Search Judgments

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 24-A (MMDR Act) and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) Rule 72 – This judgment addresses 32 cases (19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ Petitions) concerning the levy of surface compensation by the State of Tamil Nadu on mining lessees operating on poramboke lands (government-owned vacant land).

The core issue revolves around whether the State is entitled to demand surface compensation from mining operators on poramboke lands under Section 24-A of the MMDR Act and Rule 72 of the MCR, considering that these lands are owned by the government.

The appellants/petitioners argued that the Act and Rules primarily consider compensation for private landowners (“occupiers”) whose land use is disrupted by mining activities, not for the government who is the owner of the poramboke land. They highlighted that the government already receives royalties, dead rent, and other charges.

(Contempt of Court by Advocate)

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 19 and provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, were relevant - The appellant, an advocate, challenged two High Court orders in contempt proceedings. The first order, dated 17th September, 2025, rejected his plea to implead a sitting High Court Judge ("Justice X") and initiated a separate suo motu criminal contempt case for disparaging remarks made against her in an application.

The second order, dated 16th October, 2025, dismissed the appellant's application to recall the previous order, rejecting his plea for recusal of the High Court judges and cautioning him against inappropriate conduct.

The contempt proceedings stemmed from a press conference where the appellant made serious allegations against Justice X's impartiality, leading to suo motu contempt action by the Chief Justice.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Section 5(l) r/w 6, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v), Indian Penal Code – Section 366 – This case involves an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge for offences under Section 366 of the IPC, Sections 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant committed sexual assault on PW1 (the victim), who was a minor belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, resulting in her pregnancy. The appellant also allegedly kidnapped the victim from her legal guardian.

The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked 22 documents to prove its case.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 175(3) – This criminal revision petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner’s plea under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking alteration of penal provisions to Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and monitored investigation.

The petitioner alleged a romantic relationship with the accused, leading to sexual intimacy on the false promise of marriage. After conceiving and aborting the child at the accused’s insistence, the accused refused to marry her. The petitioner argued that the refusal to marry, post the enactment of BNS, invoked Section 69 BNS, 2023.

Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) – Sections 4, 19, 26, 36, 53T – The Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Kapoor Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (Informant) challenged an order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) before the Supreme Court. The case originated from an information lodged by Kapoor Glass alleging that Schott Glass India Pvt.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37 – This appeal concerns the impleadment of a non-signatory (ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. or ‘ABPL’) to an arbitration proceeding initiated by Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 323, 504, 506; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a petition to quash an FIR and related proceedings against the appellant. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent, alleging rape, assault, and criminal intimidation based on a live-in relationship.

The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual, and the parties had even executed a settlement deed affirming their love for each other. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition, stating that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense.

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) – Section 32 and 63 – This case revolves around a challenge to an order by the Waqf Tribunal regarding the T.O. Mohamed Thambi Waqf in Sivagangai District. The petitioner, a Jamath (association), contested the tribunal’s decision, which directed the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the waqf as separate, prepare a proforma indicating “hereditary” succession for the mutawalli (manager) post, conduct an inquiry among the founder’s legal representatives, and appoint a mutawalli per the Waqf Act, 1995, as per the founder’s intentions.

The history involves a settlement deed by Mr.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal. The FIR was filed by the complainant Farzan Ali, alleging that the appellant, along with other accused, assaulted his son Imran and his friends with knives and lathis.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal against the acquittal order of the Trial court, sentencing the Appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and confirmed the acquittal of the other two accused. The primary contention revolved around whether the evidence justified the appellant’s conviction for attempted murder.

(Motor Accident Compensation for Amputee)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 168 (Award of Claims Tribunal) - The case involves an appeal seeking enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim who suffered amputation of his right leg below the knee in 2007. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,73,211/-, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 13,02,043/-.