Search Judgments

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Section 9(m) r/w 10 and Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 506(i) – This Criminal Appeal contests a judgment from the Special Court for POCSO Act cases in Cuddalore, which convicted the appellant for offences relating to sexual assault and criminal intimidation against two minor girls.

The prosecution’s case was that the appellant committed sexual offences against two 8-year-old girls in a sugarcane field. The appellant allegedly enticed them with money and then exposed himself, touched their private parts, and fondled their breasts. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 307 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Section 5(m)(l) r/w 6 – This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant/A1 by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, for offences under Section 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had an illicit relationship with A2 (acquitted by the trial court) and sexually assaulted the minor victim (A2’s daughter) and caused fractures to her legs.

The victim’s father (PW2) filed a complaint, leading to charges under Sections 324, 326, and 376 of the IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 29(5) and 33 – This case involves Ordinary Side Appeals (OSAs) against a single judge’s order granting temporary injunctions in favor of the applicants, restraining the respondents from infringing the trademarks “ORBIT” and “ORBIT/ADL ORBIT.” The applicants, manufacturers of cables and wires, are the registered proprietors of these trademarks. The single judge found a prima facie case of infringement, balance of convenience favoring the applicants, and potential irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted.

The respondents argued that the applicants acquiesced to their continuous use of the mark and that they use “ORBIT” only as a trading name, not as a product name, and therefore it does not infringe on the applicant’s trade mark. They also claimed that the applicants previously litigated the matter in Delhi High Court without seeking to restrain the use of the trade name.

The Companies Act, 2013 Sections 448 & 451; The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471 & 120B – This judgment addresses appeals against a High Court order that dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The complainant had alleged offences under Sections 448 & 451 of the Companies Act, 2013, and several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, including Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471 & 120B. The Special Court for Economic Offences at Hyderabad had taken cognizance of these offenses. The appellants argued that the dispute was civil in nature and that the cognizance of offences involving fraud under the Companies Act was barred by Section 212(6) of the Act in the absence of a complaint by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or other authorized agency.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – This case involves an appeal against a divorce decree granted by the Family Court at Dharmapuri. The original petition was filed by the husband (respondent in the appeal) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage based on cruelty. The husband argued that the wife (appellant) had previously filed a divorce petition making false allegations against him, which constituted cruelty. The wife, in her defense, alleged abandonment and misconduct on the part of the husband.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves a challenge by the Corporation of Chennai to an arbitral award dated 31.05.2012, concerning a contract for the construction of a flyover near Perambur Railway Station, awarded to the first respondent.

The project faced significant delays and alterations, including the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and changes in seismic zone requirements, ultimately leading to the termination of the contract by the Corporation in 2008. The first respondent filed claims for compensation, which were referred to arbitration.

The Arbitral Tribunal awarded a net amount of Rs.

Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016 – Rule 17(1) – The petitioner, appointed as a Tutor under Rule 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016, sought inclusion in a special qualifying examination for regularizing services, as per a notification issued by the Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB). The petitioner’s name was initially omitted from the list of eligible candidates, despite others similarly appointed being included.

The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to include her Tamil Nadu Medical Council Registration Number along with the other medical officers mentioned in the MRB notification.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that upon verification, it was found that the petitioner was appointed under the same act and is working for more than 4 years.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 2(1B), 2(14), 2(47), 28, 45(1), 47 – The appeals arose from a High Court judgment that remanded the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) to determine whether shares held in an amalgamating company were stock-in-trade or capital assets. The appellants, investment companies of the Jindal Group, claimed exemption under Section 47(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act), arguing that the receipt of shares in the amalgamated company was a transfer of capital assets. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, treating the shares as stock-in-trade and taxing the value of shares received as business income under Section 28 of the I.T.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Section 482 – This case involves appeals against judgments by the High Court of Delhi concerning the quashing of complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complaints were initiated by Sumit Bansal (complainant) against M/s. MGI Developers and Promoters and its proprietor, Manoj Goyal (respondents), due to the dishonor of multiple cheques issued for the refund of a sale consideration and appreciation amount, related to a failed property transaction. The High Court quashed one complaint, finding that two complaints couldn’t exist for the same debt.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) – This criminal appeal challenges the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Respondent No. 2, who is accused of offenses under Sections of the BNSS and the POCSO Act, related to the sexual assault and kidnapping of a minor. The FIR was registered based on allegations that the accused repeatedly established physical relations with the minor victim by threatening her with a firearm, and also committed gang-rape. The appellant argued that the High Court overlooked the seriousness of the charges, the victim’s statements, and the medico-legal evidence.