Search Judgments

(Death Penalty Sentencing Guidelines and Legal Aid)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 235(2) and 354(3)- Principles from Manoj and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, and other jurisprudence on capital punishment.

The Supreme Court, addressing an appeal against a Patna High Court judgment imposing a death sentence, highlighted critical procedural deficiencies in capital punishment cases. The Court noted the prevalent failure to timely collect comprehensive reports on mitigating and aggravating circumstances at trial and High Court stages, along with inadequate legal representation, which compromises fair and informed sentencing.

(Amendment of Pleadings and Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits)

The Constitution of India Article 227 - This judgment addresses the scope of amending a plaint in an eviction suit, particularly after the original landlord's demise, and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction. It primarily concerns Order VI Rule 17 and Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding amendment of pleadings and the Appellate Court's power to refer issues.

The original landlord initiated an eviction suit based on bonafide need for himself and his family. During the appeal, the landlord passed away, and his legal heirs sought to amend the plaint to reflect their specific bonafide needs. The Appellate Bench allowed this amendment, citing the original plaint's inclusion of "family members" and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Dishonour of Cheque – Rebuttal of Presumption at Pre-trial Stage

This judgment interprets Sections 138, 139, and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act), and revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the second respondent, whose Rs. 50 crore cheque, issued as a guarantor in a settlement, was dishonoured.

The Contractor Registration Rules, 2012 Rule 10.5 – The Supreme Court examined an appeal concerning the termination of a contract and blacklisting of M/s A.K.G. Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. by the Jharkhand Water and Sanitation Department.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 13; Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 372 and 383 – The appeal challenged the concurrent rejection of an application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC seeking to set aside an ex parte Succession Certificate. This certificate was granted under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to respondents (daughters) for their deceased father’s retiral benefits. The appellant, a minor at the time, was the deceased’s son from another marriage, whose mother’s name appeared in official records as the deceased’s wife.

Lower courts rejected the application, finding the minor’s mother had appeared in an appeal against the certificate and that the minor had not asserted any claim.

(Partition Suit, Proof of Will, and Estoppel by Attestation)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 63) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 68, 69) - Registration Act, 1908 (Section 60) - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Section 37(2)) - This appeal challenged the dismissal of a partition suit seeking a half share in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Natchimuthu (junior), disputed a Will dated 02.08.1994, allegedly executed by Natchimuthu (junior) in favor of his brother Muthusamy, claiming it was forged and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. They also challenged the subsequent sale of 'B' schedule property based on this Will, contending that the second plaintiff (Manimaran) attested the sale deed without knowledge of its contents.

The defendants asserted the Will's validity and argued that Manimaran's attestation of the sale deed, which explicitly referenced the Will, estopped the plaintiffs from challenging it. The key issues were: (1) whether the Will was duly proved; (2) whether the sale deed, attested by the second plaintiff, bound the plaintiffs; and (3) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition.

Court's Analysis:  The Court found the Will duly proved under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the attesting witnesses had died, and their signatures, along with the testator's, were identified.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – This appeal challenged a Single Judge’s order granting welfare benefits under the “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme” to a respondent. The respondent applied in 2019 for Rs. 50,000 and 8 grams of gold, but her application was rejected in 2024. The rejection was due to a government policy decision to restructure the scheme into the “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme” to promote women’s higher education.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Copyright Act, 1957 (Act) – Sections 63, 65, 65A – This appeal challenged the High Court’s dismissal of a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a film director for alleged copyright infringement. The complainant claimed the director’s film ‘Kahaani-2’ infringed his script ‘Sabak’ after he shared it, leading to charges under the Copyright Act.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) issued summons, but an expert committee of the Screen Writers Association (SWA) had previously found no similarity between the works, a fact concealed from the CJM. The Supreme Court observed the complaint contained only bald and unsubstantiated allegations, lacking specific identification of copied elements.

The Constitution of India Article 226 – Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act – The writ petition concerned an inquiry into the license granted for collecting rents from shops on Arulmigu Muthumariyaman Temple lands for 2025-2026, alleging mismanagement and fraud by the Hereditary Trustees and licensee. The petitioner contended that the license’s primary purpose was limited to the 10-day Panguni festival. Following the original licensee’s demise, the Supreme Court, through S.L.P.(C) No.3774 of 2026, directed an extension of the license for 6 months and 7 days, establishing the fifth respondent’s rights until August 30, 2026. The petitioner argued that parties colluded by not informing courts that temporary shops largely disappear after the festival, implying two years’ exploitation for one year’s fee.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 119 –  The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 23 Rule 3 –  Samyakone Trust property was alienated by alleged trustees to third-party purchasers (appellants). A trustee filed suit seeking to declare these alienations null and void and for recovery of possession.

The High Court considered several legal points. It found no adverse inference against the plaintiff for not producing the original trust deed under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.