Search Judgments

(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.

(Recall of Special Leave Petition Dismissal and Maintainability of Miscellaneous Application)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): Section 12A - The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking recall of a Supreme Court order dated 25.02.2025, which dismissed their Special Leave Petition (SLP). The SLP challenged a High Court judgment upholding the setting aside of an interim injunction in a civil suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell.

The basis for the recall application was "subsequent developments" in a parallel Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) concerning the same property. These developments included the acceptance of a One Time Settlement (OTS) and the Committee of Creditors' approval for CIRP withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC.

(Motor Accident Liability for Requisitioned Vehicle)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (specifically Section 2(30) defining 'owner') and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Section 160) - The case arose from a fatal accident in 2010 involving a bus that had been requisitioned by a State functionary (appellant) for Gram Panchayat elections. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation. The High Court subsequently enhanced the compensation and shifted the liability from the Insurance Company to the appellant.

The central question was whether the requisitioning authority (State functionary) or the vehicle's insurer was liable for an accident occurring while the vehicle was under statutory requisition.

(Counting Break in Service for Pensionary Benefits)

This Full Bench judgment primarily interprets Rules 24 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, concerning the counting of 'break in service' for pensionary benefits. It also clarifies the precedential value of an in-limine dismissal of a Special Leave Petition under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

The matter was referred to the Full Bench after conflicting Division Bench decisions regarding whether the period of temporary service, including breaks, should be counted for pension. Petitioners sought the inclusion of such periods, with some earlier judgments granting relief based on parity with other employees whose services were regularized.

(Partition Suit - Proof of Relationship and Second Marriage)

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, concerning inheritance rights, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly regarding the burden of proof (Section 101) and reliability of evidence (Sections 32, 50, 60). 

The second appeal was filed by the defendants challenging the first appellate court’s preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed a share in the suit property as legal heirs of G.B. Muniyappa through his alleged second wife, Thimmakka. They asserted that Muniyappa married Thimmakka after the death of his first wife, Desamma, and their daughter Papamma was born from this union.