Search Judgments

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 11 and 23; The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) ; The Constitution of India Article 300-A – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order regarding land acquisition for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). The appellants, landowners whose lands were acquired in 2003, challenged the compensation awarded in 2019, arguing it should reflect the current market value, not the value at the time of the initial notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had shifted the date of the preliminary notification to determine compensation based on a later guideline value. The High Court quashed the award, stating that only the High Court or Supreme Court could shift the notification date, not the SLAO.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 3, 4, 45, 50, 24 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323, 34, 120-B, 465, 471 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 & 142

Bail under PMLA – Section 45 Twin Conditions – The Supreme Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” and that the rigors of Section 45 PMLA can be relaxed in cases of prolonged incarceration where trial is unlikely to conclude soon, emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21.

Foundational Facts for PMLA Offence (Section 24) – Prosecution must prima facie establish: (i) criminal activity related to a scheduled offence, (ii) property derived from such activity (proceeds of crime), and (iii) the accused’s involvement in any process connected to such proceeds. The onus then shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption.

Admissibility of Statements under Section 50 PMLA – The Court noted that statements recorded while in custody, even in a different ECIR, could be challenged as inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Constitution of India Article 21 and 226; Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHR Act) Section 2(1)(d) – This case concerns alleged fake encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022, where 56 people died and 145 were injured. An appeal was filed against a judgment dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking investigation into these encounters, claiming violation of guidelines established in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2014) 10 SCC 635 (PUCL).

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 – Section 1(3)(a), 2(17), 10, 11, 32(v)(a) and (c); Factories Act, 1948 – Section 2(m); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(2), 22- The case concerns the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 to the workmen employed by Workshop for Rehabilitation and Training of the Handicapped Trust’ (WORTH), a trust engaged in both charitable activities and commercial manufacturing.

The WORTH Trust Workers Union demanded bonus and ex-gratia for the year 1996-97, leading to an industrial dispute referred to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the workmen, awarding a bonus of 8.33% on their annual earnings. The High Court upheld the award, with a modification allowing for the deduction of the already paid ex-gratia amount from the bonus.

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 (Dishonour of Cheque): To establish an offence under Section 138, the mandatory requirement of legal notice service to the drawer is crucial. Mere dispatch of notice is insufficient; proof of delivery or deemed service (as per Section 27 of General Clauses Act) is essential.
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 139 (Presumption): While Section 139 raises a presumption that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, this presumption is rebuttable. The accused can rebut it by bringing probable facts and circumstances on record, even without stepping into the witness box.
• Cheque issued for Security: A cheque issued purely for security purposes, and not for the discharge of a present legally enforceable debt or liability, may not attract the penal provisions of Section 138 if dishonoured.
• Contradictory Evidence & Burden of Proof: Significant contradictions in the complainant’s testimony regarding the transaction, notice service, and the nature of the cheque (debt vs. security) weaken the prosecution’s case and shift the burden to the complainant to prove the legally enforceable debt.
• Appellate Court’s Power: An appellate court can reverse a trial court’s conviction if the trial court’s findings are perverse or based on a misappreciation of law and facts, especially regarding the crucial aspect of notice service and the nature of the debt.

• Perversity in Appellate Judgments: An appellate court’s reversal of a conviction is perverse if it fails to consider crucial aspects like the accused’s conduct in evading notice, their appearance on summons at the same address, and the purpose of the NI Act, which is to ensure the sanctity of cheques.

Final Decision:    The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the acquittal judgment of the Sessions Court and restoring the conviction pronounced by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

The Companies Act, 2013 — Section 185 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 14 – The Supreme Court examined applications by allottees seeking cancellation of bail granted to Satinder Singh Bhasin, former Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), by its order dated 06.11.2019 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019. The bail was conditional on, inter alia, depositing Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 – This case involves two Motor Accident Claims Original Petitions (MCOPs) filed by a father (Periyasamy) and son (Sozhapandiyan) duo who sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident. The accident occurred when their motorcycle was hit from behind by another motorcycle ridden by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent (insurance company). The father and son claimed compensation for their injuries, medical expenses, and loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, 1996) – Sections 31(7)(a), 34, 37; Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 74; Usurious Loans Act, 1918; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 80 – The Supreme Court heard an appeal concerning an arbitral award arising from a bill discounting facility where the appellant defaulted on payments. The arbitral tribunal, upheld by the High Court, directed the appellant to pay the respondent with interest at 36% p.a. with monthly rests, as stipulated in their commercial agreement.

The appellant challenged this, arguing the 36% interest was penal under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, against public policy per Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and excessive under Section 31(7)(a) of the Act, 1996.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138/141 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Sections 14, 94, 96 and 101 – This judgment addresses a batch of appeals and a writ petition concerning whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, should be stayed due to the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, when personal insolvency proceedings under Section 94 IBC are initiated. The appellants/petitioners argued that the Section 96 IBC moratorium should halt the Section 138 NI Act proceedings.

The Court considered arguments from both sides, including the intent of the IBC to provide a structured debt resolution framework versus the purpose of Section 138 NI Act to enhance the credibility of cheques and penalize dishonor. The respondents contended that the moratorium applies to debt recovery and not criminal liability under the NI Act.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Just Compensation – Personal and Living Expenses: When calculating compensation for death in motor accident cases, a deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is mandatory, typically one-third where there are 2 to 3 dependent family members, as established in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Compensation for Self-Employed Persons – Future Prospects: Even for self-employed individuals, addition towards future prospects is a permissible component of compensation.