Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – This case concerns the interpretation of an arbitration clause within a Partnership Deed dated 16.07.2016. The clause stipulated that arbitration was “optional” and subject to mutual consent for arbitrator appointment, while also specifying the jurisdiction of Indore Civil Court in case of disputes.

The Court examined the arbitration clause in light of established principles of interpretation, referencing Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1, and Fili Shipping Co.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – This case concerns a dispute over property and pathway rights between the plaintiffs (appellants) and defendants (respondents) in Kerala. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from trespassing and constructing a pathway through their property. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the defendants to amend their written statement to claim a prescriptive easement right over the pathway and subsequently reversed the Trial Court’s decision.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 58(c) – This case concerns a dispute over agricultural land that was mortgaged in 1990. The plaintiff (respondent) mortgaged the land to the defendant (appellant) for ₹75,000, with an agreement stipulating that failure to repay the amount with interest within three years would convert the mortgage into an absolute sale.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking redemption of the mortgage, claiming that the condition was a clog on the equity of redemption. The defendant argued that the mortgage was a mortgage by conditional sale and that the plaintiff’s failure to repay within the agreed period resulted in the defendant becoming the rightful owner.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 100; Limitation Act – Article 59; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 3; Registration Act – Sections 34 and 35 – This case concerns a suit filed by the appellants for the cancellation of a registered sale deed from 2004, which they allege was fraudulently executed and came to their knowledge only in 2017. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint based on limitation. The Trial Court allowed the application, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact that needed evidence.

The High Court, in a second appeal, overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision, stating that the plaintiffs should have known about the sale deed earlier and that they had not provided sufficient details of the alleged fraud.

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.

Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 54 and 59; Arms Rules, 2016 – Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – This case involves an appeal against the rejection of a petition to quash an FIR, charge-sheet, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant was accused of possessing a buttondar knife with dimensions that, according to the prosecution, violated the Arms Act and the Delhi Administration’s notification (DAD notification).

The DAD notification of 1980 regulates the manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test of certain knives with specific dimensions. The Supreme Court noted that the charge-sheet lacked any allegation that the appellant possessed the knife for manufacture, sale, or testing, which is a prerequisite for the DAD notification to apply.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 384, 364, 302, 201; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant’s conviction for offences related to abduction, murder, and evidence tampering. The prosecution alleged the appellant murdered the deceased due to an extra-marital affair with the appellant’s wife. The case rested on circumstantial evidence, including motive, the discovery of skeletal remains, and a DNA profiling report.

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the motive, the recovery of skeletal remains, and the integrity of the DNA profiling process.