Search Judgments

The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 48; The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 4 – The appeal was filed against the High Court’s order, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision to deny pensionary benefits to the deceased employee of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The employee had resigned in 2014 after approximately 30 years of service and later requested withdrawal of his resignation and release of retiral benefits, which were denied by the DTC. The employee then approached the Tribunal, which dismissed his application. The High Court also dismissed his writ petition.

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 Section 7 and Rule 6 – The acquisition of land in Adhiyaman Kottai Village, Dharmapuri, for Harijan Welfare Schemes under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The District Collector acquired 1.55.5 Hectares of land and the Special Tahsildar determined the market value based on a sale transaction, fixing it at Rs.72,072/- per Hectare, with 15% solatium.

Aggrieved landowners filed appeals before the Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri, which enhanced the compensation, fixed the land value at Rs.10/- per sq. ft., applied a 25% deduction, and added 30% solatium.

The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Sections 7 and 12 – The case revolves around whether landowners who voluntarily entered into an agreement with the government regarding compensation for land acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 can later claim additional benefits under the same Act.

The Act’s Section 7 outlines the process for determining compensation, encouraging negotiated agreements between the government and landowners. Once an agreement is reached, its terms are binding, effectively excluding further recourse to the Act’s provisions. Section 12 addresses interest payments on delayed compensation.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 69 and 351(2) – This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash proceedings in PRC.No.75 of 2025, pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The complainant, an advocate, alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her under the false promise of marriage and later threatened her.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), and 2(c) – This criminal appeal was filed by the accused against the judgment of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai District, which convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution’s case was that the accused, a Commercial Tax Officer/Assistant Commissioner, demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000 from the complainant for processing his applications to shift his shop and open new branches. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting Rs.3,000.

The appellant argued that there was a delay in filing the complaint, that he had already initiated action on the complainant’s applications, and that the shadow witness’s testimony was inconsistent.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 195 and 482 & Indian Penal Code (IPC) – The case involves two Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.P.) filed by Mr. A.G. Ponmanickavel, a former Inspector General of Police. The first, Crl.O.P.No.2263 of 2025, challenged the rejection of his request for a copy of the preliminary report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with FIR RC0502024S0013.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 499, 500, 501; Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) – Section 13(2), 13(4), 32 – This case involves appeals against a High Court judgment that rejected applications to quash a complaint filed against officers of the Bank of Baroda. The complaint alleged defamation under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the IPC, stemming from an allegedly inflated amount in a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, due to the clerical error.

The key issues were whether the officers could be prosecuted without the bank itself being named as an accused and whether vicarious liability could be applied under the IPC in the absence of a specific statutory provision. The court considered the statutory protection offered under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act for actions taken in good faith.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruchirappalli, in M.C.O.P.No.931 of 2019, dated 21.06.2023. The respondents/claimants, daughters of the deceased’s brother, sought compensation for the death of their paternal uncle Pichaipillai, who died in an accident caused by a two-wheeler insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

The insurer contested the claim, arguing that the claimants were not dependents of the deceased and thus not entitled to compensation. The claimants presented a legal heirship certificate confirming their status as legal heirs, while the insurer argued that as married and independent women, they couldn’t claim dependency.

Election Petition - Non-Disclosure of Assets 

This civil appeal, filed under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenged a High Court order dismissing an election petition. The relevant provisions include Sections 36(4), 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(iv), 123(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Rule 4A and Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - The Appellant, an unsuccessful candidate, challenged the election of Respondent No.1, the returned candidate, to the Telangana Legislative Assembly. The primary grounds were alleged non-disclosure of income from Income Tax Returns (ITR) for four out of the last five financial years in Form 26 Affidavit (marked as 'Nil'), and non-disclosure of honorarium as Zilla Parishad Chairperson and ex-MLA pension. The Appellant contended this amounted to improper acceptance of nomination, corrupt practice, and non-compliance with election laws, rendering the election void under Section 100 of the Act.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Section 17 – This petition challenges the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT)’s order, which upheld the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)’s decision to dismiss the petitioner’s application. The petitioner, a guarantor for a loan, contested the bank’s recovery measures, arguing irregularities in the loan disbursement to the borrower. The DRT rejected the application, citing its limited jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which doesn’t extend to examining the propriety of loan disbursement.

The petitioner contended that the DRT’s scope of inquiry is broad, encompassing not only recovery action legality but also loan approval compliance.