Daily Judgments of 07 April
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-000913 - 2023
Parties: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS M/S PARK LEATHER INDUSTRIES LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the matter back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to reconsider the quantum of compensation payable by the appellant (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) to the respondent (M/s. Park Leather Industries Ltd.) for the damage and loss suffered due to the collapse of the factory shed. The Court found that the NCDRC had not properly dealt with the issue of quantum, as it had solely relied on the assessment made by the respondent's independent surveyor without independently examining the evidence or considering the lower assessment made by the appellant's surveyor. The Court directed the NCDRC to allow the parties to adduce evidence on the quantum of compensation and to dispose of the case expeditiously. The amount deposited by the appellant with the registry was ordered to be transferred to the NCDRC to be invested in a fixed deposit, pending the final decision.
SLP(Crl) No.-004007 - 2024
Parties: JASPAL SINGH KAURAL VS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the appellant was rightly discharged by the sessions court for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, as the material on record did not establish the ingredients of these offences. The court referred to its earlier judgment in Naim Ahmed vs State (NCT) of Delhi, which held that a mere breach of promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape if the sexual relationship was consensual. Applying this principle, the court found that the sexual relationship between the appellant and the complainant/respondent was consensual, and there was no material to show any dishonest inducement or incitement by the appellant. The court also noted the prolonged nature of the relationship and the complainant's own conduct, indicating her awareness of the consequences. Accordingly, the court set aside the high court's order and upheld the discharge of the appellant, terminating the criminal proceedings.
SLP(Crl) No.-004261 - 2024
Parties: BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the relationship between the appellant, a former judicial officer, and the complainant was consensual in nature, and that the complainant had entered into the relationship with full knowledge of the appellant's personal and professional background. The court found no evidence to suggest that the appellant had made a false promise of marriage or had fraudulently induced the complainant, and that the complainant's conduct represented a reasoned deliberation.
The court noted the tendency of resorting to criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour and observed that every consensual relationship where a possibility of marriage may exist cannot be regarded as a false pretext to marry. Considering the factual matrix and the consensual nature of the relationship, the court decided to terminate the proceedings against the appellant at the stage of framing charges.
C.A. No.-002323 - 2021
Parties: SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD VS M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court held that the special condition in the insurance contract requiring the voyage to commence and complete before the monsoon sets in cannot be treated as a condition precedent to waive the insurer's liability. The court found that the condition was non-material and had been impliedly waived by the parties, as it was impossible for the appellant to comply with the condition given the voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata via several coastal states. The court also rejected the insurer's argument that the doctrine of uberrima fidei (good faith) was compromised by the appellant, finding that the insurer was aware of the appellant's intention to undertake the voyage during the foul weather period. The matter was remanded to the NCDRC to determine the extent of the insured sum liable to be paid by the respondent insurer.
Crl.A. No.-001832-001832 - 2025
Parties: HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court acquitted the appellants, finding no evidence to sustain their conviction under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court observed that there were inconsistencies between the complaint and the oral testimonies of the witnesses, and the place of occurrence was not a public place, thus not attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Additionally, the oral evidence did not support the allegation of house trespass. The Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellants.
Crl.A. No.-002605 - 2024
Parties: JAGDISH GOND VS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC, restoring the acquittal by the Trial Court. The Court found that there was no clear evidence to establish the death as homicidal rather than suicidal, and the accused had provided a plausible explanation for his absence at the time of the incident. The Court held that the mere fact that the accused and deceased were living together is not enough to shift the burden of proof to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and there was no chain of circumstances that unequivocally pointed to the guilt of the accused.
SLP(Crl) No.-012026 - 2024
Parties: UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS BRIJ BHUSHAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Land Law
The Court upheld the order of the High Court quashing the FIR against the respondent Brij Bhushan, who was the Managing Director of the J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd (JKCHC). The court found that the transfer of the land to the JKCHC was prohibited under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, but this could only result in the rights reverting to the State, not in criminal proceedings. The court did not find any specific allegations of corruption or criminal breach of trust against the respondent. As the JKCHC had already developed the land and allotted it to its members, the court saw no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the High Court.
