Daily Judgments of 23 May
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-007108-007108 - 2025
Parties: SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM vs PRAKASAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The Court held that the High Court was correct in rejecting the appellant's application to delete his name from the array of parties as it was barred by res judicata, since the appellant had failed to raise any objection to his impleadment as a legal heir of the original defendant at the appropriate stage.
The Court also found that the appellant's claim of being a protected tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was not substantiated by the evidence on record.
Further, the Court ruled that the decree for specific performance obtained by the original plaintiff implicitly included the relief of possession, and the appellant's attempt to stall the execution proceedings was merely a dilatory tactic. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
C.A. No.-004599-004601 - 2014
Parties: I.S TOMAR vs INVERTIS UNIVERSITY
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Environmental Law
The Court held that the discharge of the appellants from charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC was valid, finding no evidence of deliberate withholding of information or a conspiracy to deceive. The Court set aside the directions against the Mayor and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, in the NGT's impugned judgment, as the appellants were not parties to the original proceedings where the prohibitory orders were passed. However, the Court did not disturb the other parts of the NGT's judgment, including the imposition of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation for causing environmental degradation and injury to public health.
C.A. No.-013962-013962 - 2024
Parties: THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA vs M.T. MANI
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Banking Law
The Court held that the cut-off date of July 1, 2020 for pension payments, without arrears, as specified in the RBI's 2020 circular, is valid and not discriminatory. The court found that the RBI had the discretion to consider various factors, such as financial constraints and administrative exigencies, in determining the terms and conditions of the pension scheme, including the cut-off date. Each circular issued by the RBI was a separate scheme with its own terms and conditions, and the respondent could not selectively accept the beneficial terms while rejecting the unfavorable ones. The policy decision of the government in approving the RBI's 2020 circular, which did not include the payment of arrears, was also upheld. The court, therefore, set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the dismissal of the respondent's writ petition.
C.A. No.-014915-014915 - 2024
Parties: MAYA P.C. vs STATE OF KERALA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Constitutional Law
The Court held that the government order dated 3rd February 2016, which denied the appellants (persons with disabilities) the benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion, is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The court analyzed the earlier order dated 18th May 2013, which had granted regular appointments to the appellants on supernumerary posts, and found that the intention was to provide permanency to the persons with disabilities. The court ruled that the subsequent order dated 3rd February 2016, which sought to withdraw the benefits conferred by the earlier order, cannot be allowed as many appellants had changed their position based on the 18th May 2013 order. The court set aside the judgments of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and restored the judgments of the Single Judge and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of the appellants.
C.A. No.-007109-007109 - 2025
Parties: VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. vs MAHAVEER LUNIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that the unregistered agreement to sell and power of attorney executed by the appellant in favor of Respondent No. 1 did not confer any valid title or interest in the immovable property, as per the settled legal position under Sections 17, 49 and 54 of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.
The court found that the subsequent registered sale deeds executed by Respondent No. 1 after the revocation of the unregistered documents were also invalid. The High Court erred in rejecting the plaint in its entirety, as the appellant had raised distinct causes of action, including the validity of the registered sale deeds, which required adjudication by the civil court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the plaint to the trial court for consideration of all the issues raised, in accordance with law.
SLP(C) No.-009897-009897 - 2016
Parties: OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL vs KAKIHO VILLAGE
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition for the respondent no. 1 village as per the Office Memorandums (O.M.s) dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 were not fully complied with, as the objections raised by the appellant were not adequately considered. The court found that the existence of an "inter-district boundary dispute" was not a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance, as the recent report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee revealed that the boundary dispute was not directly related to the recognition of this village. The court directed the state authorities to re-issue a public notice regarding the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and consider all objections, including that of the appellant, within a period of six months, before taking a final decision on the recognition.
C.A. No.-007160-007160 - 2025
Parties: PETER AUGUSTINE vs K.V. XAVIER
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court had erred in remitting the matter back to the trial court for de-novo disposal. The Court observed that the appeal could have been decided based on the interpretation of the three key documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed), as the area of the property and the borders/boundaries were the same in all the documents. The Court noted that the discrepancy in the survey numbers mentioned in the conveyance deed (1250) and the sale deed (1236) was clarified in the settlement deed, which stated that the property was included in survey number 1236. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with the Court's observations, within a period of 6 months.
