Search Judgments

Acts Mentioned:

Constitution of India – Article 142
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992
The National Trust Act, 1999
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019

This judgment addresses the alarming rise in student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) across India. The court had previously mandated FIR registration in such cases and acknowledged the moral and legal duty of institutions to report suicides. Recognizing the urgency, the court constituted a National Task Force (NTF) to identify causes, analyze frameworks, and recommend preventive measures.

The NTF’s interim report highlights the “iceberg of student distress,” revealing that suicides are just the tip, with underlying issues like structural inequalities, academic pressure, ragging, and inadequate mental health support.

The Constitution of India Article 226 –  A dispute between a petitioner and the 3rd respondent regarding the legal heirship of their deceased foster father, Mr. P. Govindasamy, and the ownership of jewels pledged as security for loans. The petitioner, claiming to be the adopted daughter, sought to repay the jewel loans and retrieve the pledged items from Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank (respondents 1 and 2).

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 92 and Order I Rule 8 – The appellants filed appeals against the orders of the Learned Single Judge, who had dismissed their application seeking leave to sue on behalf of others and to file a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, alleging mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by the respondents in Young Men Christian Association (YMCA).

The appellants contended that the respondents diverted funds received from a developer for a property development project and misused funds related to other properties of the YMCA. They sought a scheme to manage the properties, submission of accounts, and removal of certain members from the Board of Directors.

The respondents argued that the suit was filed due to personal reasons as the second appellant’s wife was not awarded a construction contract, and that a similar suit was already pending.

(Limitation Period for Section 7 IBC Applications and Acknowledgment of Debt)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Section 62, read with Section 18 and The Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137, and The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Sections 13(2), 13(4), addresses the limitation period for Section 7 IBC applications. The Corporate Debtor's loan accounts were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 06.12.2016. The secured financial creditor filed a Section 7 IBC petition on 23.09.2024, after NCLAT and NCLT had admitted it, citing the IRP's claim admission in a prior Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as a valid acknowledgment.

The Supreme Court clarified that limitation for Section 7 IBC applications starts from the default date (06.12.2016). After considering exclusions for DHFL's CIRP, the COVID-19 period, and the Corporate Debtor's first CIRP (23.12.2021 to 29.07.2024), the Court found the limitation expired on 01.08.2024.

Constitition of India Article 226 – The writ petition was filed by a wife (Petitioner 1) seeking to be declared the guardian of her comatose husband, Kajendran, to manage his assets for his medical treatment and family welfare. The husband suffered severe injuries in an accident and is in a vegetative state, requiring extensive medical care. Petitioners 2 and 3, the couple’s children, support the mother’s petition. The petitioner cites financial constraints in meeting medical and family expenses without access to her husband’s assets.

(Quashment of Criminal Proceedings (Economic Offence)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 109, through a petition filed under The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 - The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager, was arrayed as A1, accused of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and forgery, allegedly causing a loss of Rs. 33.89 crores to the bank. This loss purportedly resulted from sanctioning 11 agricultural loans for non-existent poultry farms based on fabricated documents.

The petitioner argued that he only recommended loans, which were ultimately sanctioned by higher officials and processed by appraisers, none of whom were made co-accused.

(Maritime Claim & Vessel Arrest)

Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017: Sections 4(1)(h), 5(1)(b), 5(2) - The Appellant (owner of M.V. Nereus Progress) challenged a common order upholding the arrest of their vessel. The Respondent (Plaintiff) had filed a suit for unpaid charter hire against the vessel, stemming from a demise charterparty with Nereides Marine Services, which was also the demise charterer of the Appellant's vessel.

The Respondent sought the vessel's arrest under the Admiralty Act for a maritime claim.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – This writ petition challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order concerning disciplinary proceedings against a Postal Assistant. The employee was removed from service for allegedly suppressing deposits totaling Rs. 2,600/- in two Savings Bank accounts. An enquiry found the charges proved, leading to his dismissal, which was upheld on appeal.

Companies Act, 1956 – Section 146 – This case concerns a petition challenging an order dated 30.11.2023, primarily due to the violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner argues they never received a show cause notice before the order was passed, nor was the order itself served upon them. They only became aware of the order after an alert notice was issued, halting their exports.

The respondents claimed the show cause notice was sent to the address on the shipping bills but was returned unserved.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 342; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – The case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a missing person report filed after the prosecutrix, ‘R’, did not return home after attending a wedding. She was later recovered, and an FIR was filed alleging abduction, rape, and wrongful confinement. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.