Search Judgments

(Applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 2013)

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(a). Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 11, 12(2), 18 - A Writ Court order directing compensation determination under the 2013 Act. Land acquisition under the 1894 Act concluded with an award on 31.07.2012, with compensation paid and possession taken. An amended order dated 30.05.2014 later corrected an interest calculation error.

(Valuation of Land under Compromise Decree and Scope of High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 227)

The Constitution of IndiaArticle 227 - The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Section 89 - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Karnataka Gazette Notification dated 17.04.2007. This case involved the valuation of 3 acres 6 guntas of industrially converted land in Kengeri Village, Bengaluru, as per a compromise decree dated 20.08.2007 between Judgment Debtors (Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises - N.I.C.E.) and Decree Holders. The decree stipulated that if N.I.C.E. failed to provide alternative land, it would pay the guideline value of the Decree Holders' land.

The Executing Court determined the land value at Rs.

(Anticipatory Bail in Politically Charged Defamation Case)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Sections 175, 3(5), 3(6), 318, 336(4), 337, 338, 340, 341(1), 351(1), 352, 353, 356, and 61(2) - This appeal challenged the Gauhati High Court's refusal of anticipatory bail to the Appellant, a national political party office-bearer, in connection with FIR No. 04/2026. The FIR alleged that the Appellant, during press conferences, displayed purportedly forged documents claiming the complainant (wife of the Chief Minister of Assam) held multiple passports and undisclosed assets, intending to defame her and influence state elections.

The Appellant contended that the statements were politically motivated, most alleged offences were bailable, and he did not fabricate the documents.

(Default Bail and Procedural Safeguards in UAPA Cases)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 124A, 153A, 120B, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) Sections 18, 20, 38, 39, 43-D(2), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 167(2),  and the Constitution of India Article 21 - The appellant was arrested under IPC and UAPA, and remanded to judicial custody. The statutory 90-day period for investigation under Section 167(2) CrPC was due to expire on February 5, 2024. On February 2, 2024, the Special Judge granted a 25-day extension for filing the chargesheet, without notifying the appellant or producing him before the court.

The appellant, unaware of the extension, sought default bail on February 8, 2024, as the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days.

(Segregation of Trial for Legislators)

This case addresses the application of Sections 218 to 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), governing the joinder and separation of trials, and Constitutional Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to fair trial). References include Sections 148, 149, 153A, 379A, 395, 397, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B, 107, and 180 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The appellant, a sitting MLA, challenged orders from the trial court, affirmed by the High Court, directing a separate charge-sheet and trial for him. This segregation was purportedly due to his political status, the need for expeditious trial as per *Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India*, and delays caused by co-accused.

(Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 306, 107, 34), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 227). The appellants challenged the rejection of their discharge application from charges under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. The deceased, wife of Appellant No.1, committed suicide on March 20, 2015. An Accidental Death Report lodged the same day did not implicate the appellants. However, an FIR lodged five days later by the deceased's mother alleged marital discord and harassment.

(Judicial Powers, Hate Speech, and Criminal Procedure)

This judgment addresses the judiciary's role in creating criminal offenses, the existing legal framework concerning hate speech, and the procedural mechanisms for registering criminal cases under the Constitution of India, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court held that the creation or expansion of criminal offenses and the prescription of punishments fall squarely within the legislative domain, adhering to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It stressed that courts interpret laws, but cannot legislate or compel legislation.

It was clarified that there is no legislative vacuum regarding hate speech.

(Limitation Period for Section 7 IBC Applications and Acknowledgment of Debt)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Section 62, read with Section 18 and The Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137, and The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Sections 13(2), 13(4), addresses the limitation period for Section 7 IBC applications. The Corporate Debtor's loan accounts were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 06.12.2016. The secured financial creditor filed a Section 7 IBC petition on 23.09.2024, after NCLAT and NCLT had admitted it, citing the IRP's claim admission in a prior Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as a valid acknowledgment.

The Supreme Court clarified that limitation for Section 7 IBC applications starts from the default date (06.12.2016). After considering exclusions for DHFL's CIRP, the COVID-19 period, and the Corporate Debtor's first CIRP (23.12.2021 to 29.07.2024), the Court found the limitation expired on 01.08.2024.

(Preventive Detention under Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act)

The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders... Act, 1986 (Act of 1986), specifically Sections 3(1), 3(2), 2(a) (prejudicial to public order), and 2(f) (drug offender). It also references the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(b) - The appellant challenged a detention order dated 10.03.2025, passed under Section 3(2) of the 1986 Act against her mother (detenu), a 'drug offender' with three NDPS Act cases. The detenu was in judicial custody, having secured bail in two cases and with a bail petition pending in another.

(Election Law - Disqualification and Consequential Relief)

The Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, specifically Sections 45(1)(v), 44-E, and 44-J - This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment which upheld the disqualification of the respondent-returned candidate (Basanti Sahoo) from the posts of Panchayat Samiti Member and Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti, but directed re-election for the Chairman's post.

The appellant-election petitioner (Ramadebi Rautray) had challenged the respondent's election, alleging disqualification under Section 45(1)(v) of the 1959 Act for having a third child after the cut-off date. The Election Tribunal found the respondent's election invalid due to uncontroverted evidence and declared the appellant elected as Chairman.

The Election Appellate Tribunal and the High Court affirmed the respondent's disqualification but set aside the declaration of the appellant as Chairman, ordering a fresh election.