Search Judgments

Constitution of India – Article 142(1) and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – Section 13(1)(ia) & 13B(1) – Exercise of power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The Supreme Court addressed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking the transfer of divorce proceedings. A key issue was whether the Court could use its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one party objected.

The judgment extensively reviewed precedents, including Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan.

(Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, and Defamation)

Trademark Act, 1999 (Passing Off), Principles of Defamation Law. The appellant, a manufacturer of "Rubinetterie Bresciane" and "RB" plumbing products, sued its former distributor (respondent) for passing off and trademark misuse (C.S.No.405/2014), alleging sale of counterfeit products.

The respondent counter-sued for defamation (C.S.No.891/2015), claiming the appellant's communications accusing it of selling counterfeit goods damaged its reputation. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's defamation suit.

On appeal, the Court found that the respondent's conduct—including admitting the appellant's prior trademark rights, internally generating quality certificates, sourcing similar products from undisclosed manufacturers, and attempting to register the appellant's mark—cumulatively established a likelihood of misrepresentation and confusion, satisfying the passing off test.

(Deer Translocation and Wildlife Management)

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 38H(6) - The dispute concerns the translocation of hundreds of deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report found the park's ecological carrying capacity to be approximately 38 deer. The Central Zoo Authority (CZA) had already cancelled the park's "mini zoo" recognition due to non-compliance with management norms and an expired license.

(Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities)

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), particularly Section 89, and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India .The Supreme Court noted prior extensive directions in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2025) for safeguarding the rights of such prisoners, covering accessible infrastructure, healthcare, assistive devices, and staff sensitisation. Further directions were issued on December 2, 2025, extending these to all States and Union Territories, establishing grievance redressal mechanisms, ensuring inclusive education, applying Section 89 of the RPwD Act, and mandating provisions for assistive devices and enhanced visitation rights for those with benchmark disabilities.

(Motor Accident Compensation - Negligence and Contributory Negligence (Non-wearing of Helmet)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning a fatal motor accident. The appellant, a Transport Corporation, contested the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded. The accident involved a collision between the appellant's bus and a two-wheeler, resulting in the death of the rider. The Tribunal attributed 93% negligence to the bus driver and 7% contributory negligence to the deceased for not wearing a helmet. It fixed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.

Constitution of India – Article 32, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) – Sections 128, 129, 138(1A), 194-D, 198A, 210-D, Central Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2020 – Rule 166 – The Supreme Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation highlighting the alarming rise in road accidents and fatalities, particularly among pedestrians, and non-compliance with road safety norms. Citing ‘Road Accidents in India 2023′ data showing significant pedestrian and two-wheeler deaths due to non-helmet use, the Court emphasized the urgent need for action beyond policy.

The petition sought directions for forming apex bodies, implementing road safety recommendations, and modifying compensation rules, among others. The Court noted the extensive IRC Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety and prior judicial pronouncements on pedestrians’ right to safe footpaths and crossings.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Section 357A and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 396 – This case involves a Criminal Original Petition filed by a senior citizen seeking direction to the police to file a final report in a case of theft, where she and her husband were conned out of their jewelry and cash. The incident occurred in 2018, and despite a complaint, the accused remained untraced, leading the police to file a final report indicating the case as untraceable.

The court acknowledged the distress and vulnerability of senior citizens in such scams, emphasizing the importance of a victim-centric approach as enshrined in Section 357A of the CrPC (now Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). It was noted that even when the offender is untraced, the State has an obligation to provide compensation to the victim.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 207, 239, 240, 241, 248(2), 317, 354(4) & 357; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472 and 120B – This criminal revision case arises from a judgment in C.C.No.12 of 2024, where the accused were convicted under Section 406 IPC based on a plea of guilt. The complainant alleged financial fraud and forgery related to vehicle loans. The police filed a final report against nine accused for offenses including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The Magistrate split the case against accused 3 and 7, framed charges only under Section 406 IPC, and levied fines on the remaining accused.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 408, 420, 477A and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 31 & 428 – This Criminal Revision Case challenges the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner, who was an Appraiser in a bank. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner provided a false appraisal report for gold ornaments, enabling co-accused to obtain loans and default, causing loss to the bank. The petitioner was charged under Sections 120-B, 408, 420, and 477A r/w 109 of the IPC.

The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Sections 408, 420, and 477A of the IPC, sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 for each offense, with consecutive sentences.

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 Section 2; Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ; Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 Section 2(17), 3 – A Full Bench of the High Court addressed a critical legal question: whether occupied grama natham lands vest with the Government and, consequently, if the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, can be used to evict their occupants. This clarification was necessitated by conflicting judicial pronouncements from various Division Benches.

The majority, comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and P.T.