Daily Judgments of 04 August
Supreme Court
C.A. No.-014098-014101 - 2015
Parties: GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. vs GREEN INFRA CORPORATE WIND POWER LTD. AND ORS. ETC.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court ruled that four wind energy companies could seek a separate tariff determination from the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) since they did not utilize accelerated depreciation benefits under the Income Tax Act. The Court clarified that the ₹3.56 per kWh tariff in the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) was only applicable to projects that availed such benefits. Consequently, GUVNL could not enforce this tariff on the respondents, emphasizing that GUVNL must support renewable energy policies rather than act solely on commercial grounds. The Court also reaffirmed that tariffs established in PPAs are not immutable and may be reviewed by the regulatory commission in the public interest.
C.A. No.-000757-000760 - 2013
Parties: D.P.C.C. vs LODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD.ETC.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Area of Law: Environmental Law
The Court ruled that regulatory boards can impose restitutionary or compensatory damages and require bank guarantees as preventive measures for potential environmental harm under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act. The Court clarified that this is distinct from punitive penalties, reinforcing the 'Polluter Pays' principle. It mandated that the boards exercise these powers transparently and develop subordinate legislation outlining relevant principles and procedures. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment but did not reinstate previously quashed show cause notices and ordered refunds for amounts collected under those notices.
Delhi High Court
CM(M)-1428/2025
Parties: M/S OM CROP SCIENCE vs CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court ruled that the executing court improperly issued warrants of attachment for the petitioner's house, which was exempt under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court directed the petitioner to apply for recall of the attachment order, which would remain in abeyance until the following day to facilitate this action, without commenting on the case's merits.
CRL.M.C.-4707/2025
Parties: DHARAMVEER SINGH & ORS. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed an FIR against the petitioners for offenses under IPC Sections 498A, 406, and 34, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the disputes had been resolved, with the complainant receiving a full settlement and expressing no desire to pursue prosecution. The court determined that continuing the trial would not serve the interests of justice.
BAIL APPLN.-2115/2025
Parties: NEERAJ YADAV vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to Neeraj Yadav, charged under IPC Sections 365/34, 302/201/34 for allegedly murdering his wife and disposing of her body. The court highlighted that co-accused, including Yadav's parents, had already been granted bail, and public witnesses, including the victim's father, did not support the prosecution. The investigating officer indicated insufficient evidence linking Yadav to the strangulation or to the disposal of the body. Given the lack of strong evidence, the court found no justification to deny bail.
CRL.M.C.-2724/2025
Parties: RAJ KUMAR & ORS. vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 469/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, filed by the petitioners (Raj Kumar & Ors.). The court noted that the complainant had settled all disputes, received Rs. 2,00,000, and the marriage had been dissolved with no children involved. The complainant expressed a desire not to pursue prosecution, and the State did not oppose the quashing. The court concluded that continuing with the trial would not serve the interests of justice.
CRL.A.-781/2025
Parties: THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI vs ARVIND
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the conviction of the respondent for offenses under Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, finding sufficient evidence from prosecution witnesses, including Head Constable Rohtash, that the respondent obstructed and used criminal force against a public servant. However, the court affirmed the acquittal under Section 333 IPC, as medical evidence did not establish that the complainant sustained grievous injuries. The lower court's acquittal was set aside for the other charges, and the case was scheduled for sentencing arguments.
CRL.M.C.-5196/2025
Parties: JAI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed the FIR against Jai Kishan Sharma and others under IPC Sections 498A, 406, and 34, citing an amicable resolution through a Mediation Settlement Deed, which included mutual consent for marriage dissolution. The court referenced Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that continuing criminal proceedings would be unjust. The Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the quashing of the FIR. Thus, the court allowed the petition and dismissed all related proceedings.
CRL.M.C.-5202/2025
Parties: AMIT KUMAR & ORS. vs STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The court quashed FIR No. 122/2014 against Amit Kumar and others under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, finding that the parties had amicably settled their disputes, including the dissolution of marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. The court determined that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjust and serve no useful purpose, leading to the conclusion that the FIR and related proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice.
