Search Judgments

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 173(1) and Section 528 – This Criminal Original Petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking the withdrawal of investigation in Crime No. 10 of 2024 from the third respondent police and its transfer to the fourth respondent. The case originates from a complaint lodged by the fifth respondent alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner and others, pertaining to forgery and fraud within Yuvaraj Scaffolding Private Limited and Rhino Scaff Industry Private Limited.

The petitioner argued that the third respondent lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the alleged offences occurred within Madurai, where the companies’ registered offices are located and where the fifth respondent purportedly resides.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 156(3), 190, 200, 202, 204, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 405, 406, 420

Quashing of Summoning Order (Section 482 CrPC) – The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, quashing the summoning order issued by the Magistrate. It emphasized that a summoning order can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if the complaint, even when taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offense or if the dispute is primarily civil in nature.

Scope of Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and Issuance of Process (Section 204 CrPC) – Reiterate that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate’s role is to determine if a prima facie case exists, assuming the allegations can be true. It is not to conduct a detailed trial or consider the accused’s defense.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7, 18, 36 and Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 126, 128, 140 – The case involves a loan of Rs. 100 crores granted by SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited (financial creditor) to Gujarat Hydrocarbon and Power SEZ Limited (corporate debtor), a subsidiary of Assam Company India Limited (ACIL). The loan was secured by a mortgage, a pledge of shares, and a corporate guarantee from ACIL. Upon default, the financial creditor initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against ACIL.

(Specific Performance, Rescission, and Extension of Time for Deposit)

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 28, concerning specific performance decrees, alongside Order 20 Rule 12A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provisions. Appellant obtained a specific performance decree on 03.03.2017, requiring balance payment (Rs. 57,50,000) within one month. Despite initial non-compliance, the appellant deposited the amount on 26.11.2020 following inconsistent court directions. The judgment-debtor subsequently sought rescission of the contract under Section 28 for delayed payment.

(Rejection of Plaint based on Benami Transaction and Disqualification from Inheritance)

The Supreme Court addressed an appeal regarding the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit sought a declaration of ownership based on a Will, but the transaction was found to be benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Additionally, the plaintiff was accused of murdering the testator, triggering disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The underlying agreements (MOUs) were also deemed void due to an unlawful object under Sections 10 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they aimed to circumvent the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

The Court clarified that Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits early rejection of frivolous or legally barred suits, even if cleverly drafted, by a meaningful reading of the plaint and documents.

(Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process & Treatment of Subsidiary Assets)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Sections 7, 18, 21(6A), 23, 25A(3A), 60(5)(b), 61(2), 62), Companies Act, 2013 (Section 2(87)), and Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (Sections 3, 7, 13-A) - The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL), the Corporate Debtor. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) challenged the NCLT's approval of resolution plans by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium and Alpha Corp Development Private Limited before the NCLAT.

GNIDA argued that assets of EIL's subsidiary companies, to whom land was leased, could not be treated as EIL's assets and that resolution plans could not transfer leasehold rights without its permission. The NCLAT set aside the NCLT orders, directing recalculation of GNIDA's dues by waiving penal interest and inviting fresh resolution plans.

(Contractual Breach and Recovery of Dues)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VII Rule 1, Order 13-A Rule 1 & 2), Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Sections 16(c), 20) - The appellant (plaintiff), a Wind Energy Generator supplier, sought Rs. 72,15,000/- from the respondent (defendant) as outstanding balance for a supplied and commissioned generator. The respondent contended the appellant breached a fundamental contractual obligation to provide suitable land with adequate pathway rights for vehicle movement, essential for maintenance. The provided land lacked free access, hindering generator use.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the appellant failed its reciprocal promise to provide a proper pathway.

(Limitation for Recovery of Money)

Limitation Act, 1963, Section 18 - This appeal was filed by the defendant challenging a judgment and decree that partly allowed a suit for money recovery, while the plaintiff filed a cross-objection against the disallowed portion. The original suit sought Rs. 2,26,82,963.78/- with interest based on advanced loans.

The Single Judge partly decreed the suit for Rs.

(Scheduled Caste Status Post-Conversion and Quashing of Criminal Proceedings)

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 341, 506, 323, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) Section 482; Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 341, 342; Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 Clause 3 - This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that quashed criminal proceedings against respondent nos. 2-7 under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The appellant, originally a 'Madiga' (Scheduled Caste) by birth, had converted to Christianity and served as a Pastor for ten years. He alleged caste-based abuse, assault, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Sections 3(6), 14, 31(1) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) – Sections 16, 31(6), 34 – This civil appeal challenged a High Court order that effectively allowed a counterclaim in arbitration despite the corporate debtor’s (appellant) resolution plan being approved under IBC. The appellant underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The respondent (public sector undertaking) had raised a counterclaim in ongoing arbitration proceedings before the resolution plan was approved, but crucially, it was never submitted to the Resolution Professional (RP) during the CIRP. The Arbitral Tribunal had initially rejected the counterclaim, holding it extinguished by the approved plan.