Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 397 and 401; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 354; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 – Section 4. – The case involves an accused, a father, charged with sexual assault on his 14-year-old daughter. The trial court convicted him under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The appellate court upheld the conviction and enhanced the sentence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 304(ii), 302, 294(b), and 352 – Criminal Appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The case involves an incident where the appellant allegedly pushed the deceased, resulting in fatal head injuries. The prosecution’s case relied on eyewitness accounts, but significant contradictions emerged during the trial.

Key witnesses provided inconsistent versions of the event, particularly regarding whether the appellant used a stick and how the deceased fell.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 294(b) and 302 & Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 161 – This Criminal Appeal was filed by Accused 1 and Accused 2 against the judgment of conviction passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No. 64 of 2015, dated 22.11.2018. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 363, 366, 376;Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482;Notaries Act, 1952 – Section 8;Notaries Rules, 1956 – Rule 11 – This case, initiated with two appeals filed under the name of Bhagwan Singh, revealed a disturbing attempt to misuse the legal system. Bhagwan Singh claimed he never authorized the filing of the appeals. Subsequent investigations revealed a web of deceit involving multiple advocates, a notary, and relatives of Bhagwan Singh, all seemingly acting without his knowledge or consent.

The case took a significant turn when it emerged that the respondent, Ajay Katara, was a crucial witness in the Nitish Katara murder case.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 359 – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, initially by the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, and subsequently confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.

The petitioner was convicted for one-year imprisonment and asked to pay Rs. 4,90,000 as compensation. During the pendency of the Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court, the parties reached an amicable settlement, with the Petitioner depositing the full cheque amount of Rs.

Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 & Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 – This writ petition was filed seeking to prevent respondents 6 & 7 from operating a poultry farm, alleging violations of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Rules, 1997 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, specifically concerning building permissions and hygiene standards.

The petitioner argued that the poultry farm construction lacked necessary government approvals (Planning Permission, No Objection Certificate, Licence and Consent) and violated rules regarding distance from residential areas and water sources. They cited Section 2(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, defining “building” and requiring planning permission.

Respondents 6 & 7 countered that poultry farming is an agricultural activity not requiring planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, referencing a government letter dated 26.02.2019.

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita (BNSS) 2023 Section 528 – This case involves a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the affairs of Padmaadevi Sugars Limited, a company under liquidation, based on complaints filed by Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) alleging fraudulent activities.

IOB claimed that Padmaadevi Sugars Limited, with outstanding loans of Rs. 120.84 crores as of June 30, 2012, had fraudulently sold hypothecated machinery without the creditors’ knowledge, even during ongoing negotiations and transfer of assets. Despite repeated complaints, the CBI did not register a case.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This criminal revision case was filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, which upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The initial conviction was made by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.284 of 2017. The complainant alleged that the accused issued two cheques towards the repayment of a balance amount for supplied iron rods, which were dishonored due to “account blocked”.

The accused argued that the cheques were obtained by force at the police station, lacking voluntary action.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation for Motor Accident – This appeal challenges the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs. 2,60,600/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant sought Rs. 16,00,000/-.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 – The plaintiff, a builder and promoter, filed a civil suit against the defendants, seeking recovery of ₹1,70,24,187/- with interest, alleging fraudulent misappropriation of funds by the deceased employee, L.Sathyanarayanan. The plaintiff claimed that L.Sathyanarayanan, who was entrusted with financial responsibilities, siphoned off funds through forged cheques and diverted them to his own business. The defendants, legal heirs of the deceased, denied the allegations.