Search Judgments

The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 – This judgment addresses an appeal against an order in C.S.No.150 of 2024, filed by the appellant claiming to be the Director and Acting President of Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam. The core issue revolves around the prolonged continuation of an Interim Administrator appointed by the Court in C.S.No.752 of 2005, which was later withdrawn, overseeing the Sangam for approximately 19 years.

The appellant argued that the Interim Administrator’s tenure should cease, especially after a general body meeting elected Mr. Noelraj as the President.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306, 304B, 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – The appellant, mother-in-law of the deceased, was initially convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on allegations of dowry harassment leading to the death of the deceased.

The High Court acquitted her of these charges but convicted her under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide), based on the statement of the deceased’s brother (PW-3), who testified to the appellant’s abusive behavior towards the deceased shortly before her suicide. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the credibility and honesty of PW-3’s testimony, which described the appellant’s cruelty towards the deceased due to dowry demands.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Sections 63(a), 64(1), 75(i)(ii), 75(i)(iii); Article 21 of the Constitution; Section 228-A of IPC; Right to Information Act, 2005; All India Service (Conduct Rules), 1968 – Rule 6 – This case concerns the sexual assault and rape of a student at Anna University. The FIR was leaked, revealing the victim’s details and leading to victim-shaming. The court addresses the victim’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy, emphasizing that societal stigma contributes to crimes against women. The court also notes lapses by Anna University in ensuring campus security and condemns the premature disclosure of investigation details by the Commissioner of Police in a press conference.

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) & 11(12)(a) – The petitioner filed two petitions under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Shareholders Agreement dated 25.07.2011.

The disputes concern the non-issuance of share certificates for 4,00,000 and 2,00,010 equity shares in respondent no.1 (ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd.) allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The respondents (ASAP Fluids Pvt.

(Conviction for Murder and Attempted Murder)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 149, 120B, 307) - Arms Act (Section 27) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313) - Constitution of India (Article 136) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 134) - Appellants Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav (father and son) challenged the High Court's confirmation of their life imprisonment for the murder of Ram Sharan Yadav and 10 years for attempting to murder Sunil Yadav (PW-5), along with sentences under the Arms Act. The motive was the deceased's testimony in an earlier murder case.

The Trial Court convicted, and the High Court upheld it, primarily relying on the sole testimony of the injured complainant (PW-5) after discarding other eyewitnesses due to inconsistencies.

Before the Supreme Court, appellants argued delay in FIR, discrepancies in the place of occurrence, conflict between medical and ocular evidence, non-examination of material witnesses, and the unreliability of a single witness.

Letters Patent – Clause 15; G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978.
The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) challenged a writ order directing it to provide employment assistance to a land looser’s family. The land was acquired in 1992 for a thermal power project, but the application for assistance was filed 18 years later, in 2010.

Execution of Arbitral Award and Transferee Pendente Lite

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 34, 36) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXI Rules 58, 102) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 52) – The case involved the execution of an arbitral award obtained by The Cotton Corporation of India (Respondent No. 1) against M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Limited (Respondent No. 2) in 2001 for the recovery of money. The award became final in 2013 following the dismissal of Respondent No.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 153, 153A, 505(1)(b) – The case originates from a speech by a Tamil Nadu minister advocating for the “eradication” of Sanathana Dharma, drawing parallels to diseases like dengue and malaria. The petitioner, a BJP IT Wing National President, shared a video of the minister’s speech on X (formerly Twitter), questioning whether this implied a call for genocide against the 80% of the Indian population who follow Sanathana Dharma.

A complaint was filed, alleging that the petitioner distorted the minister’s speech with malicious intent to incite violence between groups. The prosecution argued that the petitioner’s post instigated the majority Sanathana Dharma followers against those who do not follow it.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 & Constitution of India – Article 142 – This appeal arises from a High Court order affirming a Family Court’s decree of divorce based on desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant-wife challenged the decree, arguing that she did not desert the respondent-husband but left due to professional commitments and a hostile environment.

During the Supreme Court hearing, both parties consented to a divorce by mutual consent, leading the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the prolonged separation, failed reconciliation attempts, and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Judgment interpretation – This appeal challenged the NCDRC’s dismissal of an insurance claim under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. The Appellant, a government company, experienced a factory fire caused by an attempted theft where miscreants used blow torches. The Respondent-insurer repudiated the claim, contending the proximate cause was burglary, which was not a covered peril and fell under the Riots, Strike, Malicious and Damage (RSMD) exclusion clause. The NCDRC upheld the insurer’s stance.