Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 498A, 302, 504 read with Section 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – The case involves allegations of dowry harassment and murder of a wife by her husband and mother-in-law. The prosecution’s case rests heavily on the dying declarations of the deceased.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed for dowry and subjected to cruelty. On the day of the incident, the mother-in-law allegedly poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze, leading to her death.

(Applicability of Probation of Offenders Act for Fine-Only Sentences & Removal of Disqualification)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 323, 324, 34, and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (1958 Act) Sections 3, 4, 12, as well as Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a High Court order that upheld convictions under IPC Sections 323, 324, and 34. Appellants A-1, A-2, A-3 were convicted under Sections 323/324/34 IPC with fines, and A-4 under Section 323/34 IPC with a fine. No imprisonment was imposed. The appellants sought the benefits of the 1958 Act.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act) – Section 2(1)(c)(i), (xv), (xvii) – Commercial Dispute – Recovery of Loan: A suit for recovery of money based on a memorandum of compromise agreement, where the amounts represent loans advanced to a partnership firm by an individual (who is also a highways contractor) and by individuals sourced through him, does not automatically qualify as a “commercial dispute” solely because it relates to a partnership firm (Section 2(1)(c)(xv)) or because the plaintiff is described as a “financier” in a broad sense (Section 2(1)(c)(i)). The essence of the dispute must be a transaction ordinarily carried on by merchants, bankers, or financiers, or directly arise out of partnership agreements among partners. A loan advanced to a firm by an individual, even if related to a partnership, may not be a commercial dispute if it’s primarily a debt recovery and not a dispute regarding the internal workings or dissolution of the partnership itself.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 37 Rule 3(5) – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – Conditional Leave: In a summary suit, where the defendant raises a triable issue, the court ordinarily grants unconditional leave to defend.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Section 62, 30 and 31 – This judgment addresses appeals against an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) regarding the implementation of a resolution plan for Jet Airways (India) Limited. The core issues are whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could be adjusted against the first tranche payment, whether the SRA (Successful Resolution Applicant) had fulfilled the conditions precedent, and whether the non-implementation of the plan warrants liquidation. The court examines various clauses of the resolution plan, the RFRP (Request for Resolution Plan), and relevant regulations, including Regulation 36B(4A) of the IBBI Regulations. It discusses the importance of adhering to timelines, the role of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the need for a timely resolution process.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 2(wa), 372 & 378 – The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – The central question in this case revolves around whether a complainant in a private complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can appeal an acquittal order under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, treating the complainant as a ‘victim’ as defined in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

The appellant, a finance firm, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Act when cheques issued by the respondents were dishonored. The trial court acquitted the respondents, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s petitions seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court examined various reports and provisions of the CrPC, particularly the definition of ‘victim’ and the scope of Section 372 and 378.

(Partition of Property and Validity of Marriage/Adoption)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1- The case involved the application of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The plaintiffs (respondents in appeal) sought partition of a property, claiming the first plaintiff was the legally wedded wife and the second plaintiff was the adopted daughter of the deceased P. Balasubramani. They alleged that the first defendant was P. Balasubramani's second, invalid wife, and the second and third defendants were their children.

(Motor Accident Compensation Enhancement)

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following an accident where the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of a bus driver. An FIR under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver.

The petitioner/claimant, aged 60, was a passenger in a bus that was driven negligently, causing him to fall and suffer a head injury and multiple other injuries. He sought Rs.

(Applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 2013)

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(a). Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 11, 12(2), 18 - A Writ Court order directing compensation determination under the 2013 Act. Land acquisition under the 1894 Act concluded with an award on 31.07.2012, with compensation paid and possession taken. An amended order dated 30.05.2014 later corrected an interest calculation error.

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427, 354); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 161, 164, 482); Constitution of India (Article 136).

Brief Facts:
The appellants (Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, Sautrik Joardar) appealed against a High Court judgment that refused to quash a chargesheet filed under various IPC sections. The charges arose from an FIR lodged by the complainant alleging assault and threats during an altercation over an apartment building’s entrance and parking. While the High Court quashed proceedings for two co-accused, it denied similar relief to the appellants, allowing the prosecution against them to continue.

Appellants’ Contentions:
The appellants argued the proceedings were mala fide, based on vague and general allegations, and lacked specific attribution of roles.

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) – Sections 7, 9, 11; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 80 – The appellant claimed legal heirship as the adopted son of L. Lakshmanan @ Yaghava Munivar, seeking a declaration and a legal heirship certificate, while challenging an existing one. The Trial Court decreed in his favour, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, leading to the present Second Appeal. Concurrently, the appellant’s partition suit led to dismissed plaint rejection applications, now under Civil Revision Petitions.