Search Judgments

(Probate of Will)

This case concerns an appeal against the grant of probate for the Will of G.Sarojini, dated 09.02.1996. The executor, Rama Mohana Rao, sought probate, which was challenged by G.Premkumar, one of the testatrix's sons. The Will bequeathed property to the second son, G.Jawahar, citing his care for the testatrix while other sons were abroad.

The appellant alleged "suspicious circumstances" including non-self-acquired property, minor factual errors (age, sons' earnings), lack of signature on the first page, and improper attestation, arguing undue influence by the second son.

(Execution of Specific Performance Decree & Abuse of Process)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (O.XXI R. 99-101, S.11, O.IX R. 8-9, O.XXIII R.1), Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (S.52) - Appellants secured a specific performance decree but faced obstruction during execution from respondents claiming independent title. Respondents based their claim on sale deeds from 1990, alleging title through an oral gift.

Crucially, appellants had previously filed two suits (O.S.

(Withdrawal of Electricity Duty Exemption to Captive Power Generators)

The Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 (Act), Section 5A (Power to exempt from electricity duty) - Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Equality and non-arbitrariness) - This case challenges the validity of notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra that withdrew electricity duty exemptions previously granted to industries operating captive power plants. The State, exercising powers under Section 5A of the Act, had initially granted exemptions from electricity duty to captive power generators since 1994 to encourage self-sufficiency. However, notifications dated April 1, 2000, and April 4, 2001, were subsequently issued, withdrawing or modifying these exemptions, leading to industries being liable for duty for an intervening period.

The High Court had invalidated these notifications, citing discrimination, arbitrariness, and insufficient justification. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting its statutory authority to withdraw concessions based on public interest, specifically due to budgetary deficits, and arguing against the applicability of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation.

(Quashing of FIRs, Timelines for Investigation, and Protection from Arrest)

This case pertains to appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging High Court orders concerning FIRs filed under The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and The Arms Act, 1959 Sections 3, 25, 30 - The accused-respondents faced charges for allegedly procuring multiple arms licenses through forged documents and false affidavits, including discrepancies in dates of birth. An Arms Clerk was also implicated in facilitating these fraudulent activities. The High Court, while declining to quash the FIRs, had directed the investigation to be completed within 90 days and granted interim protection against arrest until cognizance was taken, citing Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P.

The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that imposing timeframes for investigation is exceptional, warranted only in cases of clear stagnation or unexplained delay, which was not evident here.

Regarding the protection from arrest, the Court found the High Court's reliance on Shobhit Nehra misplaced due to factual dissimilarities.

(Quashing of Criminal Proceedings (Cheating & Criminal Breach of Trust)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 420, 120B - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - This appeal challenged a High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant under Sections 406/420/120B IPC. The case originated from a partnership where the appellant contributed his land. A supplementary agreement stipulated the land's reversion to him after a lease expired. After the partnership's dissolution, the appellant sold the property.

(Conviction for Uncharged Offence; Applicability of Cr.P.C. Section 222)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 (Murder), 362 (Abduction), 364 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 221 (Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed), 222 (When offence proved included in offence charged) - The State challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted an accused, reversing a Sessions Court conviction under Section 364 IPC. The accused was initially charged with murder (Section 302 IPC) after allegedly taking the deceased, whose body was later found with gunshot wounds.

The Sessions Court, while unable to prove murder, convicted the accused under Section 364 IPC, finding that abduction for murder was established.

(Quashing of Cheating Proceedings)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 406, 415, 420) - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482) - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138) - This appeal challenged a High Court order that partly quashed criminal proceedings against a movie producer (appellant). The High Court had quashed charges under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) but upheld charges under Section 420 IPC (cheating).

The prosecution alleged the appellant induced the complainant to invest in a movie project by promising profit shares. Later, post-dated cheques for the principal amount were dishonoured.

(Re-determination of Land Acquisition Compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)

This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), particularly concerning the maintainability of a second application for re-determination of compensation based on an appellate court's award.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 3(d), 4(1), 11, 18, 28-A, and 54. The appellants, landowners whose property was acquired, had initially sought and received re-determined compensation under Section 28-A of the LA Act based on an enhanced award by the Reference Court. Subsequently, the High Court further enhanced the compensation for similarly situated landowners in appeals.

(Eviction Proceedings and Abuse of Process)

This judgment primarily deals with proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 (later Act, 2021), concerning eviction, and addresses the tenant's abuse of the judicial process.

The tenant appealed against the High Court's order (Writ Appeal No. 8420 of 2025), which had set aside a restoration order issued by the Rent Authority.

(Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) Violations and Adjudication Proceedings)

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), particularly Sections 4, 16, 19, and 37A, along with the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004 - Appellants were accused of FEMA violations for acquiring and transferring foreign securities without RBI approval, leading to asset seizure under Section 37A(1). The Competent Authority, under Section 37A(3), refused to confirm the seizure, finding no evidence of contravention. This order is currently under appeal.

A parallel Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 16(3) of FEMA was issued.