Daily Judgments of 17 July
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-009537-009537 - 2025
Parties: RAM CHARAN vs SUKHRAM
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court ruled that in the absence of established customs or laws for tribal inheritance rights, female heirs are entitled to equal shares of ancestral property based on principles of justice, equity, and the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14. The Court identified the denial of a female heir's share as gender discrimination, which must be addressed by law. Consequently, it overturned lower court decisions and awarded equal property shares to the appellant-plaintiffs, the legal heirs of the female heir.
C.A. No.-009524-009532 - 2025
Parties: M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. vs CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The Court upheld the High Court's ruling that the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). Conversely, it ruled that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2), allowing time-barred claims to be referred to conciliation. The Court referenced prior rulings in Silpi Industries and Mahakali Foods, while distinguishing the case of V.R. Kalliyanikutty. The Court also noted that the impact of unpaid amounts disclosure under Section 22 on the limitation period should be assessed individually.
C.A. No.-003509-003510 - 2010
Parties: GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR vs JAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court determined that the omission of the 1st respondent as the testator's wife and the absence of reasons for her disinheritance created a suspicious circumstance, indicating a lack of free will by the testator. Evidence showed a good relationship between the testator and the 1st respondent, whose status as the wife was undisputed. The will's cryptic nature and the complete omission of the 1st respondent raised doubts about the testator's free disposition, leading the court to conclude that the will was likely influenced by undue pressure from the appellant. Consequently, the court upheld the High Court's decision to declare the 1st respondent as the rightful owner of the suit land.
C.A. No.-009538-009538 - 2025
Parties: SUNITA vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court ruled that the driver of a TATA 407 Truck possessed a valid Light Motor Vehicle license, with no additional endorsement needed since the truck's gross weight was under 7500 kg. Although the vehicle was insured under a 'Liability Only Policy' covering third-party liability, the court determined that the insurance company must indemnify the claimant-appellants for the compensation amount and subsequently seek recovery from the vehicle's owner.
Crl.A. No.-000391-000391 - 2017
Parties: M. SAMBASIVA RAO vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution did not prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, citing contradictions in the evidence, including the Superintendent of Police's involvement in the trap, inconsistencies regarding the seized shirt's color, and the recovery of phenolphthalein powder from a whisky bottle. Emphasizing the principle of double presumption of innocence, the Court overturned the High Court's conviction, reinstating the trial court's acquittal of the appellant, who is entitled to a refund of any fine paid.
Delhi High Court
CRL.M.C.-4704/2025
Parties: ABILITY DODZI @ CHINAZOM ABILITY vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition, ruling that the Trial Court's order was interlocutory and not subject to revisional powers under Section 438(2) of the BNSS Act. The Court noted that the petitioner's request for preservation of CCTV footage was already pending before the Trial Court, rendering High Court intervention unnecessary. The petition was deemed devoid of merit and frivolous, resulting in an imposition of costs of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner.
CRL.M.C.-3848/2025
Parties: NITIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 112/2017 against Nitin and another, which included charges under IPC Sections 498A, 406, and 34, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted that the complainant had reconciled with the petitioners, and they were living together with a child. Given these changed circumstances, the court determined that continuing the trial was not in the interest of justice.
CRL.M.C.-1205/2025
Parties: YASHU CHUGH vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 0329/2023 against Yashu Chugh under Sections 279/338 IPC, noting that the complainant had settled disputes with the petitioner and received full compensation, including from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The complainant expressed a desire not to pursue prosecution, and the State raised no objections. The court, satisfied with the settlement, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and related proceedings.
CRL.A.-360/2021
Parties: MOHD. SAJID @ BENAM vs THE STATE
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the conviction of Mohd. Sajid @ Benam under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 506/34 of the IPC. The court found the 13-year-old victim's testimony consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, including a friend and an uncle involved in the rescue. The appellant's claims of contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence were dismissed, with the court concluding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
BAIL APPLN.-2109/2025
Parties: DURGESH KUMAR vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to Durgesh Kumar, accused under IPC Sections 328, 376, and 506. The court found that the complainant, a well-educated woman, was in a consensual relationship with the accused, who had promised to marry her. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, the court differentiated between consensual sex and rape, as well as between a breach of promise and a false promise made for lust. Given the circumstances, including the accused's undertaking to marry the complainant, bail was granted with conditions.
CRL.M.C.-2984/2023
Parties: X vs STATE & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court ruled that blood samples from an accused under Section 376 IPC can be collected under Sections 53 and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of DNA analysis as crucial evidence in rape cases. The court overturned the Additional Sessions Judge's denial of the blood sample collection, stating that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can be challenged by scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, particularly when the prosecutrix was separated from her husband at the time of the alleged offence. The court ordered the accused to provide a blood sample within 15 days, permitting reasonable force if necessary.
BAIL APPLN.-1761/2025
Parties: ARPIT MISHRA vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Arpit Mishra, accused of making abusive and threatening calls, physical assault, and threatening a business under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court emphasized that the seriousness of allegations alone does not justify denial of bail and highlighted contradictions in the complainant's statements, lack of medical evidence, and delay in filing the FIR, which undermined the prosecution's credibility. Bail was granted with strict conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.
