Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 01.07.2019. The dispute arose between M/s. NRP Projects Private Limited (NRP), the claimant, and M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL), the respondent, concerning a contract for the design, procurement, and erection of tankages.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 and Section 71; Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – This case concerns a Testamentary Original Suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed for the estate of the deceased, Mrs. B.Chengalvalli Thayaramma. The defendants, the granddaughters of the testatrix, contested the validity of the Will, claiming it was fabricated, the testatrix was not of sound mind, and the Will lacked proper attestation. The plaintiffs, who are the beneficiaries of the properties of the deceased testatrix, contended that the Will was genuine and should be probated.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 482 ; The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B – This Quash Petition was filed by the petitioners (A1 & A2) in C.C.No.4138 of 2020, who were facing trial for offences under Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originated from a complaint filed by M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited, alleging that the petitioners, in conspiracy with others, misappropriated funds and cheated the company in a land transaction.

The prosecution’s case was that the petitioners, acting as land brokers, sold company land at a lower price, causing a loss, and failed to purchase alternate land as agreed. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioners after investigation.

Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (SEZ Act) – Section 30; Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 – Rule 47(3); Customs Act, 1962 – Section 12, 25; Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Finance Act, 2010 – This case involves Adani Power Limited (appellant) challenging the levy of customs duty on electrical energy generated in its Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The appellant argued that no customs duty was leviable, seeking a refund of deposited amounts. The Gujarat High Court initially ruled in favor of the appellant in 2015, but later declined to extend the relief to subsequent periods, leading to the current appeal.

The Supreme Court addressed key issues: the scope of the 2015 High Court decision, changes in the statutory position, the need for a fresh challenge to subsequent notifications, and the obligation of coordinate benches to adhere to settled law.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 420, 34, 294(b), and 506(1) – This case involves a petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner’s father, along with another individual, collected money from prospective land buyers with the promise of selling plots but failed to do so.

The petitioner argued that a civil dispute over the partition of the subject property arose after his father’s death, preventing the conveyance of the plots. He also stated that the subject lands are still available for disposal.

Indian Penal Code (IPC); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Arms Act; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act)

• Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

Summary:

The Supreme Court heard appeals against the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail to several individuals accused in FIR No. 59 of 2020, related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. The accused face charges under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and PDPP Act. The prosecution alleges a pre-planned conspiracy culminating in violence against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302/34, 307/34, and 504 – This appeal contests a High Court judgment affirming the conviction of Anjani Singh under Sections 302, 307, and 504 of the IPC, related to a shooting incident during a village function. The prosecution alleged that Anjani, along with his brother Ravindra (since deceased) and father Rishabh Dev Singh (acquitted by the High Court), opened fire, resulting in two deaths and several injuries.

The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of PW-1, the informant who sustained minor injuries. However, other injured witnesses claimed the lights went out during the shooting, hindering identification of the shooters.

Civil Procedue Code (1908) Order 1 Rule 10, Companies Act, 1956 – Part IX – The case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that overturned a lower court’s decision to implead the appellant, NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., as a defendant in a suit filed by the respondents, Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Priyalata Keshrichand Shah, for the recovery of service charges from M/s Kishore Engineering Company.

The appellant sought impleadment, claiming to be the successor of respondent No. 3, M/s Kishore Engineering Company, and thus a necessary party.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16(c)  – This case concerns an appeal against a Delhi High Court order that overturned a Trial Court decree for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell. The appellant (plaintiff) sought specific performance of an agreement to purchase property from the respondents (defendants). The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The key issues revolved around the appellant’s readiness and willingness to fulfill their part of the contract, and whether granting specific performance was an equitable remedy given the circumstances and passage of time.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case involves two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the award passed by the MACT (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Additional District Court, Hosur, in M.C.O.P.No. 390 of 2017. The claim was initially filed by P.Suresh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. He later died during the pendency of the petition, and his legal representatives were brought on record, amending the claim to seek compensation for death.