Search Judgments

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves an appeal against a judgment acquitting the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs, which was dishonored. The complainant claimed the money was initially given to the accused to secure a job in TNSTC.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304 Part II & Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 374(2) – The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for causing the death of ‘S’ and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant, dissatisfied with the reduced sentence, appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting only the length of the sentence. The incident occurred after an altercation between the appellant’s family and the family of ‘V’, who was accused of raping the appellant’s cousin, ‘C’.

Appointment Rights For Reserved Catagory –  This case involves a dispute over the appointment of the respondent, who was placed in the Reserved Panel (waitlist) for the post of Technician at All India Radio in 1997 under the Scheduled Castes (SC) category. The appellants, Union of India and All India Radio, challenged the Calcutta High Court’s direction to absorb the respondent, arguing that it violates Recruitment Rules and extends the rights of a candidate on a waitlist beyond its validity.

The respondent’s initial plea before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was partly based on an assurance made by the appellants in 1999 that his case would be considered for future SC vacancies. While the CAT initially directed the appellants to consider the respondent, subsequent actions and orders led to further litigation.

Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) Section 13; Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 Rule 4 and Rule 8(2) –  Appeal against a single judge’s order dismissing writ petitions that challenged the rejection of compounding applications under FEMA, 1999. The appellants allegedly contravened FEMA regulations by delaying the filing of Form FC-TRS after purchasing and selling shares of M/s. Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – This case involves an appeal by the State of West Bengal against a High Court judgment directing the restoration of 28 Bighas of land to M/s Santi Ceramics Private Limited, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal. The land was initially acquired for the TATA Motors’ NANO project. Santi Ceramics sought restoration based on parity with cultivators who received similar relief in the Kedar Nath Yadav case.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 6, 10; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 506(i); Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 164(5), 313 – This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, convicting the appellant for offences under the POCSO Act and IPC. The appellant, a noon meal organizer, was accused of committing aggravated penetrative and sexual assault on two minor victims.

The prosecution presented evidence, including statements from the victims recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., medical reports, and witness testimonies. The defense argued that medical evidence didn’t corroborate the victim’s testimonies and cited delays in filing the complaint.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRLT Act, 2017) – Section 37(1)(j) and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and 11 – This Civil Revision Petition was filed by a tenant challenging the execution of an eviction decree passed under the TNRRLT Act, 2017. The tenant argued that the landlord, a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, failed to obtain prior permission from the Charity Commissioner, rendering the decree invalid. Additionally, the tenant claimed discrepancies in the property description hindered execution.

The landlord countered that all procedures were followed, and the trust deed was filed as evidence.

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Order II Rule 2 – This case involves an appeal against the High Court’s order dismissing a civil revision that challenged the Executing Court’s decision to issue a warrant of possession. The original dispute arose from an agreement to sell property in 1989, where the appellant (plaintiff) paid Rs. 25,000 as earnest money. After a protracted legal battle, the Supreme Court set aside the decree for specific performance due to issues under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed a Family Court’s decree of divorce. The husband had filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty. The wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Family Court granted the divorce, which was upheld by the High Court based on the constant acrimony and the wife lodging complaints to the police.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3 and Section 18; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, who was accused of offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the appellant-complainant, alleging that the accused, along with others, abused and assaulted him and his family members because they did not vote as the accused desired in the assembly elections.

The FIR stated that the accused used casteist slurs like “Mangtyano,” assaulted the complainant with iron rods, and threatened to burn their house.