Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140, 166, and 168 – Determination of Compensation – Dependency of Legal Heirs – The case concerns a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Smt. Paras Sharma due to a motor vehicle accident. The Appellants, the deceased’s married daughter (Appellant No. 1) and mother (Appellant No.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Enhancement of Compensation – This appeal arises from a decision by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the claimants, dependents of the deceased Raja, were awarded compensation of Rs. 13,15,000 for a fatal road accident. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the claimants sought an enhancement from the court. The deceased, Raja, died in an accident involving a lorry owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 51 – This revision petition was filed challenging the dismissal of an application to condone a delay of 101 days in filing a first appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The delay stemmed from the alleged misplacement of the order copy and difficulties in obtaining certified copies of documents.

The respondent had filed a consumer complaint after the petitioner/insurance company repudiated a claim, citing a pre-existing condition exclusion in the policy. The State Commission ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the insurance company to pay the insured amount, compensation, and costs.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b); Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India – This Contempt Petition was filed by M/s JSW Steel Limited alleging willful disobedience of a judgment by the respondents. The case arises from demand notices issued by the Commercial Tax Department of Chhattisgarh for sales tax against iron ore purchased by the erstwhile company, Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd., after the Petitioner Company took over the management pursuant to an approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Petitioner Company argued that these demands were extinguished by the Supreme Court’s judgment in “Ghanshyam Mishra,” which held that all claims not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished. The respondents contended that the “Ghanshyam Mishra” judgment was not applicable as the State of Chhattisgarh was not a party to the insolvency proceedings.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) and Section 36-A(4); Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 167(2); Constitution of India – Article 21 – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the accused, Mathew, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Principal Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases at Chennai, regarding the extension of time for investigation and dismissal of his statutory bail petition. The accused was arrested for possessing a commercial quantity of Amphetamine.

The primary issue was whether the trial court properly granted an extension of time for investigation under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act and whether the accused was given a proper opportunity to be heard before the extension was granted. The petitioner argued that the second petition for extension lacked valid justification and that no proper notice was served to him regarding this petition, violating his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award in MCOP No. 743 of 2017, seeking enhanced compensation for the death of the appellant’s parents in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on December 10, 2015, when a TATA ACE car negligently collided with the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. The appellant, son of the deceased, filed a claim petition for Rs.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 36A(4) – Extension of time for investigation – Report of Public Prosecutor – Requirements.

The report of the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of time for investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act must satisfy twin requirements. The report must indicate the progress of the investigation and specify the reasons for the further detention of the accused.

The Public Prosecutor’s role is not merely that of a post office; they must independently apply their mind to the investigating agency’s request.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21, 32 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 441, 446

Bail Conditions – Multiple FIRs Across States – The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 32, directed the consolidation of bail bonds and sureties for an accused facing multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) across different states, where he had already been granted bail but remained in custody due to inability to furnish separate sureties.

“Excessive Bail is No Bail” Principle – Reiterated the long-standing principle that imposing excessive or onerous conditions for bail defeats the very object of release, amounting to a denial of liberty. The Court emphasized the need to balance the requirement of furnishing sureties with the accused’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

Surety Requirements – Practical Difficulties – Acknowledged the practical difficulties individuals face in finding multiple sureties, especially when cases are spread across different geographical locations or involve a need for “local sureties.” The Court held that such conditions can render bail orders ineffective and impede fundamental rights.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) – Section 168A – This judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioners argued that the notifications, which extended the time limit for tax recovery, were issued without fulfilling the necessary conditions precedent and without proper recommendation from the GST Council.

The petitioners contended that the extension was not justified by “force majeure” (as defined in Section 168A) and that relevant factors, such as the return to normalcy after the Covid-19 pandemic, were not considered.

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) Section 6(1), 7(1) and 18 –  This case involves two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA concerning the forfeiture of property. The petitioners, Mrs. V. Padmavathy and Mr.