CRL.M.C.-700/2025
Parties: MOHD YASIR vs STATE GNCT DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 325/2022 against Mohd. Yasir under Section 308 IPC, citing amicable resolution of the dispute and a Memorandum of Understanding executed by the parties. The court referenced Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, asserting that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. The petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 20,000 to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Bombay High Court
FCA/53/2021
Parties: SMT. PRIYA AASHISH BODAS Vs SHRI. AASHISH RAJIV BODAS
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court upheld the Family Court's dismissal of the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and granted the husband's counterclaim for divorce based on cruelty and desertion. The Court found that the Family Court had properly evaluated the evidence, noting the wife's humiliating behavior towards the husband, indifference to his specially-abled sister, and refusal of physical intimacy constituted cruelty. Additionally, the marriage was deemed irretrievably broken, supported by prior attempts at mutual divorce. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Family Court's judgment.
IAL/18572/2025
Parties: MANISHA NIMESH MEHTA Vs TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court dismissed the review petition, determining that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for review of the consent judgment dated October 1, 2024. The court noted that the review petition merely reiterated arguments from the original petition and highlighted that the petitioner had complied with the consent judgment by appearing before the NCLT. Consequently, the court ruled that a review of the consent judgment was not maintainable.
WP/9273/2014
Parties: MANUBAI KONDIRAM JAWALE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE HONBLE JUSTICE PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the Minister's order cancelling mutation entry No. 4444 was a non-speaking order that breached natural justice principles. The Court noted the lack of reasons for the cancellation and the absence of reasonable notice and opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. Consequently, the Court quashed the Minister's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, mandating a fair hearing for both parties.
Calcutta High Court
FMAT/276/2025
Parties: COLONEL M SANJEEV vs SARDAR SHAHIN IMAM AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that the appeal against the ad interim injunction order restraining the Calcutta Swimming Club from conducting its AGM and elections on July 5, 2025 has become infructuous as the injunction was limited to that specific date.
However, the court examined the broader issues regarding the Club's amended rules that permit electronic voting conducted by the National Securities Depositories Limited (NSDL). While the plaintiff had raised apprehensions about the possibility of proxy voting and lack of transparency in the e-voting process, the court concluded that the amended rules and the NSDL's voting procedures have sufficient safeguards in place to prevent misuse. The court held that the Club should be allowed to hold future AGMs and elections through electronic voting, in accordance with the rules and in a transparent manner.
The court's observations indicate that it did not find any legitimate grounds to preclude the Club from adopting electronic voting, and allowed the Club to hold fresh elections after issuing a notice afresh, while leaving it open for the plaintiff to raise any legitimate objections if the elections are not conducted properly.
CRA/436/2015
Parties: MD. SONU @ SANDREY ALAM @ SONU ANSARI vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the criminal appeals of the accused persons, Md. Sonu @ Sandrey Alam @ Sonu Ansari and Ali Asgar @ Lasgari, and set aside their convictions under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court found that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to several lapses in the investigation, including the questionable recovery of the offending weapon, the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the alleged dying declaration of the victim, and the failure to examine important local witnesses. The court also noted that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not conducted properly. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the High Court concluded that the benefit of doubt must accrue in favor of the accused, and accordingly acquitted them.
CRA/482/2019
Parties: STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs SURAJIT DEB AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges of murder, destruction of evidence, and criminal conspiracy against the three appellants (Surojit Deb, Lipika Poddar and Sanjoy Biswas) beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found no convincing evidence to establish the presence of the appellants at the scene of crime at the relevant time. The alleged confessional statement of one of the appellants was not properly confronted to the others and was more exculpatory than incriminatory in nature. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the death sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
WPA/20797/2015
Parties: PALSONS DERMA PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that while the gel formulation of "Betamethasone Dipropionate" is a distinct dosage form from the cream and ointment formulations, it is still subject to the price control regulations as the active ingredient is a scheduled drug under the Drug Pricing Control Order (DPCO). The court rejected the petitioner's arguments on the trade discount and the calculation of interest, ruling that interest should be calculated from the date of the fresh decision (i.e., the impugned order) and not from the earlier demand notice. Overall, the court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
CRR/4253/2022
Parties: SK. MAHABAT ALI @ MESBUT ALI AND SAFIKA BEGUM vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners (Sk. Mahabat Ali and Safika Begum) arising from Chanditala Police Station Case No. 521 of 2022, holding that the FIR was a "malicious and retaliatory act" stemming from a prior legal conflict, constituting an abuse of the legal process. The court found that the close temporal proximity between the petitioners' successful pursuit of a PIL and the filing of the FIR, coupled with the petitioners' earlier complaint of an attack, strongly indicated that the criminal proceedings were a "counter-blast" to derail the petitioners' legitimate legal actions. The court exercised its extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system for settling private scores and impeding legitimate PIL activity.