Search Judgments

Dishonour of Cheque – Restoration of Complaint Dismissed for Default

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138 – This appeal was preferred against the order dated 24.09.2025 of the High Court, which upheld an earlier order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Ghaziabad. The initial order had dismissed Complaint Case No.1125/2022 for default. This complaint had been originally filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning the dishonour of a cheque.

The core grievance of the appellant was the dismissal of their complaint for default by the Trial Court, followed by the High Court’s refusal to restore the same.

Dowry Death and Causing Death of Unborn Child

This appeal concerned Sections 304-B, 316, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with reference to Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The appellant, the mother-in-law, challenged her conviction under Sections 304-B and 316 IPC for the dowry death and causing the death of an unborn child of her daughter-in-law, Alka @ Pooja. The deceased died by suicide on August 3, 2011, approximately eight months after her marriage to the appellant’s son, Rahul, and was 34 weeks pregnant at the time. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for a dowry demand of Rs.

 Police Power of Arrest and Mandatory Notices for Offences Punishable Up to 7 Years

This judgment addresses the interpretation and application of Sections 35(1)(b), 35(3), 35(5), and 35(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023), concerning police power to arrest without a warrant, particularly for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. It also references Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, 1973), pari materia provisions, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court considered two key issues:
1. Whether notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 are mandatorily issued in all cases where an offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

Maintainability of Civil Revision Petition to Strike Off Plaint / Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), Section 79 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order VII Rule 11(d) – Constitution of India, Article 227 – The Civil Revision Petition sought to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.105 of 2024, filed by the respondent (developer) against the petitioner (apartment association) before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruporur.

The respondent’s suit sought a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from illegally occupying and obstructing the usage of common passages and car parks not within the petitioner’s undivided share around the ‘Amalfi Tower’. The respondent claimed to be developing an integrated real estate project and that the petitioner was preventing access to car parks allotted to other tower owners and common areas.

The petitioner had previously filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) seeking directions for the respondent to realign parking slots as per approved plans.

Distinction between Lease and Licence, and Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Lease Deed

 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Sections 105, 108, 111); Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Section 52); Registration Act, 1908; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sections 100, Order I Rule 8, Order VI Rule 17, Order XXII Rule 4A) – Vivekananda Kendra (Appellant/Plaintiff) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of its leasehold rights, recovery of possession, and a mandatory injunction. The dispute originated from a document (Ext. 1) dated 23.03.1998, executed by Late Anima Bose (original owner/Defendant No. 1), which was termed a “lease deed” for a 99-year period, with an annual rent of Rs.

Execution of Arbitral Award and Transferee Pendente Lite

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 34, 36) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXI Rules 58, 102) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 52) – The case involved the execution of an arbitral award obtained by The Cotton Corporation of India (Respondent No. 1) against M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Limited (Respondent No. 2) in 2001 for the recovery of money. The award became final in 2013 following the dismissal of Respondent No.

Adjudication of Contempt under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 Rule 2A, Section 151 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – This appeal arose from the final judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 03.09.2025, which had set aside an order of the trial court dated 07.09.2019 in Title Suit No.5031/2014. The core grievance of the appellants concerned the High Court’s decision to overturn the trial court’s order.

The trial court, in its order dated 07.09.2019, had initiated contempt proceedings against the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC, directing parties to lead evidence and ordering a separate record for the contempt trial, independent of the main Title Suit. However, the trial court did not fully adjudicate the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

Deficiency in Service – Substandard Seeds

This judgment pertains to appeals filed by a producer and distributor of groundnut seeds (appellants) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The respondents, farmers, had filed complaints under Section 12 of the Act, alleging that substandard groundnut seeds (TAG 37A) purchased from the appellants led to significant crop failure.

An investigation committee formed by the Deputy Director (Agriculture) submitted a report dated 09.10.2013. This report noted that 8-10% of the plants were of mixed species, implying defective seeds.

Appointment of Substitute Arbitrator and Effect of Moratorium on Arbitral Proceedings

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 37), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Section 14), Constitution of India (Article 142) – The case involved disputes between appellants and a respondent company (now under liquidation) in an SRA project, leading to arbitration. During the arbitral proceedings, the respondent was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 14 of the IBC, imposing a moratorium.

Despite the moratorium, the arbitral tribunal continued proceedings between 17.03.2022 and 25.08.2022, rejecting a Section 16 challenge to its jurisdiction and passing Section 17 interim orders allowing the sale of flats. Subsequently, liquidation proceedings against the respondent began, and the arbitrator terminated the arbitration.