Daily Judgments of 01 August
Supreme Court of India
Crl.A. No.-000347-000347 - 2018
Parties: SURESH vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court ruled that the lower courts incorrectly determined the juvenility of the accused based solely on a school transfer certificate, which was based on an oral statement from his father. The Court noted that other evidence, including the Family Register, Voter's List, and medical report, indicated the accused was over 18 at the time of the incident. Citing Om Prakash v State of Rajasthan, the Court emphasized that reliable documentary evidence should take precedence over school records. Consequently, the Court overturned the juvenile designation and instructed the trial court to expedite the trial, granting the accused a set-off for the three years spent under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Delhi High Court
CS(COMM)-860/2024
Parties: AQUESTIA LIMITED vs AUTOMAT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the defendants' fluid control valve infringes the plaintiff's patent, despite the defendants holding their own patent. The court identified the plaintiff's novel features—specifically the asymmetric sealing diaphragm and differential diaphragm surface areas—in the defendants' product. It rejected the defendants' defenses and granted an interim injunction against further infringement, ordering the removal of infringing product listings from e-commerce platforms.
CRL.M.C.-5152/2025
Parties: TANVEE SHARMA & ORS. vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed an FIR against the petitioners under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on an amicable resolution of disputes and a Memorandum of Understanding to withdraw FIRs. Citing Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, the court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements, concluding that there was no further purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings.
CRL.M.C.-5159/2025
Parties: KARAN MOOLCHANDANI vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed an FIR against Karan Moolchandani under IPC Sections 354A, 354D, and 509 for sexual harassment, stalking, and obscene remarks. The court determined that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and that further criminal proceedings would be unjust. The FIR and related proceedings were quashed, contingent upon the petitioner completing six months of community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital.
CRL.M.C.-1204/2025
Parties: MOHD ASIF & ORS. vs THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS SARAI ROHILLA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court quashed the FIR against Mohd. Asif and another under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, along with the charge sheet and related proceedings. The court found that the parties had amicably resolved their matrimonial disputes, executed a settlement deed, and dissolved their marriage. It concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings served no useful purpose and quashing the FIR was in the interest of justice.
W.P.(C)-7263/2025
Parties: PARAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, & ANR. vs IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, & ORS.
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Area of Law: Contract Law
The High Court upheld the tendering authority's decision to award a contract to RVNL, rejecting the petitioner's challenge regarding RVNL's subcontracting experience. The court found no flaws in the decision-making process, noting that the tender conditions did not exclude subcontracting experience and that due diligence was performed on RVNL's credentials. The court emphasized its limited role in reviewing the tendering authority's assessment, stating it would only intervene if the decision were perverse or made in bad faith, which was not established.
BAIL APPLN.-2872/2025
Parties: SAHIL ARORA vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to the applicant, determining that the primary evidence against him—disclosure statements from a co-accused and alleged mobile phone communications—was inconclusive and unsupported by the chargesheet. The court found no incriminating evidence or reliable proof justifying further detention.
BAIL APPLN.-623/2024
Parties: PRADEEP @ PIDDI vs STATE OF (GNCT) NEW DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed Pradeep's bail application in a case involving the rape and murder of his 8-year-old cousin. The court found strong evidence against him, including witness testimony, DNA linking him to the crime, and his abscondence post-incident. Given the serious nature of the charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault), which entail severe penalties, the court determined that bail was not warranted.
BAIL APPLN.-2047/2025
Parties: PIYUSH SHARMA @ KALE vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed Piyush Sharma's bail application under Sections 302/307/34 IPC for allegedly stabbing the first informant and his brother, resulting in the brother's death. The court noted no significant trial delay, with charges framed within a year and numerous prosecution witnesses examined. It found the argument for parity with co-accused unconvincing, as Sharma was directly involved in the fatal act. Given the seriousness of the offense, bail was denied.
W.P.(C)-792/2025
Parties: CISS SERVICES LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's bid due to insufficient experience was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court determined that the petitioner's experience in providing caretaker services at ATMs was sufficiently similar to the tender's requirements for unarmed security at ASI monuments. It quashed the contract award to the successful bidder and mandated a new tender process, allowing the current contractor to continue until completion. The ruling referenced Supreme Court principles that restrict judicial review in tender cases to instances of mala fide, bias, or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
CRL.M.C.-1474/2022
Parties: GURVINDER SINGH TOOR vs ROHIT MALHOTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court held that cheques issued by Gurvinder Singh Toor to Rohit Malhotra, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), were prima facie in discharge of a legally enforceable debt as defined by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court referenced a prior judgment affirming the MoU's validity and the presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were for a legally enforceable debt. It concluded that the petitioner's claim of no enforceable debt was a trial issue and dismissed the petition to quash the Section 138 complaint.
CRL.M.A.-185/2025
Parties: RAMESH KUMAR JAYASWAL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the application of Ramesh Kumar Jayaswal seeking a stay on his conviction, determining that the prosecution's case was not prima facie unsustainable. The court applied the Supreme Court's "irreversible consequences" test, noting that as Managing Director of a listed company, Jayaswal would face disqualification under the Companies Act, 2013 if the conviction were not stayed. However, due to the significant public and social implications of the coal block scam, the court found no grounds for an exceptional stay. The court partially granted the application by suspending the sentence and allowing bail under specific conditions.
CRL.REV.P.-763/2016
Parties: NUTAN TYAGI vs STATE
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court set aside the convictions under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was driving recklessly. The absence of the complainant's testimony, an eye-witness, weakened the case, and the circumstances presented were insufficient to establish guilt. The court criticized the lower courts for incorrectly applying res ipsa loquitur, emphasizing that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate culpable negligence, not just an error in judgment. Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted.