Crl.A. No.-000777-000778 - 2025
Parties: VINOD BIHARI LAL vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeals and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 850/2018 registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the appellant. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the base FIRs do not disclose the commission of any offence under the Act, as the requirements of "gang" under Section 2(b) were not met. The Court also found that the approval of the gang-chart by the competent authorities did not comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards under the Rules of 2021, as there was no independent application of mind. The Court provided detailed directions to the authorities to adhere to the guidelines issued by the State government for proper implementation of the Act.
Crl.A. No.-001686-001688 - 2023
Parties: AGNIRAJ vs STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court cannot be disturbed in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, unless there are exceptional circumstances where the assessment of evidence is vitiated by error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence, or the conclusions are perverse and unsupported by evidence.
The Court found that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt as the trial court and High Court had misread the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments, and acquitted the appellants of the offences charged against them.
Crl.A. No.-004718-004719 - 2024
Parties: SAMEER SANDHIR vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the prosecution can be allowed to produce the CDs that were inadvertently not filed along with the original chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, applying the principles laid down in the R.S. Pai v. CBI judgment.
The Court, however, left open the issues of whether the CDs produced are the same as the ones seized, and the validity of the Section 65B certificate, as these are matters to be examined during the trial. The Court did not find any error in the lower courts' decisions allowing the CDs to be produced.
C.A. No.-013104-013104 - 2024
Parties: SANJAY PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are Organized Group-A Services (OGAS) for all purposes, as established in the Court's previous judgments in G.J. Singh and Harananda. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to carry out a cadre review of the CAPFs within six months and review the existing service rules/recruitment rules, providing an opportunity of hearing to the cadre officers. The Court also directed that the number of posts earmarked for deputation in the CAPFs up to the Senior Administrative Grade level should be progressively reduced over a period of two years, to address the grievances of service stagnation faced by the CAPF officers.
Crl.A. No.-002808-002808 - 2025
Parties: KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the grounds of arrest provided to the appellant's son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, were sufficient and meaningful, fulfilling the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court found that while the grounds did not provide full details, they were adequate to inform Kessireddy of the accusations against him and enable him to understand the reasons for his arrest. The court clarified that Kessireddy could still apply for regular bail before the competent court. The court also briefly disposed of a related SLP (Crl.) No. 5691 of 2025, finding it unnecessary to examine the legal issues raised since the main appeal was dismissed.
C.A. No.-007110-007110 - 2025
Parties: BANK OF INDIA vs M/S SRI NANGLI RICE MILLS PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Area of Law: Banking Law
The Court held that the dispute between the appellant Bank of India and the respondent Punjab National Bank is covered under Section 11 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
The Court found that the dispute relates to the priority of charges over the borrower's assets and is inherently linked to the borrower's non-payment of dues, which falls within the scope of Section 11. The Court ruled that Section 11 creates a statutory arbitration mechanism for resolving such disputes between banks, financial institutions, asset reconstruction companies or qualified buyers, and their jurisdiction cannot be bypassed or subverted by approaching other forums like the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The Court further clarified that the existence of a written arbitration agreement is not required under Section 11, as the provision creates a legal fiction of deemed consent for arbitration among the specified parties. Additionally, the Court held that Section 11 is mandatory in nature, requiring the parties to follow the prescribed arbitration route for resolving their disputes.
C.A. No.-004336 - 2025
Parties: JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH, JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Area of Law: Contract Law
The Court held that the notification imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) by Coal India Limited on 19.12.2017 constitutes a 'change in law' event under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The respondent power generator is entitled to compensation from the date of the notification, along with carrying cost at the rate of Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) on a compounding basis. The court rejected the appellant's arguments that a supplementary bill should have been raised earlier and that LPS is not applicable for calculating the carrying cost.
C.A. No.-002526-002526 - 2025
Parties: K. UMADEVI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Employment Law
The Court held that the appellant, despite having two children from her first marriage, is entitled to maternity leave for her third child from her second marriage under the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules. The court adopted a purposive and liberal interpretation of the rules, drawing guidance from the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and various international treaties and conventions on reproductive rights.
The court noted that the fact that the appellant's two children from her first marriage are not in her custody should not be used to deny her maternity leave for her biological child from the second marriage. The court emphasized that reproductive rights, including the right to maternity leave, are a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court also sought to harmonize the State's policy on population control with the objective of providing maternity benefits, stating that the two are not mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the court set aside the Division Bench judgment and directed the respondents to grant the appellant the maternity leave and benefits due to her.
C.A. No.-012314-012314 - 2024
Parties: CHANDRA BHAN SINGH vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's judgment, finding that the demand notice issued by the District Magistrate requiring the appellant to deposit 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) is valid. The court held that Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not applicable to minor minerals like sand as per Section 14 of the Act.
