Search Judgments

(Murder and Attempted Murder)

Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - This appeal challenged Accused No. 1's (appellant) conviction for murder and attempted murder, stemming from a wage dispute. The appellant, armed with a sickle, fatally attacked the deceased and injured an intervening eyewitness (PW1).

The appellant contested the FIR's credibility, citing medical record discrepancies and unreliable eyewitness testimony.

(Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Restoration of Attached Property)

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Sections 4, 8(5), 8(7), 8(8) and its Second Proviso - The Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016: Rules 2(b), 3A (as amended in 2019) - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC); Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Act - This criminal revision petition challenged a Special Court’s order that allowed a bank (second respondent) to restore and sell properties attached under the PMLA. The petitioner’s properties were provisionally attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (first respondent) under the PMLA. The second respondent, a bank, had secured a recovery certificate from the DRT against the petitioner (as guarantor) and a third party (borrower).

The petitioner argued that the Special Court’s order was premature and legally flawed.

(Quashing of Police Summons to an Advocate for a Legal Notice)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 528 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Section 80 - This petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash a police summon issued to an Advocate. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, challenged a summon directing him to appear for an enquiry solely because he had issued a legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on behalf of his client.

The core issue was whether a counsel, merely discharging professional duty by issuing a statutory legal notice, could be compelled to appear before the police for enquiry regarding its contents, absent any complaint or criminal case against the Advocate.

The petitioner contended he acted in his professional capacity, relaying his client's instructions, with no complaint or FIR against him. He argued the police should question the client for factual verification, deeming the summon illegal, arbitrary, and an attempt to intimidate, thus hindering his professional duties.

(Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), (c) - This appeal challenged a High Court order that set aside a trial court's decision and rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant, a real estate developer, alleged a composite commercial arrangement with the respondents involving the sale of a property and post-sale obligations, including a balance payment of Rs. 53 crores, as per an unsigned Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) drafted by the respondents' counsel.

Following the execution of sale deeds, the appellant filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction (to enforce the MoA and recover balance payment or reconvey property) and permanent injunction.

(Enforceability of Foreign Summary Judgment in India)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sections 13, 44A); Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Section 47); Companies Act, 1956 (Sections 194, 210, 211, 215) - The Supreme Court examined the enforceability of a UK High Court's summary judgment in India, which stemmed from an External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) guaranteed by a foreign company (appellant) for an Indian company (respondent). The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had approved this guarantee with a critical condition: "no liability whatsoever will extend to the Indian Company" upon invocation of the guarantee.

The English Court issued a summary judgment, denying the respondent leave to defend. The respondent had raised substantial defences, including oral agreements and statutory financial documents (Balance Sheets, Board Minutes), asserting no liability.

(Abetment of Suicide and Sexual Offences)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 305, 328 - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) read with 6(1), Section 17 - Appellants A1 and A2 challenged their conviction for abetment of suicide (IPC 305) and sexual assault under POCSO. A1 was accused of sexually assaulting A2's minor daughter and administering sedatives, while A2, the victim's mother, allegedly abetted and instigated the victim's suicide by hanging.

The High Court found significant flaws in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. A1's extra-judicial confession was deemed unreliable as the statement was missing.

(Murder (Circumstantial Evidence Case)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 (Murder) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 161(1), 207, 313 - This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence: motive (a loan dispute), the appellant and deceased being last seen together, and recovery of a knife and deceased's belongings from the appellant. 

The trial court convicted the appellant, imposing a life sentence. The appellate court, however, found that while a homicidal death was established, the prosecution failed to prove motive beyond a loan transaction, lacking clear evidence of enmity leading to murder.

 
The 'last seen' witnesses (PW8, PW9, PW13) were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies, improbable coincidences, belated dispatch of statements to the Magistrate (after arrest), and lack of corroboration.

(Summoning of Court Witnesses and Production of Documents in a Corruption Case)

Cr.P.C. Sections 91, 161, 173, 207, 243, 311; BNSS Section 348; Indian Evidence Act Sections 65B, 125, 154, 165; IPC Sections 120B, 409, 467, 471, 477A; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The petitioners, Mr. Dayanidhi Maran and Mr. Kannan, challenged a Trial Court order denying their request to summon specific Court witnesses and produce key documents in a corruption case (C.C.

(Amendment of Shipping Bills under DFIA Scheme)

The Customs Act, 1962 Section 149 - The appeals by the Commissioner of Customs challenged the CESTAT's order permitting amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue involved changing the scheme code from 'free shipping' (00) to 'Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme' (26) after goods had been exported.

The respondent had valid DFIA licenses, but their Customs Broker inadvertently entered code '00' in the shipping bills. Post-export, the respondent requested this amendment.

(Revocation of Probate for Will Obtained by Concealment and Non-Citation of Interested Parties)

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 263, 276, 283, 294), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68), and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 3) - The appellants challenged a High Court order that restored a probate of an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976, which the District Court had initially revoked. The Will was propounded by Respondent 1, daughter of the testator, Eswaramurthy Gounder, 26 years after his death, claiming the suit properties.

Crucially, the testator had sold the properties in 1976, shortly after the alleged Will, and the appellants acquired them from these transferees in 1997, before the probate petition in 2009. Respondent 1 failed to implead her two brothers/their legal heirs and the appellants as parties in the probate proceedings and concealed the prior sale of the properties by the testator.