Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Section 27; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 363 and 366; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) – Section 94 – The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court judgment granting bail to Respondent No.1, who was accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court while granting bail, issued directions mandating age determination tests in all cases involving the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court had the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC to issue such directives.

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 439 CrPC, Section 27 of POCSO Act, Section 94 of JJ Act and relevant precedents, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is limited to adjudicating bail matters and not to issuing broad directions.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 80 and Section 100 – This case involves a dispute over a pathway (“Nadugani Thadam”) providing access to the plaintiff’s (Lower Victoria Estate owner) property, situated within a reserve forest. The pathway, the only access to the estate, was damaged by floods in 1991, leading the plaintiff to seek its renovation. The Government (Forest Department) contested the claim, arguing the land was a protected forest, and the plaintiff had no right to renovate or use vehicles within it, citing the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The Trial Court decreed the suit partly, declaring the plaintiff’s right to use the pathway and permitting renovation at their cost.

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 3; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 2(k) and Section 15 and Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 61(2), 249, 196 and 113(2)(b) – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed to challenge the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner (A6) in Cr.M.P.No.3758 of 2025.

The case originated from a complaint about a petrol bomb attack on a theatre. The petitioner was implicated based on allegations that he harboured the accused involved in the bombing, knowing their intentions, and provided financial assistance. The petitioner was charged under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – This case involves an appeal against the dismissal of a divorce petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty.

The appellant alleged that the respondent had been cruel to him by having relationships with other individuals, being hysterical, over possessive, abusive, and not adhering to psychiatric treatment. The respondent refuted these allegations, stating that the appellant was falsely imputing her character and neglecting her and their child.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that the appellant failed to prove the alleged acts of cruelty.

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Order 41 Rule 31 and Section 100 – This second appeal arises from a dispute over property rights. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of title to a property (the ‘B’ schedule property), a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with their possession, and a mandatory injunction to restore a pipeline. The plaintiffs claimed the ‘B’ schedule property, a kitchen, was part of their ancestral property and that the defendants were attempting to encroach upon it. The defendants contended that the ‘B’ schedule property was a vacant site allotted to the plaintiffs’ father in a partition deed and that they had purchased it lawfully.

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.

Civil Procedure Code – Order VII Rule 11; Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 – Section 1(2), 2(1)(l); Inland Vessels Act, 1917 – The defendant filed two applications: one to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and another to vacate the vessel’s arrest order, arguing that the vessel is beyond the Admiralty Act’s purview because it’s a broken vessel registered under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, and there’s no conclusive contract.

The plaintiff, a ship repairer, filed a suit claiming Rs. 60 lakhs for repair works done on the defendant’s vessel based on a work order. The vessel was arrested under court order.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – This case involves two appeals arising from separate original suits related to the same property. The first suit (5A of 1992) was filed by Gopal against Kishorilal for declaration, injunction, and specific performance of a purchase agreement. During the suit’s pendency, Kishorilal sold the property to Brajmohan and Manoj. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Gopal.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) – Section 2(y) and Article 41, 14 & 21 of Constitution of India – The case concerns an appeal against the denial of employment to the appellant, who applied for the post of Management Trainee in Coal India Limited (CIL) under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category in 2019. Despite being selected for the interview, she was declared unfit during the Initial Medical Examination (IME) due to visual disability and residuary partial hemiparesis.

The Single Judge initially ruled in favor of the appellant, directing CIL to consider her candidature in the 2023 recruitment process from the IME stage. However, the Division Bench overturned this decision, citing the expiry of the panel.

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 21, 22 – This case involves a dispute among the family members of the deceased, Dr. Mahendra Prasad, regarding the maintainability of a maintenance petition filed by his daughter-in-law, Geeta Sharma (Respondent No. 1), under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Geeta Sharma, the wife of Ranjit Sharma (son of Dr.