The State government is empowered under Sections 15 and 15A of the Act to prescribe the amount to be paid by minor mineral concession holders to the DMF, and the 10% amount demanded is in accordance with the 2017 Rules framed by the State under Section 15.
Crl.A. No.-004571-004571 - 2024
Parties: SAKHAWAT vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants (Sakhawat and Mehdi). The Court held that the prosecution failed to conduct a fair investigation, as it did not properly examine the affidavits submitted by the key eyewitnesses during the bail proceedings, which stated that the appellants were not the actual culprits. The Court found that the investigation was flawed, and it was unsafe to convict the appellants solely based on the testimony of one eyewitness (PW-4) when the other eyewitnesses had submitted affidavits in favor of the appellants. Accordingly, the Court acquitted the appellants of the offenses alleged against them.
SMW(C) No.-000003 - 2023
Parties: IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS vs
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the accused stands convicted for the offences punishable under sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. However, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and did not sentence the accused to undergo imprisonment, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court noted the collective failure of the systems to protect the adolescent victim, and directed the State Government to take measures to rehabilitate the victim and her child, including providing educational and financial assistance. The Court also passed broader directions to the Union of India through the Ministry of Women and Child Development to enhance adolescent well-being and comprehensive sexuality education in the country, and to establish a structured data collection mechanism for better policy implementation and accountability.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-7582/2023
Parties: SMT. NIRMALA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that the petitioners, who are the dependents of the deceased Hari Chand, are entitled to the maximum compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs under the District Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018. The court found that the impugned order awarding only Rs. 3 lakhs failed to provide adequate reasoning, given the substantial dependence of the petitioners on the deceased's income. The court directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to release the balance amount of Rs. 7 lakhs to the petitioners.
FAO(OS) (COMM)-171/2024
Parties: KALANITHI MARAN vs SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Kal Airways Private Limited and Kalanithi Maran challenging the dismissal of their petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that the delay of 55 days in filing the appeals and 226 days in refiling them was not due to inadvertence or negligence, but a calculated move by the appellants to keep the Division Bench and the respondents (Spicejet Limited and Ajay Singh) in the dark about the filing of the appeals. The court held that the delay was not explained by sufficient cause, and the appeals were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, without going into the merits. The court also noted that in commercial disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be interpreted strictly to achieve the objective of speedy resolution, and delay beyond the statutory period should be condoned only in exceptional cases.
W.P.(C)-10055/2018
Parties: M/S ANKIT ELECTRONICS vs CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of demurrage charges under the Handling of Cargo In Customs Area Regulations, 2009, as the petitioner's goods were found to be in line with the declarations in the Bills of Entry, and no penalty/fine/warning was imposed by the customs authorities. The court found that the delay in obtaining the Detention Certificates and submitting them to the respondent was not due to the petitioner's fault, but rather due to the inaction of the customs authorities. Accordingly, the court directed the respondent to process the refund of demurrage charges within 4 weeks.
FAO(OS) (COMM)-206/2024
Parties: KRISTAL VISION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU, JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the signed copy of the arbitral award was validly delivered to the appellant in accordance with Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The key points are:
1. The court analyzed the legal position on the mandatory requirement of delivery of the signed copy of the award under Section 31(5), and that the period of limitation under Section 34(3) commences from the date of such delivery.
2. The court found that the appellant's representative, Mr. Rama Varma Ch., was authorized to represent the appellant throughout the arbitration proceedings, and his receipt of the signed copy of the award on 16.10.2023 constituted valid delivery to the appellant.
3. The court held that the electronic delivery of the scanned copy of the award, along with the physical availability of the signed copy for the parties to collect, would satisfy the requirement of delivery under Section 31(5).
4. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the impugned order that had rejected the appellant's application under Section 34 of the Act as being time-barred.
RFA(COMM)-479/2024
Parties: M/S K HOME APPLIANCES vs M/S MARVS TRAVEL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU, JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
Area of Law: Contract Law
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s K Home Appliances against M/s Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 1), setting aside the earlier judgment of the District Court. The court held that there was privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no. 1, and that respondent no. 1 cannot claim to be a mere agent of MTG (respondent no. 2). The court found that the documentary and oral evidence showed extensive involvement of respondent no. 1 in the transaction, and that both respondent no. 1 and MTG are jointly and severally liable to refund the advance amount of Rs. 8,00,000 paid by the appellant, along with interest. The court noted that since MTG is under bankruptcy, respondent no. 1 is liable to refund the amount even without impleading MTG as a party. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in favor of the appellant against respondent no. 1.