W.P.(CRL)-2411/2025
Parties: CHANDAN CHAUHAN vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner and his wife under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the importance of amicable dispute resolution. The court determined that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process, as the parties had reached a settlement and further proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
CRL.M.C.-2274/2025
Parties: OMKAR SINGH & ORS. vs THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 359/2022 against Omkar Singh and others under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, citing amicable resolution of disputes, including a mutual consent divorce and a Memorandum of Settlement. The court determined that continuing criminal proceedings would be unfair and constitute an abuse of process.
BAIL APPLN.-3640/2024
Parties: KAPIL WADHAWAN vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The bail application of Kapil Wadhawan, Chairman of Dewan Housing Finance Limited, was dismissed due to allegations of orchestrating a financial fraud involving the misappropriation of approximately ₹34,926.77 crores from 17 banks. The court determined that if proven, the allegations indicate a premeditated fraud undermining financial institutions and investor confidence. It ruled that Wadhawan did not meet the criteria for bail, citing risks of flight, evidence tampering, and witness influence. The court underscored the need for a strong judicial response to significant economic offenses that pose public harm.
CRL.REV.P.-1280/2024
Parties: MOHD. IMRAN vs THE STATE GNCTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to frame charges against Mohd. Imran under IPC Sections 304 (Part II), 308, 304A, 337, and 338. The investigation indicated that Imran, as a co-owner of the building where a fire occurred, was implicated in multiple safety violations, including unauthorized construction and inadequate fire safety measures. The court found that Imran and others were aware of these hazardous conditions yet failed to act. Consequently, the court denied Imran's discharge plea, emphasizing that the evidence suggests culpable knowledge and shared responsibility for the incident, while clarifying that these findings are preliminary and the trial will proceed independently.
CM(M)-2874/2024
Parties: M/S ACCE GLOBAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD vs M/S AVANT CAREER PVT LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court ruled that the plaintiff's application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC was not maintainable because the suit was initially filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC. The court emphasized Rule 1(3) of Order XIII-A CPC, which prohibits its application to suits originally filed as summary suits. It dismissed the plaintiff's argument regarding the suit's conversion to an ordinary suit, highlighting the significance of the phrase "originally filed." Consequently, the court overturned the trial court's order that had granted the plaintiff's summary judgment application.
CRL.M.C.-371/2025
Parties: L AND T FINANCE LTD vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld a magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the registration of an FIR against L&T Finance Ltd. and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. The court found that the complaint's allegations, including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy, prima facie indicated criminality, necessitating a police investigation to clarify the facts and roles of the accused. It emphasized that the existence of a civil remedy does not justify quashing criminal proceedings when prima facie elements of criminality are present, while noting that it has not made conclusive findings on the merits pending investigation.
CM(M)-1442/2025
Parties: HARPREET KAUR vs RAJINDER PAL SINGH GROVER
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court permitted the petitioner (defendant no. 2) to submit an additional affidavit and present evidence on title documents previously on record but not referenced. The trial court had denied this request; however, the High Court ruled that, with the subsequent purchaser (defendant no. 3) involved in the suit, the petitioner could reference these documents, contingent upon certain conditions, including costs to the plaintiff. The court upheld the trial court's order, emphasizing that the primary issue was property ownership, not the sale transaction.
Bombay High Court
WP/9179/2022
Parties: MR. SACHIN MALPANI AND ORS Vs MR. NILAM PATIL AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court upheld the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies' order requiring maintenance charges to be levied proportionately based on the undivided share of apartment owners, as mandated by Section 10 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. The court confirmed the Deputy Registrar's jurisdiction, granted by state notifications, and emphasized that both the Deed of Declaration and the Apartment Act necessitate proportional levying of charges according to each owner's undivided interest in common areas, rather than equal distribution. The court found the Deputy Registrar's and Cooperative Court's decisions to be well-reasoned and compliant with statutory requirements.
