Search Judgments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 156(3), 397 & 401 – The case involves two Criminal Revision Cases filed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, directing the first respondent to register an FIR based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, alleging cheating and misappropriation by the petitioners (A1 to A7). The petitioners argued that the complaint was a counterblast to a company petition they had filed against the second respondent, and that the allegations were civil in nature.

The second respondent argued that there was a prima facie case and the Magistrate rightly directed the registration of FIR. The first respondent also contended that the order under Section 156(3) had been complied with by registering the FIR, making the challenge infructuous.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2018. The case arose from a fatal accident where the deceased, P.Thilagan, was hit by a lorry driven rashly by the first respondent, resulting in his death. The petitioners, comprising the deceased’s family, initially claimed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as compensation.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,99,472/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two only), which the petitioners found inadequate, hence the appeal for enhancement.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 156(3), 482; Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 384, 379, 120-B – The State of Rajasthan appealed against the Rajasthan High Court’s orders which had transferred the investigation of two FIRs to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The FIRs were originally registered based on a complaint by Respondent No. 1, alleging offences including fraud, theft, and extortion related to granite mining leases.

The complainant had previously filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking the same relief, which was dismissed as withdrawn.

(Disqualification of Councillor for Non-Disclosure of Conviction)

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138), the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (Sections 22(1)(d)(i), 22(1)(d)(iii)), and the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (Rule 24-A), alongside the Constitution of India (Articles 19(1)(a), 136) - The petitioner, an elected Councillor, faced disqualification after failing to disclose a prior conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act in her nomination affidavit. She had been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment in 2018, and this conviction was active when she filed her nomination in 2022. Her election was challenged by the first respondent for non-compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements.

Both the trial court and the High Court unseated her, a decision which the petitioner appealed.

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 9, 13; Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 – Rule 5, 26, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order III Rule 1, 2, 4; Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 – This judgment addresses procedural issues arising in Family Courts, particularly concerning the appearance of parties residing abroad and the extent of legal representation. The court emphasizes the need for a litigant-friendly approach, balancing the Act’s objective of conciliation with ensuring fair access to justice. It clarifies the scope of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act regarding legal representation, stating that while full legal representation isn’t a right, parties can seek legal assistance in drafting documents and can be represented by lawyers with the court’s permission, especially if residing abroad.

The court addresses the use of power of attorney, allowing it for most procedural steps but requiring personal appearance for mediation and recording evidence unless video conferencing is utilized.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2(12-A), 162, 164-B; Central Motor Vehicles (Motor Vehicle Accident Fund) Rules, 2022 – Rules 11, 12: Mandates cashless treatment for motor accident victims during the “golden hour” (first hour after injury) to prevent death.

Constitutional Law – Article 21 (Right to Life): The provision for cashless treatment in the golden hour under Section 162 of the MV Act upholds and protects the right to life.

Statutory Obligation – Central Government: Central Government has a statutory obligation to frame a scheme for cashless treatment under Section 162(2) of the MV Act. Delay in framing such a scheme despite creation of Motor Vehicle Accident Fund under Section 164-B is a serious concern.

The Trademarks Act, 1999 Section 2(1)(m), 11(8) – Appeals under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, challenged a common order denying 7-Eleven’s application for “Big Bite” trademark registration (applied 1994) in Class 30. Concurrently, it accepted the application by M/s. Ravi Foods Private Limited (originally M/s. Dukes Consumer Care Limited, applied 2004) for the identical mark.

The Constitution of India Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity), Article 14, and Article 15 of , read with the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023. This judgment addresses severe prison overcrowding, where institutions operate at 120.8% capacity nationwide, and the pervasive underutilization or complete absence of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs). The Court found systemic issues including the exclusion of women prisoners, overly stringent eligibility criteria, and OCIs functioning predominantly as labour camps rather than genuine rehabilitative centres. Despite OCIs proving significantly more cost-effective (approx.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 279, 338, and 304-A – This case pertains to a criminal revision against a judgment confirming the conviction of the accused under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 134(a)(b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stemming from a fatal road accident. The accident resulted in injuries to the complainant and the death of his wife.

The trial court convicted the accused, a bus driver, based on evidence indicating a rear-end collision with the complainant’s two-wheeler. The appellate court upheld the conviction, reducing the sentence under Section 304-A IPC.