Search Judgments

(Sexual Offences Against a Child)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: Sections 7 r/w 8, 5(l) r/w 6, 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 164(5), 207, 313, 311 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 165 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Section 94 - This Criminal Appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years (for Section 7 r/w 8) and 20 years (for Section 5(l) r/w 6 and 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 POCSO Act). The High Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, as her birth certificate was suppressed by the investigating officer and the school certificate was unreliable. Evidence from the victim and her mother, along with medical reports showing no external injuries, suggested a consensual relationship, which is immaterial if the victim is a child.

(Legality of Arrest and Scope of State Human Rights Commission's Jurisdiction)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 290, 75(1)(c), and 505(1)(b), concerning public nuisance and statements conducing to public mischief, and the powers of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). The matter arose from the arrest of Lois Sofia, who shouted a political slogan at Dr. Tamizhisai Soundararajan at Tuticorin Airport. Following a complaint by Dr. Soundararajan, police registered an FIR under the aforementioned IPC sections, arrested Ms.

(Quashment of Criminal Proceedings (Economic Offence)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 109, through a petition filed under The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 - The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager, was arrayed as A1, accused of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and forgery, allegedly causing a loss of Rs. 33.89 crores to the bank. This loss purportedly resulted from sanctioning 11 agricultural loans for non-existent poultry farms based on fabricated documents.

The petitioner argued that he only recommended loans, which were ultimately sanctioned by higher officials and processed by appraisers, none of whom were made co-accused.

(Criminal Revision – Conviction under IPC)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 324, 326 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 360 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - The revision challenged a judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, following a land dispute where he caused injuries, including a fracture, to two witnesses. The High Court noted the prosecution's failure to produce X-ray evidence for the fracture. Consequently, the conviction under Section 326 IPC was set aside. However, the conviction under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to both witnesses was upheld.

Murder (Circumstantial Evidence)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 302 and The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 27, 106, and 161 - The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Section 313 - The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, who died due to mechanical asphyxia from strangulation. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, due to alcoholism and a strained marital relationship, strangled his wife with a towel and hit her with a kitchen tool.

The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including motive, recovery of weapons based on the appellant's confession, and medical evidence.

(Probate of Will)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 63(c), 222, 255, 276); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 68, 114(g) - This appeal challenged the judgment and decree granting probate of a Will dated 28.07.1978, executed by M. Kuppaiah Prasad (died 1985). The original petition, filed in 2003 under Sections 222, 255, and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit due to caveats.

The propounder sought probate, asserting the Will was genuine and duly executed.

(Maintainability of Appeals in Execution of Arbitral Awards)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 5, 36, 37); Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Section 13(1-A)); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXI); Madras High Court Original Side Rules (Order XIV Rule 12) - This judgment examined the maintainability of appeals against a Master's order in an Execution Petition (E.P.) of an arbitral award concerning a commercial dispute. The appellant secured an award for expansion rights, which the respondent neglected. The appellant filed an E.P. under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act before the Master, which was allowed.

(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.

(Membership for Oppression and Mismanagement Petitions)

Companies Act, 1956, Sections 2(27), 41, 397, 398, 399 - This appeal considered if a person, without formal entry in the register of members, could be deemed a "member" to invoke Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent invested substantially in the appellant company, was appointed Managing Director, and his trading concern's name was incorporated into the hospital. Disputes arose over the non-issuance of share certificates, leading the respondent to file oppression and mismanagement petitions. Appellants argued the respondent lacked locus standi as he was not a "member" under Section 41.

(Survivability of Consumer Complaints for Medical Negligence Against Deceased Doctor's Legal Heirs)

The Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 13(7) - The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 38(12) - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXII, Rules 2, 4, and 11 - The Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 306 - Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855 - The appeals challenged orders of the NCDRC allowing substitution of a deceased doctor's legal heirs in a medical negligence case. The original complaint alleged deficiency in service by Dr. P.B. Lall, leading to loss of vision for the complainant's wife after eye surgery in 1990.