Search Judgments

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8 – The case involves two second appeals arising from judgments related to property disputes. The first suit (O.S.No.1216 of 2010) was filed for possession, damages, and a permanent injunction, while the second suit (O.S.No.1217 of 2010) sought partition, maintenance, and rendition of accounts. The core issue revolves around the nature of the suit properties, specifically whether they are ancestral or separate property of one Selvaraj, the husband of the appellant in S.A.No.512 of 2019 and the vendor of the respondent in S.A.No.507 of 2019.

The appellant contends that the properties are ancestral and that Selvaraj had no right to sell them, especially given a pending partition suit.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act) – Section 6(17), 6(19), 34, 63, 64 and 108 – This case involves a Second Appeal filed by a temple (plaintiff) challenging concurrent findings dismissing its suit. The temple sought a declaration that it is the trustee of certain properties dedicated for conducting a specific religious festival (Aruthra festival), along with consequential possession.

The properties were originally dedicated to the temple in 1924 via a Declaration of Trust, with the executors and their descendants managing the properties and conducting the festival using the income generated. The first defendant, a descendant, sold the properties to defendants 2 to 6, prompting the temple to file suit, arguing the sale was invalid and the first defendant failed to conduct the festival.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 33(2)(b) – This writ petition was filed by the management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, challenging the order of the first respondent, which rejected the management’s application for approval to dismiss the second respondent, a conductor, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The conductor was charged with not issuing tickets to three passengers after collecting fares and possessing 34 sold tickets in his cash bag. A domestic inquiry led to his dismissal. The Labour Court rejected the approval application, citing the non-examination of passengers and the lack of proof of payment of one month’s salary.

Recovery of Loss – The petitioner, an Assistant in the Thanjavur Rural Branch of the respondent Corporation, was permitted to retire. The Corporation intended to deduct Rs.57,500 from her dues, claiming responsibility for a lost ticket bundle worth Rs.230 during her tenure as a Ticket Controller. The petitioner contested the deduction, arguing that the recovery of the full face value of the lost tickets was unjustified without proof of actual loss or fraudulent misuse.

The Corporation argued that the petitioner was negligent, and recovery was per their procedure.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – The appellant and her husband were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased, allegedly committed by beating him with sticks. The prosecution’s case hinged on eyewitness accounts, a purported dying declaration, and the recovery of a blood-stained danda from the appellant.

The medical evidence indicated that the death was homicidal, caused by head injury and asphyxia. However, there were inconsistencies regarding the time of death and the location where the body was found.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 161 and 313 – This appeal challenges the High Court’s decision, which upheld the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant, Shail Kumari, under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of her two children. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the testimony of PW-2, who claimed to have seen the appellant near the water body where the children drowned and later attempting suicide. The appellant denied the charges, citing marital discord as a source of tension. The Trial Court convicted her, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304, 300; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8, 21, 25, 27, 145, 157; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – This case revolves around an appeal against a High Court judgment that partially allowed an appeal, altering a conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. The appellant (original accused) had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) confessing to the crime. The High Court relied on this FIR, along with medical evidence, to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part I, citing Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC (sudden fight).

The Supreme Court found several errors in the High Court’s judgment:
1.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 406 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Section 202, 482 – This case originates from a private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging non-payment of dues for yarn supplied to the Petitioner. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, which was rejected.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 52A and 63;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 497 – This judgment addresses a batch of Criminal Revisions filed against orders dismissing petitions for interim custody of vehicles and cell phones seized in cases registered under the NDPS Act. Some petitioners are accused, while others are relatives, friends, or third-party owners of the seized items.

The court considered the interplay between the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the NDPS Act, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. It emphasized the importance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules, which mandate the swift disposal of seized properties, including conveyances, by the Drug Disposal Committee.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) Section 2(c)(vi) – This Criminal Original Petition was filed seeking directions for the respondents to investigate a complaint and submit a charge sheet in F.I.R. No. RC0322023A0020/2023. The petitioner, former Managing Director of M/s.