C.A. No.-003954-003954 - 2025
Parties: K. GOPI VS THE SUB REGISTRAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowers the registering officer to refuse registration of a document due to the vendor's failure to prove title, is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908. The court found that the Act does not confer the registering authority with the power to verify the vendor's title before registering a document, and that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The court thus quashed the impugned judgments of the High Court that had relied on Rule 55A(i) and directed the appellant to lodge the sale deed for registration, subject to the necessary procedural compliances.
C.A. No.-007941 - 2019
Parties: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VS RAM KISHORI GUPTA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Area of Law: Securities Law
The Court held that the disgorgement order passed by SEBI was unsustainable and barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court found that when SEBI had earlier passed a final order on 31.07.2014 penalizing VCL and others, it could not have reopened the matter and passed a fresh disgorgement order in 2018 on the same cause of action. This violated the finality attached to the previous order.
The Court also held that the compensation claim of the investors, Ram Kishori Gupta and Harishchandra Gupta, was already decided against them by the SAT in its earlier order dated 30.04.2013, which had attained finality. SEBI could not entertain this claim again.
The Court set aside the SAT's order directing SEBI to compensate the investors, as it was contrary to the earlier SAT order. However, the Court also found the SAT's award of exorbitant costs against SEBI to be unsustainable.
C.A. No.-005029-005029 - 2025
Parties: KUNCHAM LAVANYA VS BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Area of Law: Motor Vehicle Insurance Law
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order that had absolved the insurance company from liability. The Court found that while there were doubts about the credibility of the eye-witness testimony, the overall circumstances - including the police investigation, the car inspection report, and the owner's admission of the driver's guilt - supported the imposition of liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and, by extension, the insurance company. The Court emphasized that in motor accident claims, negligence must be determined based on the preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The Court restored the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award in favor of the appellants.
Delhi High Court
FAO (COMM)-27/2025
Parties: MRS. KIRAN SURAN Vs SH. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award was barred by limitation. The court ruled that the appellant was duly served the arbitral award through her mother, who represented her in the arbitration proceedings based on a power of attorney.
The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that the limitation period under Section 34(3) commences from the date the party receives the signed copy of the award. The court found that the appellant was aware of the award based on the correspondence between the parties, and her failure to demand a copy of the award earlier did not entitle her to seek condonation of delay.
The court rejected the appellant's arguments for extension of limitation under the Supreme Court's orders and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the initial petition was itself filed beyond the maximum condonable period.
BAIL APPLN.-415/2025
Parties: DEEPAK VERMA Vs THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Deepak Verma, in a cryptocurrency fraud case registered under Sections 420 and 61(2) of the BNS Act. The court found that the investigation was at a nascent stage, and the accused had been evasive and uncooperative during questioning by the police. The court held that in these circumstances, a sustained custodial interrogation of the accused was required in accordance with the law, and it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
BAIL APPLN.-4627/2024
Parties: VINAY Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court denied bail to the accused, Vinay, in a case under Sections 304B, 498A, and 34 IPC (Indian Penal Code) relating to the alleged dowry death of his wife, Raveena.
The court rejected the arguments of the accused that the offense under Section 304B IPC was not made out as the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and not the matrimonial home, and that the period of around 1.5 months between the deceased shifting to her parental home and her suicide was too long to be considered "soon before her death" as required under the provision.
The court, after analyzing the Supreme Court judgments on interpreting Section 304B IPC, held that the place of suicide is not relevant, and the expression "soon before" does not mean "immediately before" but should be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court found that the allegations in the FIR showed continuity of harassment and dowry demands even after the deceased shifted to her parental home, until her suicide.
Therefore, the court concluded that the offense under Section 304B IPC is made out and dismissed the bail application, stating that this is not a fit case to grant bail considering the serious nature of the offense and the evidence available at this stage.
CM(M)-3018/2024
Parties: PARMOD KUMAR JAIN Vs SEEMA GUPTA
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Tenacy Law
The High Court allowed the tenant (petitioner) to examine the concerned neighbors and a specific MCD official (in a related case) tomorrow, but made it clear that the tenant will not be entitled to any further opportunity to examine witnesses.
The court took this decision while dealing with an eviction petition filed by the respondent (landlady) against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement.
The court considered the submissions of both parties and, without prejudice to the landlady's rights and contentions, permitted the tenant to lead the additional evidence to ensure there is no further delay in the eviction proceedings.
