Search Judgments

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – This writ petition was filed to declare the land acquisition proceedings related to land in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, under Award No. 3/1995, dated 20.11.1995, as lapsed according to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The petitioners, owners of the land, argued that possession was not taken by the authorities, and compensation was not paid. The respondents claimed compensation was paid and deposited in civil court according to the old Act, and challenged the petition based on prior litigations.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 106; Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21; Banking Regulations Act, 1949 – M/s.V-Mart Retail Limited, a publicly listed company, sought to de-freeze its HDFC Bank account, which was fully frozen by the Cyber Crime Police (R2) following a cyber fraud complaint. The company argued its account, used for customer payments, was unjustifiably frozen without prior notice or opportunity, violating natural justice and its fundamental rights. It further contended the blanket freeze was ultra vires Section 106 BNSS, which mandates judicial oversight and proportionate measures.

The police justified the action by stating Rs.4,194/- from a cyber fraud was traced to the petitioner’s account, and it was linked to 172 other NCRP complaints involving a total disputed amount of Rs.3,03,998/-.

The Contempts of Court Act, 1971, Section 11 – This Contempt Petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of a prior order directing the removal of prawn farms violating license conditions and harming the ecosystem in Thiruvarur District, governed by the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. Inspections revealed that many farms operated without licenses or violated conditions, leading to closures. The petitioner argued that illegal ponds and excessive bore wells caused water salinity, implicating authorities. An Advocate Commissioner’s report confirmed valid licenses for some farms, while others ceased operations.

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975

Case Overview: These appeals arose from a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning allegations of illegal construction and environmental violations by Ambience Developers in relation to the Ambience Lagoon project. The central issue was whether the developers had illegally diverted land originally intended for a residential colony to construct a commercial complex, and whether this violated statutory regulations and the rights of apartment owners.

High Court’s Findings: The High Court found that the developers, in collusion with state authorities, had fraudulently reduced the residential area and illegally constructed a commercial complex. The High Court quashed delicensing orders and directed a CBI investigation.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 142(2)(a) – This case concerns the territorial jurisdiction for filing complaints related to cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant filed complaints in Mangalore after cheques issued by the respondent were dishonored in Mumbai. The Magistrate returned the complaints, stating lack of jurisdiction as the drawee bank was in Mumbai. The High Court upheld this decision.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – The case involves a dispute over the illegal cessation of operations at a mill. The primary issue is determining who is responsible for compensating the workers: the Management (lessor) or the lessee operating the mill. The Management argued that the lessee was responsible for the mill’s operations and the workers’ salaries, while the lessee claimed that the closure was due to the lessor’s fault, making the Management liable.

The Industrial Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the workmen, holding the Management liable for the consequences of the closure.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 152 and Order XX Rule 18; Hindu Succession Act 1956 Section 16 – This case involves a revision petition challenging the rejection of applications filed under Section 152 of the CPC to amend a preliminary decree in a partition suit (O.S.No.310 of 2000). The petitioners (defendants 2 to 4) sought to modify the decree, arguing that, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, the first plaintiff is entitled to only 1/4th share in the suit properties, with the remaining 1/4th share belonging jointly to them. They contend that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 grants daughters coparcenary rights retrospectively from 1956.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(4) – This appeal addresses whether the High Court should have allowed the appellant’s application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate. The appellant had a works contract with a respondent, which led to disputes and subsequent arbitration proceedings.

The statutory 12-month period for making the award, extendable by another 6 months with mutual consent, was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court had previously ordered the exclusion of the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 when computing limitation periods under Section 29A of the Act.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 120-B R/w 201, 409, 420, 468, And 471 –  The case involves two sisters, daughters of Farouk Irani, the former Managing Director of First Leasing Company of India Ltd. (FLCIL). The CBI investigated FLCIL, alleging manipulation of accounts and diversion of public deposits, implicating the sisters under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), 471 (using forged documents), and 477A (falsification of accounts).

The prosecution’s case alleges that the sisters invested in FLCIL through an internal account called “FACTORS,” receiving higher interest rates and later withdrawing their investments, which were then transferred to a family trust benefiting their parents.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302/34, 307/34, and 504 – This appeal contests a High Court judgment affirming the conviction of Anjani Singh under Sections 302, 307, and 504 of the IPC, related to a shooting incident during a village function. The prosecution alleged that Anjani, along with his brother Ravindra (since deceased) and father Rishabh Dev Singh (acquitted by the High Court), opened fire, resulting in two deaths and several injuries.

The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of PW-1, the informant who sustained minor injuries. However, other injured witnesses claimed the lights went out during the shooting, hindering identification of the shooters.