WP/3270/2022
Parties: MOTILAL NIRRANJAN BHARATHI AND OTHERS Vs SUNITA BAJIRAO PATIL AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE HONBLE JUSTICE R. W. JOSHI
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court ruled that civil court jurisdiction is not excluded under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, allowing it to review orders by the Mamlatdar and Collector. It found prior judgments to be per incuriam relative to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhulabhai and affirmed that the judgment in Mohammad Khan correctly interprets the law. The court concluded that a civil suit is an adequate remedy for challenging orders under the Act, affirming the civil court's authority to independently assess the correctness of such orders and the merits of the underlying dispute.
CRA/146/2025
Parties: SHREE BALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN AND OTHERS Vs SANJAY LAXMAN PATHAK AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application by the defendants, affirming the trial court's rejection of their plea under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaint. The court ruled that the defendants' arguments should be evaluated during the trial, not at the interlocutory stage. It determined that the plaintiff's claim of hereditary right as an archak could not be dismissed outright, as civil court jurisdiction to examine such claims is not barred by law. The court found that the cited provisions of the Constitution, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act, and Maharashtra Public Trusts Act did not limit the civil court's jurisdiction in this matter.
Calcutta High Court
PLA/32/2020
Parties: IN THE GOODS OF BIMAL KUMAR GANGULY (DEC)
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that Bimal Kumar Ganguly's will, dated 11/05/2015, was validly executed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Probate was granted to the petitioner, the appointed executrix, who was ordered to file an inventory and accounts within six months.
AP-COM/218/2025
Parties: ROSHAN AGARWAL Vs NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court ruled that Clause 76 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) does not form a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The clause lacked a clear intention to submit present and future disputes to arbitration, and the mere inclusion of the term "arbitration" does not suffice to establish a binding agreement. Consequently, the court determined that there was no dispute resolution clause in the contract, preventing the petitioner from seeking the appointment of an arbitrator based on Clause 76.
FAT/159/2015
Parties: SAIL (ISP), BURNPUR, STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs SRI BIBEKANANDA MAJHI AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The High Court addressed appeals concerning land acquisition by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), finding that the Referral Court improperly relied on a single sale deed to assess market value. The Court permitted SAIL to introduce five additional contemporaneous sale deeds as evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It ruled that these deeds are admissible under the Land Acquisition Act and the Registration Act. The High Court overturned the Referral Court's judgments and remanded the case for a reassessment of market value, allowing claimants the opportunity to contest the new evidence, with a directive for the Referral Court to complete the re-hearing within one year.
WPA/12526/2025
Parties: UCO BANK Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed UCO Bank's writ petition against the Controlling and Appellate Authorities' orders, which mandated the bank to pay the differential gratuity amount to employee Atanu Bhattacharyya. The court upheld the Appellate Authority's calculation of gratuity entitlement under the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulation, 1979, noting it provided superior benefits compared to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and found no grounds to challenge the Appellate Authority's clear calculations.
WPA/15387/2025
Parties: UCO BANK Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which determined the employee's gratuity based on the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulation, 1979. The Authority noted that the Regulation allowed for a more favorable gratuity calculation, including extra benefits for service exceeding 30 years. However, as the employer had already disbursed the maximum gratuity permissible under the Act, the court ruled that no further gratuity was owed and dismissed the employee's writ petition.
WPA/21213/2024
Parties: BHASWATI DAFADAR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed a writ petition by an unmarried daughter seeking family pension from her deceased mother, Shyamali Dafadar. The court ruled that the government policy from March 3, 2008, which provides family pensions to unmarried daughters of state government employees, did not apply because Shyamali was employed by an independent body, the West Bengal Social Welfare Advisory Board, rather than the state government. Consequently, the petitioner's claim was deemed legally unsustainable.
MAT/1054/2025
Parties: SAHAJAHAN SK. & ANR. Vs SUPRIYA MANDAL GAYEN & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over a criminal case in which the appellant was an accused. The court ruled that the appellant lacks the right to select the investigating agency or to be heard during the investigation stage. It clarified that the High Court is not required to include the accused as a party to the writ petition or to hear them prior to directing a CBI investigation, which is also not subject to challenge by the accused. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court concluded that the appellant has no right to appeal against the CBI takeover order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.