Search Judgments

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) Section 74 – This writ petition challenged the order in original and order in appeal, demanding the petitioner, a charitable trust running a marriage hall, to pay GST liability along with interest and full penalty. The department’s preventive unit found that the petitioner had not registered with the GST Department despite rendering taxable activities from July 2017 to January 2020.

The petitioner argued that they had paid a portion of the GST liability and penalty under the cum-tax basis method and that the total value arrived at by the respondent included advance and reimbursable amounts. They further contended that the invocation of Section 74(1) of the CGST Act was unjustified as there was no suppression or misrepresentation.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This judgment addresses appeals filed by an Insurance Company against a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to claimants who lost family members in a road accident.

The Insurance Company argued that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the insurance policy was obtained fraudulently after the accident occurred. The MACT and the High Court rejected these arguments.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 118(a), and 139 – This case involves two criminal revision cases (Crl.R.C.No.577 of 2018 and Crl.R.C.No.578 of 2018) filed against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court, which convicted the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cases stem from two separate loan transactions where the accused (a partnership firm and its managing partner) allegedly issued cheques that were dishonored due to “Payment stopped by the drawer.” The complainant claimed that the cheques were issued towards repayment of the loan amounts with interest. The accused contended that they had already repaid the loans and that the cheques were issued only as security, which was later misused.

The accused argued that they had repaid a substantial amount of the loan, producing bank statements and examining witnesses to support their claim.

(Maintainability of Application for Clarification/Correction of Court Order)

Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India; Order XII, Rules 1 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules; Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1971 - This miscellaneous application sought to declare an order dictated in open court as final and binding, while asserting that a subsequent signed and uploaded order had no legal force, citing material variances (e.g., status quo directions, disposal of the High Court writ petition).

The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding it non-maintainable. It reiterated that post-disposal applications are generally limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, or addressing executory orders rendered impossible to implement by subsequent events, as per its previous judgments and Circular F. No.

The Board Standing Order (BSO) 15.40 – This Second Appeal arose from a dismissed suit seeking permanent injunction over ‘A’ schedule patta lands and ‘B’ schedule Tharisu lands in the Kalvarayan hills. The non-tribal plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession, asserting their father purchased ‘A’ schedule lands and obtained ‘B’ memos for ‘B’ schedule properties. They alleged developing the land into a fruit farm.

The defendants contended that non-tribals are prohibited from owning lands designated for Scheduled Tribes in these areas, arguing the plaintiffs’ possession was illegal.

(Prisoner's Leave (Ordinary and Emergency)

Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (Rules 3, 6, 13, 22(1), 22(2), 22(3) - The writ petition challenged the rejection of ordinary leave for a life convict, Gopi @ Sahaya Burono, who had served 17 years. His request for leave without escort was denied by the DIG of Prisons based on Rule 22(3), which mandates a one-year gap from the date of return from the last ordinary leave for a subsequent spell. The convict's last ordinary leave ended on 13.01.2025, rendering him ineligible at the time of the current request.

The Court upheld the rejection of ordinary leave, finding the second respondent's stand consistent with Rule 22(3).

(Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), (c) - This appeal challenged a High Court order that set aside a trial court's decision and rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant, a real estate developer, alleged a composite commercial arrangement with the respondents involving the sale of a property and post-sale obligations, including a balance payment of Rs. 53 crores, as per an unsigned Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) drafted by the respondents' counsel.

Following the execution of sale deeds, the appellant filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction (to enforce the MoA and recover balance payment or reconvey property) and permanent injunction.

 Negotiable Instruments Act – Director’s Liability & CrPC Inherent Powers

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Sections 138, 141, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 397, 482 – The appellant, a Director of Projtech Engineering Private Limited, appealed against the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash summoning orders issued under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act. The company had issued three cheques totaling ₹50 lacs for the supply of iron and steel, which were dishonoured due to “DRAWERS SIGNATURES DIFFERS AND ALTERNATIONS/CORRECTIONS ON INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN DATE.”

The Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge, and High Court had sustained the summons against the appellant. The rationale was that her signing of a Board Resolution ipso facto evidenced her involvement in the day-to-day management of the company. The High Court also held that a Section 482 CrPC petition, filed after a revision under Section 397 CrPC on the same grounds, was subject to narrower jurisdiction.

(Appealability of Pre-Deposit Order under MSMED Act)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 33, 34(2)(b)(ii), 37
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act): Sections 15, 16, 19
Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 13(1-A) Proviso, 13(2)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 43

The present appeal was filed by M/s.Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (original applicant) challenging an order of a learned Single Judge concerning the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The appellant had initiated proceedings under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside an arbitral award.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) Section 2(c), 2(h), 2(i) – The petitioner, a physically challenged individual with 40% locomotor disability (Hereditary Sensory Motor Neuropathy), was denied a Nativity Certificate and subsequently deemed medically unfit for a Junior Engineer (Electrical) post in Puducherry despite being provisionally selected. The Nativity Certificate was refused due to his temporary relocation to a nearby village in Tamil Nadu, necessitated by his mother’s demise and his aged father’s ill health. The authorities disregarded G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002, which permits temporary absence without losing nativity by birth.

The Medical Board’s declaration of medical unfitness was made despite the petitioner’s successful B.Tech (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) completion, including practicals, and four years of experience as an Electrical Supervisor in a private company.