Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 279 and 304-A This revision case was filed against the judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, which upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Salem. The case originated from a complaint filed by P.W.1, whose father died in a road accident involving the petitioner’s car. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner drove rashly and negligently, causing the accident and subsequent death.

The trial court found the petitioner guilty under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC, sentencing him to imprisonment.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 6 Rule 17 – This revision petition arises from the dismissal of an application to amend a plaint in a partition suit. The plaintiff sought to add a prayer for declaring a settlement deed executed by their father in favor of the 3rd defendant as null and void, arguing it was obtained through fraud and coercion. This amendment was sought after the defendants filed their written statement, which mentioned the settlement deed.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the amendment was necessary to address a potential technical defense and align with existing pleadings.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 – This case involves two Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) filed by a wife in matrimonial proceedings. CRP No. 1969 of 2025 challenges the interim maintenance order, seeking enhancement, while CRP No. 2348 of 2025 contests the visitation rights granted to the husband concerning their minor daughter.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 276B r/w 278B – This case involves a Criminal Revision Petition against a judgment confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for offences under Sections 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The accusation was that the 1st accused company, through its director (2nd accused), failed to deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs.12,68,464 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 within the stipulated time.

The petitioners argued that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 279(B) r/w 278(B) of the IT Act, as the respondent failed to specify the number of days of delay in remitting the TDS and that the show cause notice was not properly served. They claimed to have remitted the TDS and provided relevant documents.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 197 – The case concerns a criminal revision against an order dismissing the petitioner’s discharge application in a case registered under Sections 120B, 420 IPC, and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, former Vice-Chancellor of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), was accused of conspiring with suppliers to purchase equipment at inflated prices, causing loss to the government. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court, limiting adjudication to the issue of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner argued that since the alleged acts occurred during his official duties, sanction was required for prosecution.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves two criminal revision cases (Crl.R.C.No.1447 of 2019 and Crl.R.C.No.1448 of 2019) filed by the petitioner challenging the judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court, which convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for cheque bounce.

The respondent, engaged in manufacturing and selling steel rods and bars, alleged that the petitioner purchased goods and issued cheques that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The petitioner claimed that the cheques were given as security and the amounts due were already paid. He also raised concerns about the validity of the authorization given to the respondent to file the complaint and the non-inclusion of MSP Steel Agency as an accused, arguing only the authorized signatory was named.