Search Judgments

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 126; Indian Electricity Act, 1910; Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 Section 21; Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code Regulations 17(3),(4) – These appeals challenge the orders of the Writ Court which quashed demand notices issued by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) to a subsequent property purchaser (W.A.No.845 of 2023) and a landlord (W.A.No.2584 of 2023), seeking payment for electricity theft committed by the previous owner and a tenant, respectively.

TANGEDCO argued that the respondents were liable under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, as the dues were attached to the premises, and the respondents were either aware or had failed to properly notify TANGEDCO of the property transfer or tenant authorization.

The respondents contended that they were not responsible for the criminal acts of the previous owner or tenant, that demand notices issued against tenant and not against landlord. Further added that they had no contractual relationship with TANGEDCO regarding the theft, and that regulations for recovering lawful dues did not extend to penalties for electricity theft.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 and Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 376, 417 – This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the trial court under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had a sexual relationship with the victim (PW1) under the false pretext of marriage, and later threatened her. The trial court altered the charges to include offences under the POCSO Act, finding the victim to be a minor during the initial incident.

The appellant argued that the alteration of charges was flawed due to the absence of evidence at the time of alteration, the POCSO Act was not in force during the alleged initial occurrence, and the conviction under Section 5(l) was unsustainable as the appellant was not charged under it.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 179, 528; Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) – Sections 132, 133, 134; Advocates Act, 1961; Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21, 22(1), 39A – The Supreme Court addressed whether an investigating agency can summon an advocate to question them about a client’s case, following a High Court’s refusal to quash such a summons issued under BNSS Section 179. The Court considered the attorney-client privilege enshrined in BSA Sections 132-134, arguing it protects communications made for professional purposes, unless for illegal acts or observed crimes/fraud committed after engagement.

While Advocates argued for guidelines to prevent infringement of fundamental rights (Art. 19(1)(g), 21) and the right against self-incrimination (Art.

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act) – Section 11 – This writ petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner, a CRPF Constable, from service due to unauthorized absence and overstay of leave for 378 days. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner remained ex parte during the inquiry. The inquiry officer found him guilty, leading to his dismissal. Subsequent appeals and a revision petition were dismissed by higher authorities, and a mercy petition was also rejected.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 4(6)(b) – This writ petition challenges the order of the 1st respondent, which upheld the 2nd respondent’s decision to allow the 3rd respondent’s (employee) gratuity application. The petitioner (bank) had sought to forfeit the 3rd respondent’s gratuity due to alleged financial losses caused by him while working as a Senior Manager.

The bank alleged that the 3rd respondent sanctioned loans improperly, leading to a financial loss of approximately Rs. 9 crores.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Sections 35, 36, 36A, 36B and 66 – Several Writ Petitions were filed challenging Government Orders (G.O.s) permitting the construction of marriage halls using temple funds belonging to various temples. The Hon’ble Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department announced this plan in the Assembly, allocating Rs. 80 crores for the construction of marriage halls in 27 temples.

The petitioner argued that the government lacks the authority to use temple funds for constructing marriage halls, as it violates Sections 35, 36, and 66 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS 2023) Section 80, 81, 84 and 85: Criminal Rules of Practice 2019 Rule 25(6) – This common order addresses multiple criminal original petitions highlighting systemic issues within the Tamil Nadu judicial and police systems. The court expresses concern over the arbitrary actions of police and judicial authorities, leading to erosion of public trust and hardship for complainants.

The cases fall into two categories: delays in Magistrates taking charge sheets on file and non-execution of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs).

The court notes significant delays in Magistrates acting on charge sheets, violating Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, Rule 25(6).

Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304, 120; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Section 174 – The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning the unnatural death of a 17-year-old student in Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, who was preparing for the NEET examination. The appellant, the deceased’s father, sought a transfer of the investigation from the local police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging a biased and ineffective investigation. The High Court had previously rejected this request.

The Court highlighted the alarming rise in student suicides, particularly in coaching centers, emphasizing the psychological pressures faced by students.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 41A, 482; Constitution of India – Article 136 – The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a High Court order which had summarily dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings. The FIR, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, stemmed from an oral agreement for land sale between the appellants (an elderly mother and her daughter) and the complainant.

The complainant alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust after paying Rs. 4.05 Crores via bank transfers for the land.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106; General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 27 – This appeal concerns the validity of an ejectment decree passed by the Trial Court in favor of the appellant (landlord) against the respondent (tenant). The High Court had set aside the decree, reasoning that the notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not properly served as the postal service returned the notice with the endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered).

The appellant argued that sending the notice via registered post fulfills the requirement of service, relying on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which stipulates that service is deemed effective when a document is properly addressed, pre-paid, and posted by registered post, unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court examined precedents related to “deemed service” under various statutes like the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that once a notice is properly dispatched via registered post, service is presumed, regardless of whether the addressee actually received it.