Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 166, 173 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 279, 304A – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenged an order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerning a fatal accident. On July 14, 2017, the deceased, Saleem, was riding his two-wheeler when it was struck by a car. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 35,49,000 in compensation, attributing full negligence to the car driver.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Section 166. Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 279, 337 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, where the claimant sought compensation under the MVA for injuries from a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 20,11,555/-.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order I Rule 10(2); Constitution of India – Article 227; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – The plaintiff initiated a money recovery suit against the first defendant, premised on a dishonoured cheque (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881). The first defendant contested the claim, alleging the cheque’s fraudulent creation and asserting that his wife, Meena, was the proprietor of M/s. Sri Shastivel Garments, while he was only an authorized signatory. Given this defence, the plaintiff moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to implead Meena as the second defendant, contending her proprietorship of the business made her a necessary party for proper adjudication.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VIII Rule 9 – The defendant challenged the Sub Court’s dismissal of their petition seeking leave to file an Additional Written Statement in a suit for possession. The plaintiff claimed the defendant sold the property and then became a tenant, failing to pay rent. The defendant’s original written statement asserted the sale agreement was security for a Rs. 95,000 loan, offering to repay with 12% interest from October 4, 2015.

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act No. XL of 1998) – Section 128(1)(b) and 128(2) – The petitioner sought mandamus against the Greater Chennai Corporation for the removal of an illegal religious structure (Mother Velankanni shrine) obstructing his property’s entrance and a public pathway. The shrine, with an illegal electricity connection, was erected on a public road, causing inconvenience. Despite the petitioner’s complaint, no action was initially taken.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Order 41 Rule 27 – The Specific Relief Act, 1963 – This Second Appeal challenged the first appellate court’s reversal of a specific performance decree. The plaintiff’s deceased son had an agreement of sale with the defendant, paying Rs. 25,000 as advance for a property. Following his death, the plaintiff, as legal heir, sought specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 7, 8, and 29; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 506(ii); Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) – Section 3(1)(w)(i) r/w 3(2)(va); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 164, 207, 313.

This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence by the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, for offences including sexual assault and criminal intimidation. The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old minor, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and was cared for by her grandparents. The incident involved the accused, a Tractor driver from a Backward Community, pulling the victim into a bathroom and sexually assaulting her, followed by threats to prevent reporting.

The appellant’s counsel argued for setting aside the conviction, citing significant delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and recording the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which allegedly led to tutoring.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Section 72(2), 528 – The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act Section 15A – The judgment concerns a petition challenging a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against A3, a suspended police officer, in an honour killing case. The case involves grave offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act).

A3 argued the NBW was issued “straight away” without summons, despite her prior cooperation and non-arrest during investigation. She sought a direction for the Trial Court to immediately consider her recall application upon surrender.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 218, 219, 220, and 223, and Section 120B – The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 161 – The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court judgment on a criminal reference concerning the registration and clubbing of First Information Reports (FIRs) in a large-scale cheating and criminal conspiracy case involving numerous investors. The High Court had ruled that each deposit by an investor constituted a separate transaction, mandating individual FIRs.

The Court analyzed provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly Sections 218, 219, 220, and 223, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It reviewed the principles governing “same transaction,” emphasizing “unity of purpose and design,” “proximity of time and place,” and “continuity of action” for clubbing offenses.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – Sections 138 and 139- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 294(b), 409, 448, 420, 506(ii) – The petitioners challenged their conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act for cheque dishonour, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The complaint alleged they took personal loans and issued cheques that bounced.

The petitioners argued they were only guarantors for a loan taken by D.W.1 (Jeeva), providing blank cheques as security, and thus had no personal legally enforceable debt. Their defence was supported by D.W.1’s testimony and an FIR lodged by her against the complainant, alleging misuse of cheques and threats.