Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 110 – Partition Suit – Ouster and Adverse Possession – Scope of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act – The plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition of ancestral properties, claiming that the defendants (his brothers and sister) had fabricated a will and denied him his rightful share. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was ousted from the joint family and the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.

Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was excluded and the suit was time-barred. The lower appellate court also held that the Will was not proved.

Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 3(i), 32(2)(g), 38, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68 and 69 – Civil Revision Petition against an interlocutory order of the Waqf Tribunal regarding a stay petition in an appeal against the removal of a Mutawalli.

The petitioner, managing trustee of two religious institutions, challenged the Tribunal’s order dismissing his stay petition against the Waqf Board’s order removing his committee and appointing an Executive Officer. The petitioner argued lack of opportunity to present submissions, non-compliance with Section 68 for taking possession, and improper application of Section 64.

The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in revisions against discretionary interlocutory orders.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – This case revolves around a suit for partition filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking a 5/7th share in the properties of the deceased Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar. The appellants (defendants) contested this claim based on an unregistered Will dated 06.04.1990, purportedly executed by Balasubramaniya in their favor.

The plaintiffs challenged the Will’s validity, alleging it was forged and that the defendant No. 1, being an illegitimate wife, had no claim to the property.

Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 9 – This case involves Civil Revision Petitions filed by the Registrar of Alagappa University against orders passed in C.M.A.Nos.9 and 10 of 2014 by the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The dispute concerns land originally belonging to Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Education Trust, later transferred to the Tamil Nadu Government, and subsequently granted to Alagappa University.

The respondents allegedly trespassed on the land, leading the University to file suits for recovery of possession.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A – This judgment addresses whether an application for extending the time limit for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be filed after the initial or extended period for making the award has expired. There was conflicting opinion regarding this matter by various High Courts.

The High Courts of Calcutta and Patna held that such applications must be filed before the expiry of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate. Conversely, the High Courts of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Bombay, Kerala, and Madras have ruled that an extension application can be filed even after the expiry of the prescribed time limit.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 125 – The Supreme Court addressed appeals concerning the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and the subsequent reduction in tariffs. The central question was whether delays in project commissioning were attributable to force majeure events, justifying tariff reductions.

The case originated from a policy introduced by the State of Karnataka to promote solar energy projects by farmers. Disputes arose regarding delays in land conversion, evacuation approvals, and other factors, leading to requests for SCD extensions.