Search Judgments

(Land Acquisition Compensation)

The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Sections 126, 127, 47), The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Section 6), The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Sections 11, 26, 28) - This appeal concerns compensation for 37 Ares of land in Nashik, reserved and partially occupied by the Municipal Council (now Corporation) since 1972, but formally acquired only in 2017. The Appellant, a subsequent purchaser, challenged the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).

The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (Reference Court) enhanced compensation to Rs. 20,20,11,533/- and awarded substantial rental compensation for illegal occupation from 1972.

(Disqualification of Councillor for Non-Disclosure of Conviction)

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138), the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (Sections 22(1)(d)(i), 22(1)(d)(iii)), and the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (Rule 24-A), alongside the Constitution of India (Articles 19(1)(a), 136) - The petitioner, an elected Councillor, faced disqualification after failing to disclose a prior conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act in her nomination affidavit. She had been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment in 2018, and this conviction was active when she filed her nomination in 2022. Her election was challenged by the first respondent for non-compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements.

Both the trial court and the High Court unseated her, a decision which the petitioner appealed.

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator (Non-Signatory)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(4), 16, 21 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 - The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a High Court order that allowed an application under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed an arbitrator. The appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), had awarded a tender to AGC Networks Ltd. (AGC).

(Interim Measures and Stay of Arbitral Award Enforcement)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Sections 9 and 36 - concerning interim measures to secure an arbitral award and the conditions for staying its enforcement. An Appellant (a Chinese entity) challenged an arbitral award of approximately Rs. 142 Crores under Section 34 and sought a stay under Section 36(2).

The Respondent (an Indian company) subsequently filed a Section 9 application for security.

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement)

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16(c) and 20 : Transfer of Proprety Act Section 7 - Plaintiff (vendee) sought enforcement of a 2006 sale agreement for 4.07 acres, against defendants (vendors) who received a Rs. 30,00,000/- advance. The defendants contended the plaintiff failed to pay the balance by the deadline (16.11.2006), arguing time was essential. They cited plaintiff's delay and a subsequent sale to the 5th respondent.

The plaintiff justified delays by a pending, undisclosed injunction on the property and the contentious sale to the 5th respondent by defendants' relatives.

(Ancestral Property Partition and Limitation)

The Limitation Act, 1963 (Articles 109 & 110); The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Sections 6 & 8); The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937; The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 3) - This judgment addresses two appeals against a common trial court decision. The plaintiff (son) sought partition of ancestral property, challenging a 2002 settlement deed by his father (Kullan) to his sister (first defendant) and subsequent sale deeds. The defendants contended the properties were self-acquired by the father, and the suit was time-barred.

Property Character: The High Court held that Kullan acquired the properties under a 1977 partition deed, after his father Ponnusamy's death (prior to Hindu Succession Act).

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 22 - The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10 - The Limitation Act, 1963, Article 54 - The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - This second appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 10.06.1990. The plaintiff contended that the defendant received full consideration (Rs. 23,500/-) and handed over property possession, but later refused to execute the sale deed. The defendant denied the agreement, claiming forgery and asserting the suit was time-barred.

(Criminal Revision - Attempt to Murder (S.307 IPC))

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 (Attempt to Murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 294(b) (Obscene acts and songs).

This Criminal Revision Case challenged the judgments of the lower courts which convicted the petitioner (husband) under Section 307 IPC. 

The petitioner was found guilty of attacking his wife (PW1) with a knife, causing injuries to her head, shoulder, and breast, stemming from suspicion of fidelity. The trial court sentenced him to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld by the appellate court. 

The petitioner contended that the injuries were simple, warranting conviction only under Section 323 IPC, and that the prosecution failed to prove motive or the attack itself, suggesting the injury resulted from a fall. He also questioned the reliability of a minor witness (PW2).

 
The High Court considered the testimonies of the injured (PW1), her daughter (PW2), neighbours (PW3, PW4), and corroborating medical evidence (PW9) as sufficient proof.

(Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Conviction)

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1). The Court also considered non-compliance with Sections 52A and 50(4) of the Act.

Appellants (A1-A3) were initially sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 each for possessing 101 kg ganja, and 5 years RI and a Rs. 50,000 fine each for conspiracy, with sentences to run concurrently.

(Conviction for Murder and Attempted Murder)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 149, 120B, 307) - Arms Act (Section 27) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313) - Constitution of India (Article 136) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 134) - Appellants Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav (father and son) challenged the High Court's confirmation of their life imprisonment for the murder of Ram Sharan Yadav and 10 years for attempting to murder Sunil Yadav (PW-5), along with sentences under the Arms Act. The motive was the deceased's testimony in an earlier murder case.

The Trial Court convicted, and the High Court upheld it, primarily relying on the sole testimony of the injured complainant (PW-5) after discarding other eyewitnesses due to inconsistencies.

Before the Supreme Court, appellants argued delay in FIR, discrepancies in the place of occurrence, conflict between medical and ocular evidence, non-examination of material witnesses, and the unreliability of a single witness.