Search Judgments

(Applicability of Clean Slate Theory to Statutory Dues Arising During CIRP)

This batch of writ petitions addressed whether the "Clean Slate Theory," as established in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, extends to Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Income Tax dues that arise during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The core legal provisions involved were the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) (particularly Sections 14, 17, 30, 31, 32A, 53, 60(5)(c), 238), the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Articles 14, 246, 246A of the Constitution of India.

The Petitioners argued that the Clean Slate Theory extinguishes all liabilities, including those arising during CIRP, once a Resolution Plan is approved.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – Section 528 and 193 – This petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking a directive for the police to expedite the investigation and file a final report in Crime No. 24 of 2024, concerning the theft of gold jewels from the petitioner while traveling on a bus. The petitioner alleged inaction despite filing a complaint.

The court acknowledged the statutory mandate under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023, which prescribes a time-bound investigation process with outer time limits of 90 days for offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, and 60 days for other offences.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 207, 313;Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 341, 323, 307, 109 – This Criminal Appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.58 of 2013 by the Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The prosecution’s case alleged that the accused (A1 and A2) attacked PW1 and PW2 due to property disputes. A1 was accused of attacking PW1 with a spade, while A2 attacked PW2 with a stick, causing simple injuries.

The FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323, and 307 of the IPC.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Regarding the conviction based on the dying declaration. The case involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, primarily focusing on eyewitness accounts and multiple dying declarations of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with her husband (Accused 1, who died during the trial), poured kerosene on the deceased and set him ablaze due to a financial dispute.

The defense argued that the prosecution’s case suffered from factual and legal errors, particularly concerning the inconsistencies in the dying declarations.

(Motor Accident Compensation)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 279, 337, 304A. The case implicitly falls under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation claims. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 28.01.2020, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, in M.C.O.P.No.1285 of 2015. The Tribunal had originally awarded a sum of ₹84,94,334/- as compensation for the death of one Rengarajan.

The deceased, Rengarajan, a Senior Accounts Officer in BHEL, Trichy, earning approximately ₹1,30,000/- per month, died on 23.06.2015, following a motor accident on 12.06.2015.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Sections 94, 173 & 179 – A series of petitions filed by individuals seeking protection from police harassment under the guise of enquiry into civil disputes, such as money matters, property transactions, and contractual disagreements. The court found that the police were exceeding their authority by entertaining these complaints, conducting informal “current paper enquiries,” and issuing summons without registering a First Information Report (FIR).

The court noted a disturbing trend of using criminal proceedings to settle civil scores, emphasizing that police intervention should be limited to cases where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, like cheating or criminal breach of trust, supported by specific factual details. The court also referred to previous Supreme Court judgements which says that Criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 168 – Compensation for Motor Accident – This case concerns an appeal for enhanced compensation following a motor accident that occurred on 04.06.2005. The original claimant sustained injuries in a bus accident and was assessed with 100% disability. She was 50 years old at the time of the accident. The claimant passed away on 25.01.2024, during the pendency of the appeal, and her husband and two daughters were substituted as appellants.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This appeal concerns a claim for compensation following a fatal motor vehicle accident involving the deceased, Niranjan Das, who was struck by a trailer while driving his car. The legal representatives of the deceased (claimant-appellants) filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 1,60,000, finding no financial dependency of the claimants on the deceased.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 279 and 304A; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 360 – This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC. The case pertains to a road accident in 2008 where the appellant’s car hit a pedestrian, resulting in the pedestrian’s death. The trial court initially sentenced the appellant to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine, a decision affirmed by both the appellate court and the High Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued for leniency, suggesting the application of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and offering compensation to the deceased’s family.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 302, 323, and 506(ii); Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) – Section 164; Indian Evidence Act – Section 25 – This criminal appeal was filed against the conviction of the first accused, Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, in S.C. No. 14 of 2018 for the murder of his second wife, Amutha, by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. The prosecution’s case rested on eyewitness accounts from the daughter (PW1), son (PW2), and brother-in-law (PW4) of the accused, as well as an extra-judicial confession.