Search Judgments

Trademarks Act, 1999 – Section 91 – This appeal was filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, challenging the order of the 1st respondent (dated 09.05.2025) and seeking reinstatement of the appellant’s trademark registration (Certificate No.400179 dated 15.07.2005) for the trademark “SAKTHI” used on food products. The appellant had obtained registration for the mark in 2005, which was subsequently renewed.

In 2023, the appellant discovered that its registration had been unilaterally cancelled by the 1st respondent. This cancellation occurred without providing any prior notice or opportunity to be heard.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 and 201 & Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 164 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court decision that reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellants. The initial investigation, stemming from a missing person complaint, led to the appellants’ arrest, the discovery of the victim’s body, and the recovery of potential evidence. The High Court found the appellants guilty of murder (Section 302 of the IPC) and causing the disappearance of evidence (Section 201 of the IPC), based on circumstantial evidence including the last seen theory, recovery of the weapon, and the confessional statement.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, focusing on the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the powers of the Appellate Court in appeals against acquittal.

Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016, Railways Act, 1989 – Section 20-F(6) – This case concerns the acquisition of land for a Special Rail Project in Chhattisgarh and challenges the setting aside of a compensation award. The High Court had set aside the initial award and subsequent arbitral award based on allegations of excessive compensation paid to some landowners in collusion with officials. The appellant, another landowner, was also affected by this decision, despite not being implicated in the allegations of collusion or unjust enrichment.

The Railways had specifically targeted a few landowners and government officials, initiating criminal proceedings and filing writ petitions against them.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – The petitioner contested an arbitral award, claiming a reconstitution deed, which allegedly showed his resignation from a partnership firm (“S J Infra”), was fabricated. The petitioner claimed that blank, signed stamp papers were misused to create the deed. He sought a declaration that the deed was invalid and demanded 50% of the firm’s profits from June 1, 2019, onwards.

The respondents argued the petitioner knowingly signed the deed and was a dormant partner.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 2(k), 10(1), and 12 – The case concerns a dispute between M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited (Management) and Aurangabad Mazdoor Union (Union) regarding contract labourers. The Union claimed that the labour contracts were a sham to deny workers equal wages and benefits. The Union approached the Conciliation Officer directly, leading to a failure report and subsequent reference of the industrial dispute to the Industrial Court, Aurangabad. The Management challenged this reference, arguing that the Union did not serve a charter of demands first.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 175 & 173 –  Appeal against a High Court order regarding the interpretation of Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The appellant alleged sexual assault by police officers and sought an FIR registration. The Magistrate called for a report under Section 175(4) of BNSS. The Single Judge directed registration of FIR, the Division Bench reversed it and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 62, 64, 65, 74 and Registration Act, 1908 – Section 57(5) – This Second Appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding property in Krishnagiri. The plaintiffs claimed ownership through their father, Eswarappa Gounder, based on ancestral oral partition and subsequent transactions. The defendant contested this, asserting ownership through a later sale deed.

The Trial Court partially decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs but excluded property covered by a sale deed in favor of the defendant.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 263; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 5; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 53; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 12 – This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application (A.No. 885 of 2022) seeking the revocation of a probate granted in O.P.No. 638 of 2008. The probate concerned a Will executed by Meena Bai, who had allegedly adopted the second respondent, P.

Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 3(g), 3(r), 5, 6, 7, 37, 54, 83, 85; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – This judgment addresses the jurisdictional reach of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995, specifically concerning a dispute over a property claimed to be a ‘waqf by user’ where the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent obstruction of prayers. The appellants (defendants) argued that the property was not a registered waqf or included in the ‘list of auqaf’, thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The respondent (plaintiff) contended that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine if a property is a waqf, even without Gazette notification or registration, based on Section 83 of the Act and ‘waqf by user’ under Section 3(r)(i).

The court analyzed conflicting opinions from previous coordinate benches, particularly concerning the interpretation of Section 83 and its impact on the jurisdiction of civil courts, referring to various judgements like Ramesh Gobindram v.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – This  Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the order of the Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai, which allowed the Plaintiffs’ application (I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.53 of 2022) to amend their plaint. The Plaintiffs sought to include a prayer for delivery of possession after demolishing the existing superstructure on the suit property.

The Revision Petitioners/Defendants argued that the amendment was barred by limitation, as they had stated in their written statement filed in 2015 that they had already constructed a house with necessary permissions. The Plaintiffs, aware of this, initially described the suit property as a vacant site and are now attempting to introduce a new claim for mandatory injunction, which is allegedly time-barred.