Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – The plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the defendants, claiming to be the sister of the first defendant and daughter of Malli Chettiar, seeking a share in the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) to amend the plaint, seeking to correct the year of death of her parents, clarify the relationship with the other defendants, and reduce her claim from a half share to a one-fifth share in the suit property.

The Trial Court dismissed the I.A., stating that the amendments would change the nature and cause of action of the suit. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff filed a Civil Revision Petition.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XVI Rules 10 and 12, Section 151, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – This Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the order of the Additional District Munsif, Thiruvallur, which dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in O.S. No.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – This Civil Revision Petition arises from a suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking declarations regarding the nullity of a sale agreement, power of attorney, and sale deed, along with a permanent injunction against the Defendants. The Plaintiff claims he executed the documents as security for a loan, but the Defendant misused the power of attorney to execute a sale deed.

The 2nd Defendant, in their written statement, referenced a date of August 20, 2007, regarding a payment made to the Plaintiff. Subsequently, the 2nd Defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the date in Paragraph 13 of their written statement from August 20, 2007, to August 23, 2007, to align with the date on Exhibit B.3, a receipt.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 28, 29(1) and 37 – The petitioner, a foreign national, was arrested on 06.09.2023 and charged under the NDPS Act for offences relating to possession and trafficking of psychotropic substances. The prosecution alleges that based on information, various quantities of cocaine, MDMA tablets, and Amphetamine were seized from multiple accused, including the petitioner, during raids conducted in Chennai and Bangalore. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail based on prolonged judicial custody since 06.09.2023, parity with co-accused who were granted bail, and judgments emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the commercial quantity of the seized substances, the petitioner’s foreign nationality, and the risk of absconding, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(e), 11, 29A, 42 – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of where an application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should lie when an arbitral tribunal fails to complete proceedings within the stipulated time. This arises when the tribunal is either constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6) or by the parties themselves under Section 11(2).

Conflicting interpretations exist among High Courts, with some holding that the “Court” under Section 29A is as defined in Section 2(1)(e), irrespective of how the tribunal was formed. Others argue that when the High Court appoints the arbitrator, the extension application should also be filed before the High Court to avoid jurisdictional anomalies.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, 29(1) and 37 – The petitioners, accused of offences under the NDPS Act for allegedly trafficking 243 kilograms of Ganja, sought bail after being in judicial custody since November 18, 2022. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) arrested the petitioners based on specific information, alleging they were transporting Ganja from Andhra Pradesh to Chennai.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that they were falsely implicated, the trial was not progressing despite earlier court directives to expedite it and cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the seized contraband, the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (stringent bail conditions), and the petitioners’ involvement in other NDPS cases.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 74; Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 103(1), 61 r/w 238(a) r/w 103(1) – This criminal appeal was filed by Accused No.5, challenging the order of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, rejecting her bail application. The appellant is accused of offences under Sections 103(1) BNS, 61 r/w 238(a) r/w 103(1) BNS, Section 3(2)(v)(vi) of the SC/ST Act and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in relation to the death of a 16-year-old domestic help. The prosecution alleges that the appellant, a housemaid, instigated and assisted in causing injuries to the victim.

The appellant’s earlier bail applications were rejected, and appeals were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This case involves Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated 01.10.2020, concerning the death of Mr. Krishnamoorthy in a road accident on 06.06.2014. The deceased was hit by two vehicles, a two-wheeler and a compressor lorry. The dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 38 – This case involves an appeal against the judgment passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI), which found the appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct. The charge stemmed from an alleged failure to act with reasonable diligence, resulting in the dismissal of the respondent’s quashing petition in a criminal case.

The initial issue arose when costs imposed by the High Court for quashing the FIR were not deposited on time, leading to the dismissal and subsequent revival of the quashing petition. A complaint was filed with the State Bar Council, but during the proceedings, the complainant submitted an affidavit stating that the matter had been resolved, and he was satisfied with the advocate’s services.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8, 20, and 23; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – This case involves the conviction and sentencing of a Russian national by the Sessions Court for offences under the NDPS Act, specifically related to the recovery of 1.900 kg of charas at the Indo-Nepal border. The prosecution alleged the accused was apprehended after entering Indian territory and found in possession of the contraband. The accused claimed he was falsely implicated after refusing to bribe the police. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, leading to the current appeal.