Bombay High Court
MCA/51/2025
Parties: Amruta sachin sonune Vs Sachin namdev sonune
Judge(s): JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court dismissed the applicant-wife's request to transfer divorce proceedings from the Family Court to the Civil Court, finding her allegations vague and lacking credibility, indicating an intent to delay the advanced proceedings. The court permitted the applicant to request video conferencing from the Family Court and ordered the respondent-husband to cover her travel expenses if her presence was necessary. It mandated that the Family Court conclude the matter within three months of the order's upload.
Calcutta High Court
ITAT/4/2025
Parties: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA Vs MINTO PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court affirmed that the assessee did not meet the burden of proof under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share subscribers. Both the assessing officer and appellate authority identified discrepancies in the financial details of the subscriber companies and noted their failure to respond to summons, which warranted an adverse inference. The High Court upheld the conclusions of the lower authorities and found the tribunal's reversal of these findings to be erroneous, ultimately allowing the revenue's appeal and restoring the assessment order.
CS-COM/175/2024
Parties: FINORCHEM LIMITED Vs PULINAT ETTAN THOMAS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Area of Law: Contract Law
The High Court determined that the agreement dated August 2, 2019 constituted a contingent contract, dependent on the simultaneous joining of seven rubber experts recommended by the defendant. As this contingency was not met, the contract was deemed unenforceable under the Indian Contract Act. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Finorchem Limited, ordering the defendant to refund an advance payment of Rs. 55,47,422 with 8% interest from the suit's filing date. The defendant's counter-claim was dismissed due to the lack of a valid contract, precluding any claim for fees or expenses.
CRA/45/2010
Parties: RAM AVTAR SHOW @ RAM ABTAR SHAW Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act for possession of 1.5 kg of ganja found in a polythene packet in his hand, ruling that Section 50's requirement for a search in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was not applicable. Due to a 20-year delay in trial and appeal, the court reduced the sentence to time already served and increased the fine, recognizing the delay as a mitigating factor that caused significant trauma to the appellant.
CRA/132/1990
Parties: ASADUL HAQUE Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court overturned Asadul Haque's conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for unlicensed diesel storage. The court determined that prosecution witnesses did not corroborate the charges, indicating that Haque used the diesel for his fertilizer shop's agricultural pump sets rather than for sale. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence regarding the diesel's seizure. Ultimately, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the conviction and sentence.
WPA/11284/2012
Parties: M/S. DOLPHIN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court upheld the validity of the transfer of Ajoy Kumar Roy from one office to another, affirming that it complied with the terms of his appointment letter and had not been previously challenged. The Court rejected the tribunal's contrary finding that deemed the transfer unjustified and ordered reinstatement with back wages. It ruled that Roy was obligated to report to the new office under the valid transfer order, and his non-compliance disqualified him from receiving back wages or benefits for the disputed period. Consequently, the High Court annulled the tribunal's award and the Labour Court's related order.
WPA/14151/2023
Parties: SRI SURESH BAJAJ AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court granted the writ petition, ruling that the government could not revoke the accrued rights of leasehold property transferees under the original lease deed dated 24.02.1969. It determined that the order dated 21.02.1986, which reinstated certain restrictive clauses, lacked retrospective effect and could not impair the vested rights acquired by transferees during the period when those clauses were lifted. The court ordered the respondent authority to process the property mutation in favor of the petitioners without requiring compliance with the 22.06.2012 notification.
WPA/14904/2025
Parties: SK. SAHARAF ALI Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that Sk. Saharaf Ali, a retired employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, is entitled to interest on delayed retiral benefits, including leave salary, gratuity, and provident fund. The court mandated CSTC to pay 6% interest per annum on the leave salary, gratuity, and 20% of the provident fund from their due dates until payment. For the remaining 80% of the provident fund, interest at 6% per annum was ordered, with a provision that failure to pay would result in an 8% interest rate on the total amount. The writ petition was disposed of, noting that the allegations were not admitted by the respondents as no affidavits were requested.
WPA/16038/2025
Parties: BARUN SARKAR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that a retiree from the Calcutta State Transport Corporation is entitled to interest on delayed retiral benefits, including leave salary, gratuity, and provident fund, at 6% per annum from the due dates until payment. The CSTC must pay 80% of the unpaid provident fund with interest at 6%, with a penalty interest of 8% if not paid. The court noted that the allegations in the writ petition were not admitted by the respondents due to the absence of affidavits.
WPA/33547/2013
Parties: M/S. DOLPHIN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court upheld the validity of a 1999 transfer order directing an employee to join a specific office, affirming that the employee was obligated to comply based on the terms of the appointment letter and a prior award. The court ruled that the employee's failure to report to the new location, despite the order's validity, disqualified him from receiving back wages or other benefits. Consequently, the court set aside the decisions of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court that had ordered the company to compensate the employee.
RVW/349/2024
Parties: M/S. AKSHARA NIWAS CONSORTIUM & ORS. Vs MRS. REETA TREHAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court dismissed the review petition, determining that the petitioners did not demonstrate any apparent error justifying review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that mere errors, whether factual or legal, do not suffice for review; the error must be clear and evident without extensive reasoning. The single-judge bench concluded that the petitioners' grounds failed to satisfy the stringent criteria for reviewing the prior order permitting arbitration.
MAT/524/2025
Parties: SANJAY JHUNJHUNWALA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA, JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court upheld the rejection of the appellant's second compounding application under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, ruling that compounding is intended for use only before or during the adjudication process, not after a penalty order has been issued. The court emphasized that permitting post-adjudication compounding would undermine the Act's objectives of facilitating external trade and ensuring the orderly development of the foreign exchange market.