Search Judgments

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  – This case originated from a transfer petition seeking to move a criminal petition from the Telangana High Court to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The transfer was sought due to apprehension of partiality and procedural discrimination against the single judge of the Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition but issued show-cause notices for contempt of court to the alleged contemnors, including the petitioner and their advocates, due to scandalous remarks made against the High Court judge.

The Supreme Court referenced prior judgments emphasizing the duty of lawyers to the court over their clients and cautioning against unfounded criticism of judges.

Constitution of India – Article 143(1): Presidential power to consult the Supreme Court.
Constitution of India – Article 200: Governor’s powers regarding assent to Bills.
Constitution of India – Article 201: President’s powers regarding Bills reserved by the Governor.
Constitution of India – Article 361: Protection of the President and Governors.

Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Constitution of India – Article 21 – The Court reviewed compliance affidavits from States/Union Territories regarding stray dog control, noting significant deficiencies and requiring further detailed reports on remedial measures. Secondly, it reaffirmed directions for removing cattle and other stray animals from National, State, and National Expressways. Municipalities, road/transport departments, and NHAI must undertake coordinated drives, establish 24×7 patrol teams, and set up helplines. Collected animals are to be housed in shelters with proper care.

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.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 & 173 – This appeal arises from M.C.O.P. No. 1489 of 2022 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, where the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 for the death of Gopi in a road accident on 18.07.2022.

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4(2A) – This appeal was filed by the appellant, seeking an increase in the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai, in W.C. No.414 of 2002, dated 28.04.2004. The appellant, a car driver, sustained grievous injuries in a car accident on 07.09.2002 while driving a vehicle owned by the first respondent. He claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, asserting that the accident occurred during the course of his employment.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A and 155 – This case concerns a claim for compensation filed by a minor, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of her parents in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when the vehicle, owned by the petitioner’s father, crashed due to a tyre burst, resulting in the death of the father, mother and two other people. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation to the petitioner for both deaths.

The High Court overturned the MACT’s decision, stating that a dead person cannot be made a defendant.

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order 18 Rule 17; Commercial Courts Act, 2015  – This case involves revision petitions filed by the plaintiff challenging a common order that allowed the defendants to introduce additional documents, reopen, and recall evidence in a commercial suit (C.O.S. No.738 of 2022).

The plaintiff argued that the applications were filed belatedly, after the plaintiff’s evidence was concluded and the defendants’ evidence was nearing completion. Furthermore, they contended that no acceptable reasons were provided for the delayed submission of these documents, which would prejudice the plaintiff.

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 4 – This case involves a dispute over a property purchased in the name of the first defendant, Janakiammal, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff claimed the property was purchased with funds from a family business, making Janakiammal a mere name lender, not the absolute owner. Janakiammal and the second defendant (her son) contested this, stating the property was purchased from Janakiammal’s savings and the 2nd defendant funds. Defendants 6 to 9 are subsequent purchasers of the property from Janakiammal.

Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 – This revision petition was filed by the plaintiff challenging the reversal of a Trial Court’s interim injunction order by the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their property, claiming the defendants were misusing a cart track mentioned in a partition deed. The defendant argued that the partition deed clearly mentioned a cart track running through the plaintiff’s property, providing them access.

The Trial Court initially granted the injunction, but the First Appellate Court reversed it, noting the partition deed acknowledged a pathway.