Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Examination of Accused – It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively, and separately. Material circumstances are those on the basis of which the prosecution seeks conviction. The object is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against them. Failure to put material circumstances to the accused is a serious irregularity, which can vitiate the trial if prejudice is shown.

Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 – Article 368 – The writ petitions challenged the insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution, arguing the amendments were retrospective, against the Constituent Assembly’s intent, and restrictive to economic policy choices. The petitioners also argued that the amendment was unconstitutional, as it was passed during the Emergency after the Lok Sabha’s normal tenure.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, highlighting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, under Article 368. The Court emphasized that the date of the Constitution’s adoption does not limit this amending power.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 1 – This civil revision petition challenges an order from the City Civil Court at Chennai, which allowed the second defendant to file a written statement six years after being impleaded in a suit concerning the administration of Sri Prasanna Vinayagar Temple. The plaintiff argued that the written statement should not have been accepted due to the delay and the absence of a formal application to condone it, citing Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court observed that the plaintiff did not challenge the initial order permitting the filing of the written statement. The Court noted the absence of a specific provision in the CPC mandating a formal application to condone delays in filing written statements, unlike procedures in the Original Side Rules of the High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Second Schedule, Clause 6

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation for Child Victim – Permanent Disability – Notional Income – Loss of Future Earnings – Future Prospects – Attendant Charges – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Future Medical Treatment

In determining compensation for a child victim of a motor accident with permanent disability, notional income for loss of future earnings should be based on the minimum wages of a skilled workman, not an unskilled labourer, especially if the child was school-going. Additionally, loss of future prospects (40% of monthly income) and attendant charges for a lifetime (calculated using the multiplier method) are essential components of compensation. Compensation for future medical treatment should adequately reflect the nature of the permanent disability.

Final Decision:   The appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 498-A – This appeal was filed against a judgment by the Bombay High Court, which upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant, the husband of the deceased’s sister-in-law, was accused of subjecting the deceased to cruelty related to dowry demands.

The prosecution’s case centered on dowry demands made by the deceased’s husband and his relatives, leading to her unnatural death. The appellant was implicated based on his relation to the family, despite his marriage to the deceased’s sister-in-law occurring only five and a half months before the incident.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 155 to 176, 173(2), 397, 401

Customs Act, 1962 (CA 1962) – Sections 28, 124, 127H

Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act 1944) – Sections 4A(1), 4A(2), 11A, 32K

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CT Act 1975) – Section 3(2)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC 1860) – Sections 120B, 420

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (PCA 1998) – Section 13(1)(d)

Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (SWM Act 1976)

Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (Packaged Commodities Rules 1977) – Rule 29

Settlement Commission – Immunity from Prosecution – Finality of Assessment Orders – Cognizance of Offence – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process of Law

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing criminal proceedings against the Appellant-Company. The Court held that when the Settlement Commission has granted immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1962, and Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the underlying fiscal liability (the basis of the alleged criminal conspiracy) has been found non-existent by appellate customs authorities whose orders have attained finality (even entitling the company to a refund), the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court reiterated the principle that mere registration of an FIR does not constitute institution of prosecution for the purpose of immunity provisions; prosecution is deemed instituted only upon cognizance being taken by the court after the filing of a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. Given that the very basis of the criminal allegations, i.e., wrongful gain and corresponding wrongful loss to the government exchequer, was nullified by the unchallenged orders of the Customs Commissioner (Appeals) and the subsequent refund entitlement, coupled with the immunity granted by the Settlement Commission, the continuation of the criminal case against the Appellant-Company was unsustainable.

Conditions for Interim Bail:

The interim bail is subject to the following terms and conditions:

• He shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7 and Section 5(8)(f) – This judgment addresses appeals against an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Takshashila Heights India Private Limited, and rejected an intervention application by Elegna Co-operative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd.

The case originated from a loan default by Takshashila Heights to ECL Finance Ltd (later assigned to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. EARCL). Despite a restructuring agreement, defaults continued, leading EARCL to file a Section 7 petition under the IBC.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 2(1B), 2(14), 2(47), 28, 45(1), 47 – The appeals arose from a High Court judgment that remanded the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) to determine whether shares held in an amalgamating company were stock-in-trade or capital assets. The appellants, investment companies of the Jindal Group, claimed exemption under Section 47(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act), arguing that the receipt of shares in the amalgamated company was a transfer of capital assets. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, treating the shares as stock-in-trade and taxing the value of shares received as business income under Section 28 of the I.T.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6)(a) and 11(12)(a) – The case involves a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. (Afghanistan) against M/s Micromax Informatics FZE (UAE) and M/s Micromax India, seeking referral of disputes to arbitration as per a Consumer Distributorship Agreement dated 09.11.2010. The petitioner claims a credit balance from the respondent no.