Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order I Rule 10 – This revision petition was filed against the dismissal of an application seeking to implead the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) as a defendant in a money recovery suit. The defendant argued that KVIC was a necessary party to prove the receipt of subsidy by the plaintiff bank, especially in relation to her counterclaim. The plaintiff bank contended that the application was a delaying tactic, and KVIC stated they lacked the relevant records.

The court noted that the defendant had previously sought documents from KVIC, which proved unfruitful due to the unavailability of records.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 120-B, 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) – Sections 27, 65-B – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 161 – The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of four appellants (A1, A2, A3, A4) for the murder of A4’s fiancé, resulting from a conspiracy to prevent A4’s forced marriage. The Court primarily relied on circumstantial evidence, dismissing eyewitness testimonies due to significant discrepancies and unnatural conduct.

Motive was established through a close friend of A4 (PW-23), revealing her unwillingness to marry the deceased and her close association with A1. Crucially, extensive Call Detail Records (CDR), admitted under Section 65-B IEA, demonstrated a coordinated conspiracy, showing suspicious communication patterns between the accused before, during, and after the crime.

The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service, Rule 2B, Rule 7(a) –  These writ petitions, filed by Tamil Pandits, challenge orders and guidelines related to seniority for promotion to Headmaster/Headmistress positions in High Schools. The main contention revolves around counting seniority only from the date of acquiring a B.Ed. degree, as per Explanation II to Rule 2B of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu School Education Service and subsequent guidelines.

The petitioners argued that their Tamil Pandit training is equivalent to B.Ed./B.T.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 106(3) & Section 5 Limitation Act: Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay in setting aside ex-parte orders in execution proceedings under Order 21 CPC.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 97 (Amending Act, 1976): Repeal of High Court amendments inconsistent with the Central Act.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5: Exclusion of Section 5 for execution proceedings in the Limitation Act, 1963, and its impact on High Court amendments allowing condonation of delay.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Binding nature of Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Damodaran Pillai’s case) over conflicting High Court single bench decisions.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Sections 3(10), 18, 21, 23, 24(2), 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 40, 42, 46, 51, 59(1), 63, 91, 92, 94, 97 and General Clauses Act – Section 21 – Writ petition challenging the suspension of license granted to the petitioner under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 due to alleged contraventions including false information, misbranding, and unauthorized sale of ghee.

The petitioner, a food business operator (FBO), was accused of supplying substandard ghee to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD). Allegations included false declaration of manufacturing, misbranding, unauthorized sale, and failure to report rejection of the ghee. The Designated Officer issued show cause and improvement notices, eventually suspending the petitioner’s license until further orders.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 58 & Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Section 100; Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 Section 54 –  This case involves an appeal against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s decision, which upheld the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s order regarding a dispute between a promoter and an allottee. The allottee initially booked a 4BHK flat but later sought cancellation due to personal reasons and a reduction in salary. The promoter suggested swapping to a 2BHK flat, but a dispute arose over covered car parking.

The allottee requested a refund of the amount paid for the original flat.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 r/w 142 – The petitioner, M. Siddiq @Abu Bakkar, challenged the concurrent convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court in six cases (S.T.C.Nos. 1850 to 1852, 1866, 1870 and 1904 of 2019) related to dishonored cheques. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner issued 18 cheques totaling Rs.

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 (Quashing of Proceedings): High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, primarily when allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offense. A “mini-trial” or microscopic examination of facts and evidence is impermissible at this stage.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty): For Section 354 IPC to apply, there must be a use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. Bald assertions of discomfort without specific allegations or evidence of force or intent are insufficient to prima facie establish the offense. The interpretation of “modesty” must evolve with societal context, moving beyond patriarchal and colonial origins to acknowledge women’s agency and dignity.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 503, 506 (Criminal Intimidation): To establish criminal intimidation, the intention to cause alarm to the victim must be clearly visible and supported by evidence on record.

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 82 – Proclamation for Absconding Person – Object and Purpose: The primary purpose of Section 82 CrPC (proclamation for absconding person) is to secure the presence of the accused in an ongoing proceeding. Once this purpose is achieved (e.g., through surrender or, crucially, through acquittal in the main case), the need for the proclamation ceases.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 174A – Non-appearance in response to Proclamation: Section 174A IPC, inserted by the 2005 Amendment, creates an independent and substantive offence for failing to appear as required by a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.
  • Initiation: Proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82 CrPC; they can only begin after a proclamation has been issued.
  • Continuance: Once initiated, the prosecution for the offence under Section 174A IPC can continue even if the underlying proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is no longer in effect (e.g., due to subsequent developments in the main case). The non-appearance at the specified time becomes an infraction at that very instance, making it a stand-alone offense.
  • Quashing on Acquittal: However, if the accused stands acquitted in the original/main offense in connection with which the Section 82 CrPC proclamation was issued, it is permissible in law for the court trying the Section 174A IPC offence to take note of such acquittal and close the proceedings under Section 174A IPC, especially when the original offense is old and the financial dispute (if any) has been settled.
• Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Proclaimed Offender Status: While generally a proclaimed offender may face limitations in challenging proceedings, a High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, including the proclaimed offender status and related FIRs (like under Section 174A IPC), when the accused has been acquitted in the main offense for which the proclamation was issued, especially if the matter has been settled or is very old.

Final Decision:    The appeal is allowed.

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – Section 82 & 83; Constitution of India Article 32. – This case involves appeals against a High Court order directing the demolition of unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot in Meerut, originally allotted to Respondent No. 5 by the U.P.