Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) r/w Section 7 – The applicant/plaintiff, a director in a hospitality company and a public figure, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the first defendant, a costume designer, from publishing defamatory material. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, under the guise of a professional association, deceitfully induced him into a relationship and later posted defamatory content online, causing damage to his reputation and business. The first defendant countered, claiming she married the plaintiff, faced abuse, and was forced to undergo abortions. She argued that the plaintiff concealed his existing marriage and that the publications were to expose his actions after he deserted her.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 366, 428; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302, 448; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – The case involves a reference for confirmation of death sentences awarded to A1 for the murder of two individuals and an appeal filed by A1 against the conviction and sentence. The prosecution alleged that A1 committed the murders due to caste bias, as his brother was in love with a woman from a Scheduled Caste community. The trial court convicted A1 under Section 302 of the IPC (two counts) and Section 448 of IPC. Also trialed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, sentencing him to death for the murders and imprisonment for house trespass.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – The Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 Rule 2(1)(g), 4(2)(vi) ; The Constitution of India Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A(g) – Swacch Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging various constructions and recreational activities around Futala Lake, Nagpur. The appellant contended that installations like the Musical Fountain, Viewer’s Gallery, Parking Plaza, and an artificial Banyan Tree violated the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. They argued the lake was a ‘wetland’ under Rule 2(1)(g) and subject to prohibitions, especially Rule 4(2)(vi) against permanent structures, also invoking Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A(g) of the Constitution for environmental protection and the public trust doctrine.

Respondents asserted that all projects had competent authority permissions.

(Quashing of Cheating Proceedings)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 406, 415, 420) - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482) - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 138) - This appeal challenged a High Court order that partly quashed criminal proceedings against a movie producer (appellant). The High Court had quashed charges under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) but upheld charges under Section 420 IPC (cheating).

The prosecution alleged the appellant induced the complainant to invest in a movie project by promising profit shares. Later, post-dated cheques for the principal amount were dishonoured.

(Interim Stay on Filing Charge Sheet in Fraud and Forgery Case)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) of Section 193(3) and the scope of a High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in ongoing criminal investigations. The appeal challenged an interim order of the Allahabad High Court that allowed investigation to proceed but restrained the Investigating Officer from filing a police report (charge sheet) under Section 193(3) BNSS. This order was passed in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2025, which alleged fraud, forgery, and illegal sale of properties belonging to the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India by unauthorized individuals, a recurring issue with multiple civil and criminal cases pending.

(Membership for Oppression and Mismanagement Petitions)

Companies Act, 1956, Sections 2(27), 41, 397, 398, 399 - This appeal considered if a person, without formal entry in the register of members, could be deemed a "member" to invoke Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent invested substantially in the appellant company, was appointed Managing Director, and his trading concern's name was incorporated into the hospital. Disputes arose over the non-issuance of share certificates, leading the respondent to file oppression and mismanagement petitions. Appellants argued the respondent lacked locus standi as he was not a "member" under Section 41.

(Specific Performance and Fraudulent Sale Agreement)

This judgment addresses an appeal concerning the specific performance of a sale agreement and a cross-objection against the refund of an advance amount.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963, pertaining to specific performance and alternative reliefs, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VI Rule 2, Order VII Rule 11), regarding material facts and pleadings.

The plaintiff (appellant) sought specific performance of a sale agreement (Ex.A1) dated 29.03.2019, claiming payment of Rs.27,50,000/- as prior loans and Rs.7,50,000/- on the agreement date, totaling Rs.35,00,000/-.

The defendant (cross-objector), the plaintiff's sister's estranged husband, denied executing Ex.A1, contending it was fraudulently created using blank signed stamp papers given for a prior loan.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act) – Section 14-A(1) & 3(2)(v); Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (SC/ST (POA) Rules) – Rule 7(2) & 7(2-A); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, 109; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 173, 167, 207, 468 – The appellants, accused in a murder case, challenged the Special Court’s dismissal of their discharge petitions. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to murder P.K. Muthukumar, a Scheduled Caste advocate, due to his involvement in an earlier murder case involving his brother.

The appellants sought discharge contending the final report was filed beyond the stipulated 60 days without a written explanation, violating Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, arguing this invalidated the Special Court’s cognizance.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96, Order XXX Rule 10; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA) – Sections 20, 118(a) – This First Appeal challenged a trial court’s decree for Rs.12,00,000/-, awarded to the plaintiff based on a dishonoured cheque. The plaintiff claimed the amount was a hand loan, and the cheque was issued for its repayment. The defendant denied the loan, alleging misuse of a signed blank cheque given for business purposes (Sri Balaji Traders) and asserting a lack of consideration, material alteration, and non-joinder of the firm.

The trial court, noting the defendant’s admission of handing over signed blank cheques, invoked the presumption under Section 118(a) of NIA, finding it unrebutted.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 482 ; The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B – This Quash Petition was filed by the petitioners (A1 & A2) in C.C.No.4138 of 2020, who were facing trial for offences under Sections 406, 408, 420 & 506(i) r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originated from a complaint filed by M/s.K.R.V Properties Private Limited, alleging that the petitioners, in conspiracy with others, misappropriated funds and cheated the company in a land transaction.

The prosecution’s case was that the petitioners, acting as land brokers, sold company land at a lower price, causing a loss, and failed to purchase alternate land as agreed. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioners after investigation.