Search Judgments

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 73 (BSA 2023 Section 72); Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for Specific Performance – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court decision that reversed a trial court’s decree for specific performance. The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit alleging an agreement with the first defendant (second respondent) to purchase two properties (Item No. 1 and Item No. 2).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 read with Section 107; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Sections 108 & 45; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – This case revolves around the suicide of a Member of Parliament (MP) who left a suicide note naming individuals in the administration and police, alleging they conspired to defame him, leading to his death. The accused filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR, which were allowed by the High Court. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the High Court failed to consider the suicide note and other materials indicating a concerted effort to diminish the deceased’s public image.

The court examined precedents regarding abetment to suicide, emphasizing the need for a proximate act or incident that directly caused the suicide.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Section 3/4 (2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – This appeal challenges the High Court’s order to suspend the sentence of Respondent No. 2, who was convicted under the POCSO Act and the IPC for offences related to the rape of a minor. The Trial Court convicted Respondent No. 2 based on the prosecutrix’s testimony, supported by her parents’ evidence and documentary proof of her age.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 147, 148, 294B, 341, 324, 302, and 506(ii) – The case involves appeals against a judgment by the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, concerning a murder. The prosecution’s case was that the accused, related to the deceased, attacked him following a dispute over laying a pipeline from a common well. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147, 148, 294B, 341, 324, 302, and 506(ii).

The prosecution presented 17 witnesses and several exhibits.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules  2007 Rule 13(3) &  Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 35 – The case concerns the determination of juvenility of Respondent No. 2, accused of murder under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant challenged the High Court’s order that upheld the Trial Court’s decision declaring Respondent No. 2 a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Act Not explicitly mentioned, but the case concerns the principles of strict liability as applied to the Electricity Board’s responsibility.

This case involves an appeal by the Electricity Board against a lower court’s decision to award compensation of Rs.5,08,400/- to the plaintiffs (wife, mother, and minor children) for the accidental death of Ponmudi. Ponmudi died after coming into contact with a high tension wire on an open terrace without a parapet wall.

The plaintiffs argued that the death was due to the negligence of the Electricity Board and the building owner. The Electricity Board countered that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence and that the building owner was responsible for maintaining the building.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This case involves a revision petition filed by a claimant seeking enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The claimant, who suffered a head injury and skull fracture, argued that the initial medical board’s disability assessment of 3% was inaccurate and did not consider the severity of his condition, including a subsequent procedure requiring a mesh implant in his skull.

During cross-examination, the doctor representing the Medical Board admitted that certain relevant tests were not conducted and that a neurosurgeon would be better suited to assess the brain damage. Despite these admissions, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s application for a referral to a different medical board, citing that the claimant had already been examined and cross-examined.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 214 & Stamp Act Section 35 and Article 15 –  This case concerns an appeal against a money decree for Rs. 9,47,000 with interest, originally awarded to the plaintiffs (wife and daughter of the deceased Jaganathan) based on a document (Ex. A-1) purported to be a mortgage deed/bond executed by the defendant for a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(34) and 147 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by an Insurance Company challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation of Rs.30,06,000/- to the claimants. The claimants sought compensation for the death of the deceased, who was electrocuted while working as a loadman. The Insurance Company argued that the accident occurred in a private place, the policy was an ‘Act Policy’ and therefore, the company was not liable.

The claimants contended that the deceased was not an employee of the lorry owner but a third-party loadman.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Sections 91, 243; Indian Evidence Act – Section 162; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17 – The case involves two Criminal Original Petitions filed by the accused No. 1 in a case pending before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases. The accused sought to summon documents from the Commissioner of Police regarding a report by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, and the appointment order of an Officer on Special Duty, Mr. Nallammanaidu.