Search Judgments

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 147; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 359 – This criminal revision petition was filed to challenge the lower court’s judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to 1 1/2 years simple imprisonment with a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The Additional District Judge had confirmed this conviction.

During the hearing, both parties submitted that they had settled the matter amicably outside of court.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 147; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 359 – This Criminal Revision Petition was filed to challenge the judgment confirming the petitioner’s conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was initially sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs.4,51,973 to the respondent. This decision was upheld by the Principal District and Sessions Court.

During the revision proceedings, both parties submitted a joint compromise memo, stating that the petitioner had paid the full cheque amount of Rs.4,51,973 to the respondent via demand draft.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34 and 37 – This appeal challenged the Delhi High Court Division Bench’s judgment dated 01.08.2023, which had set aside parts of an arbitral award concerning interest under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act). The arbitral tribunal awarded pre-reference, pendente lite, and future interest.

The High Court Division Bench set aside these directions, reasoning that Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act allows only two periods for interest (cause of action to award, and award to payment), not three, and that awarding interest on the principal sum inclusive of prior interest amounted to impermissible compound interest.

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act grants arbitrators discretion to award interest for the “whole or any part” of the period from cause of action to award, permitting sub-division (pre-reference and pendente lite) and varying rates.

Article 32 of the Constitution – Writ Petition – Governor’s Powers – Assent to Bills – This case involves a writ petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the actions or inactions of the Governor concerning assent to bills, sanction for prosecution of public servants, premature release of prisoners, and appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC).

The court examined the scope of the Governor’s powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, focusing on the actions available to the Governor, the time-limit for such actions, the Governor’s discretion, and the potential for judicial review. The historical context of assent to bills, including debates in the Constituent Assembly and reports from various commissions, was considered.

The court examined observations of constitutional bench of of this Court in Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary, Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – This case involves a petition to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR arose from a complaint by the second respondent, an Executive Director of M/s.Champion Textile Limited, alleging that the petitioners violated a Joint Development Agreement and fabricated a life certificate to execute sale deeds.

The petitioners argued that the dispute is civil in nature, pointing to a previously filed and withdrawn civil suit by the second respondent and the closure of an earlier complaint after inquiry. They also contended that the life certificate wasn’t necessary according to registration guidelines and that the second respondent introduced the forgery claim after the suit dismissal.

The Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) Section 34(1) – This judgment concerns appeals against the Calcutta High Court’s orders related to the valuation of shares sold by the appellants to the State of Rajasthan in 1973. The core dispute revolved around the appropriate rate of interest on the enhanced valuation of shares of Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd. (formerly Bikaner Gypsums Ltd.). The appellants sought a higher interest rate, arguing that the delay in payment significantly devalued the money owed to them.

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) Section 6(3)(b) r/w Section 47, Sections 19 –  This case involves writ petitions challenging complaints and show cause notices issued under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India, Regulations 2000 (TISPRO Regulations). The complaints allege violations related to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) received by Flipkart Online Services Private Limited and WS Retail Services Limited, accusing them of contravening Section 6(3)(b) r/w Section 47 of FEMA and TISPRO Regulations.

The petitioners raised several arguments: unreasonable delay in initiating proceedings, lack of legal authority due to the omission of Section 6(3) of FEMA, bias of the adjudicating authority, and violation of natural justice principles. The Enforcement Directorate countered, arguing the maintainability of the writ petitions due to the availability of alternative remedies, including appeals under Sections 19 and 35 of FEMA.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 13, Section 115, Section 151 – This case concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld a revisional court’s decision to set aside a trial court order. The trial court had initially allowed the appellant’s application to restore a suit that was decided ex parte against him. The appellant, Dwarika Prasad, argued that he was unaware of the proceedings due to his previous counsel’s negligence and that he filed the restoration application promptly upon learning of the ex parte decree.

The High Court held that the restoration application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days from the date of the decree and should have been accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal concerns a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka, which reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant (claimant) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The MACT initially granted Rs. 1,04,01,000 to the appellant, the mother of the deceased, who died in a road accident. The High Court reduced this amount, leading to the current appeal.

Constitution of India – Articles 14 & 16 – The petitioners, working as part-time Veterinary Assistants for over 12-15 years, sought regularisation of their services, claiming they performed full-time duties against sanctioned posts. They sought benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, and argued that denying regularisation was discriminatory as similarly placed workers had been absorbed.