Bombay High Court
WP/4373/2025
Parties: COMMISSION ON ECUMENICAL MISSION AND RELATIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH(USA) THOR. ITS MNA. TRUS. Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED THOR. THE OFFICE OF THE GOVT. PLEADER
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Area of Law: Trust Law
The High Court of Bombay held that the Joint Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner-trust's application for extension of time to execute a sale deed of a trust property, as the delay of nearly 25 years from the original permission would deprive the trust of the actual market value of the property.
The court referred to Supreme Court precedents which establish that properties belonging to public trusts must be protected and their alienation should be subject to highest standards of transparency. The approving authority must ensure that the best possible price is secured for the trust property.
The court also relied on its own previous judgment which held that the Charity Commissioner has the discretion to revisit the transaction and invite fresh offers if there is substantial delay in completing the sale, as time is of essence when a time-bound condition is imposed.
While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted liberty to the petitioner-trust to file a fresh application under Section 36 seeking permission to sell the property afresh, following the due process of public advertisement and inviting fresh offers.
WP/4107/2024
Parties: ANNA MARUTI SHINDE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the police were duty-bound to register an FIR based on the information provided by the petitioner, as it prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offense. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, the court ruled that the 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the information is not a prerequisite for FIR registration.
The court took note of the Magistrate's inquiry report, which found suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of the petitioner's son, Akshay Shinde, in police custody. Despite the petitioner and his wife expressing a desire to withdraw the case, the court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of a senior police officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, as the court cannot ignore the State's failure to fulfill its obligations, which would undermine the rule of law and public faith in the justice system.
APEAL/798/2018
Parties: DATTU @ DATTA BHIKA TONGARE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashing and setting aside the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances relied upon, including the last seen evidence and the forensic evidence, beyond reasonable doubt to form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellant. The court held that the falsity of the defense or the failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot take the place of the prosecution's failure to establish the facts required for a conviction in a circumstantial evidence case. Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted of the charged offense.
ITXA/1240/2018
Parties: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -12, MUMBAI Vs DRISHA IMPEX PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court held that the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the alleged purchases, as it could not produce evidence to show actual delivery of material and could not provide confirmatory letters from the suppliers. The assessee also failed to produce its own audited books of accounts and quantitative details.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal had concluded that the purchases were bogus. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred in estimating only 3% of the impugned purchases as disallowance, instead of disallowing the entire peak of the bogus purchases.
The High Court reversed the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, and restored the full disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Calcutta High Court
WPA/7637/2023
Parties: DIA GOLD JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-2 & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court upheld the seizure of gold jewellery by the Income Tax authorities, finding that the respondents had reasonable grounds to suspect the jewellery was not properly accounted for in the petitioner company's records. The court noted the absence of crucial documents like a bill book, significant discrepancies in the weight of the seized jewellery compared to the company's claims, and the failure to reconcile the seized items with the company's stock registers. The court concluded that the respondent authorities acted within their legal powers and in good faith, and that the ongoing investigation was justified due to the irregularities in the petitioner's documentation.
WPA/10537/2024
Parties: ED & F MAN COMMODITIES INDIA PVT. LTD. vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by ED & F Man Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the respondent authorities had properly exercised their jurisdiction under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The court found that the respondents had followed due process and did not violate the principles of natural justice. The court also upheld the verification report submitted by the competent authority, which indicated that the petitioner's business premises were not operational, aligning with the prior cancellation of registration. The court did not find any legal or factual infirmity in the actions of the respondent authorities, and the writ petition was dismissed.
RVW/376/2024
Parties: UNION OF INDIA vs SHRI BACHAN PANDEY
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that a Single Member Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, consisting of an Administrative Member, has the jurisdiction to hear and decide an original application challenging a disciplinary proceeding where a minor penalty was imposed.
The court reviewed its previous order which had curtailed the powers of the Chairman of the Tribunal to assign matters to a Single Member Bench. The court found that its previous order was incorrect, as the Chairman had issued a notification under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 allowing a Single Member Bench to decide cases relating to minor penalties.
The court concluded that since the present case did not involve interpretation of any statutory provision or rule in relation to the Constitution, it could be decided by a Single Member Bench pursuant to the Chairman's notification. The court recalled its previous order and directed the matter to be listed for final hearing on the merits.