Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 41, 41A, 436A, 438, 440(2) – Bail Reform and Undertrial Prisoners (UTPs) Supreme Court expresses concern over non-compliance with its directions on bail and UTPs, including those unable to furnish surety. Mandates strict implementation of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, requiring reporting and action against non-compliant officers, establishing monitoring mechanisms, and implementing SOPs for poor prisoners.

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers; Judicial Oversight – Implementation of Supreme Court Directives The Supreme Court continues to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure effective implementation of its judgments by the Executive and Judiciary across the country, emphasizing accountability for non-compliance and seeking progress reports on the framing of a comprehensive bail law and allocation of funds for prisoner welfare schemes.

The Advocates Act, 1961; The Bar Council of India Rules; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 Article 145 – The Supreme Court addressed miscellaneous applications filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking intervention, clarification, and modification of directions issued in a prior judgment regarding the marking of advocate appearances.

The Court examined the locus standi of the applicant associations and permitted submissions due to the involvement of the President of the SCBA. Key concerns raised included the impact of the directions on members’ rights related to voting, chamber allotment, and eligibility for designation as Senior Advocate, citing guidelines and rules related to these aspects.

The Court clarified that the directions were issued to correct misuse of the legal process and fraud.

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a bank’s rejection of their One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal. The petitioner had availed a crop loan from the respondent bank, which later became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The bank initially offered an OTS under the “NDND 2023-24 – Rin Samadhan” scheme, requiring the petitioner to deposit ₹1,00,000 for full settlement. The petitioner deposited ₹30,000 initially, but the bank subsequently rejected the OTS, citing that the value of the petitioner’s non-agricultural property (security) exceeded 125% of the outstanding loan amount, making them ineligible under the scheme’s guidelines.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – This case involves an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the applicant seeking an injunction against the respondents from interfering with her XRP coins held in the WazirX platform. The applicant invested in XRP coins through WazirX, a crypto currency exchange platform operated by the first respondent, and subsequently, her account was frozen following a cyber attack on WazirX’s wallets. The applicant contends that WazirX holds the XRP coins in trust on her behalf.

The first respondent argued that the seat of arbitration is in Singapore and that the Indian court lacks jurisdiction.

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Order VI Rule 16 and Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act) – Sections 77, 83, 123, 126 and 10A – This case involves an application to strike off pleadings in an election petition filed under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The election petition challenged the election of the applicant to the Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament Constituency, alleging various corrupt practices and violations of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The election petitioner (first respondent) alleged that the elected candidate (applicant) violated Section 126 of the Act by campaigning during the silence period through newspaper advertisements. Further, the petitioner claimed that the candidate failed to account for expenses related to stickers, booth agents, and a rally, thus violating Section 77 of the Act and engaging in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Act.

(Criminal Revision - Attempt to Murder (S.307 IPC))

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 (Attempt to Murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 294(b) (Obscene acts and songs).

This Criminal Revision Case challenged the judgments of the lower courts which convicted the petitioner (husband) under Section 307 IPC. 

The petitioner was found guilty of attacking his wife (PW1) with a knife, causing injuries to her head, shoulder, and breast, stemming from suspicion of fidelity. The trial court sentenced him to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld by the appellate court. 

The petitioner contended that the injuries were simple, warranting conviction only under Section 323 IPC, and that the prosecution failed to prove motive or the attack itself, suggesting the injury resulted from a fall. He also questioned the reliability of a minor witness (PW2).

 
The High Court considered the testimonies of the injured (PW1), her daughter (PW2), neighbours (PW3, PW4), and corroborating medical evidence (PW9) as sufficient proof.

(Motor Accident Liability for Requisitioned Vehicle)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (specifically Section 2(30) defining 'owner') and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Section 160) - The case arose from a fatal accident in 2010 involving a bus that had been requisitioned by a State functionary (appellant) for Gram Panchayat elections. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation. The High Court subsequently enhanced the compensation and shifted the liability from the Insurance Company to the appellant.

The central question was whether the requisitioning authority (State functionary) or the vehicle's insurer was liable for an accident occurring while the vehicle was under statutory requisition.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304(I), 300 Exception I; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 161, 207, 313, 428 – The appellant, Murugesh, appealed against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court, which had convicted him under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his father and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The prosecution’s case established that on 17.10.2017, the appellant, who had a history of demanding money and a strained relationship with his father, engaged in a heated quarrel with him. During this dispute, Murugesh fatally attacked his father with a stone, inflicting multiple severe injuries leading to his death.

The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, giving significant weight to the consistent eyewitness accounts of neighbours (PW2 and PW3) who corroborated the verbal dispute and the subsequent violent assault.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 302, 304, 34, 342 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of A1 and A2 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.100 of 2019. A1 was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, and A2 was convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC (murder with common intention) and Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement). The case arose from a dispute over a debt, which escalated into a quarrel where A1 stabbed the deceased, son of the complainant (PW1).

The defense argued that the act occurred in the heat of passion following a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, and sought a reduction in sentence.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal was filed by an insurance company challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Ariyalur, in MCOP.No.145 of 2023. The case arose from a fatal accident on 13.08.2023, where the deceased, Tamilarasan, was hit by a transport corporation bus while riding a motorcycle. The claimants, dependents of the deceased, sought compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.24,08,360/-, attributing 85% negligence to the bus driver and 15% contributory negligence to the deceased.