BAIL APPLN.-393/2025
Parties: VISHAL PANDIT @ POKI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Vishal Pandit, in a case registered under Sections 387, 34 IPC and Sections 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. The court considered the petitioner's lengthy incarceration of 1 year and 7 months, his satisfactory jail conduct, and the fact that the complainant (the only eyewitness) did not support the prosecution's case. The co-accused had already been granted bail, and the court found parity in their roles. While the allegations against the petitioner were grave, the court did not make any observations on the merits of the case and granted bail subject to certain conditions.
CRL.M.C.-2227/2021
Parties: ANNU SINGH vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding no infirmity in the orders of the lower courts which had denied the petitioner's request to direct the police to register an FIR.
The court noted that the petitioner's son had already been arrested and chargesheeted in a separate cybercrime case, and the police had provided a detailed explanation of the investigations carried out. The court held that since the petitioner already has access to important evidence like CCTV footage and call detail records, she can present this during the trial on her own complaint, without requiring the court to direct the police to register an FIR. The court allowed the petitioner to lead her own evidence in support of her allegations during the trial.
CRL.M.C.-2999/2025
Parties: VIKAS GAHLOT & ANR. vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed by Vikas Gahlot and another, and quashed the FIR No. 71/2018 registered under Sections 498-A/406/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all other consequential proceedings. The court relied on the parties' amicable settlement of their disputes through a compromise/MOU dated 05.10.2024 and their subsequent mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes, and held that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.
CM(M)-1972/2024
Parties: SHRI SUNIL PASRICHA & ANR. vs SHRI SHIVAM GUPTA
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to place additional documents on record under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the lack of a specific reason being provided in the original application. The court noted that the broader nature of the dispute was about the quality of the goods supplied, and allowing the additional documents would not prejudice the defendants' case. The court exercised its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, stating that the impugned order was a matter of discretion and did not reflect any perversity that would warrant interference.
CS(OS)-136/2022
Parties: VANSH TALUJA & ANR. vs BHUPINDER KUMAR TALUJA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court passed a preliminary decree in this partition suit, declaring that the plaintiffs (minors represented by their mother) and the three defendants are each entitled to a 1/4th share in two immovable properties belonging to the estate of the late Smt. Chander Prabha Taluja. The court also granted the plaintiffs a 1/4th share in the movable estate. The court directed the defendant to remit the plaintiffs' share of the rental income from the properties. The court modified an earlier interim order to allow the defendant to operate certain bank accounts, while ordering the defendant to file an affidavit disclosing all movable assets received after the death of Smt. Taluja. This is a single-judge decision, and the matter is listed for passing the final decree of partition.
Calcutta High Court
FA/113/2009
Parties: SMT. GAYATRI PAL vs NETAI NANDI @ NETISH NANDI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the discharge of the appellant from charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC was valid, as there was no evidence of deliberate withholding of information or a conspiracy to deceive. The court found that the AICTE had granted approval for the 'Business School of Delhi' despite knowing about the bank loan and mortgage on the land, and no official of the AICTE was implicated in any wrongdoing. The court also ruled that the CBI's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was maintainable but not the appropriate course of action when a statutory remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C was available.
CRA/300/1990
Parties: SUBU ROY & ANR. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant Chandi Adhikary under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for illegally carrying a large quantity of rice (23.41 quintals) without a valid license or permit, in violation of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy Licensing and Control Order, 1967 and the West Bengal Rice and Paddy Storage by Consumer Control Order, 1967.
However, considering that the appellant was a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents, and the incident occurred 37 years ago, the court exercised its discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act to release the appellant on probation instead of sentencing him to imprisonment. The court directed the appellant to be released on probation on entering into a bond of ₹5,000 with two sureties, and required him to maintain peace and good behavior for the remaining part of his sentence.
CRA/510/2009
Parties: KRISHNA TEWARI vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Krishna Tewari, under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused in the house at the time of the incident and the medical evidence of multiple injuries on the victim, was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court, however, modified the conviction under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) to Section 201/511 (attempt to cause disappearance of evidence), as the victim's body could not be successfully disposed of.
CRA/538/2019
Parties: MD. YUSUF vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD SHABBAR RASHIDI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Md. Yusuf, under Section 15(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court found that the prosecution was able to prove that a large quantity of poppy pods (4 tons 3 quintals and 15 kgs) was recovered from the truck driven by the appellant. The seized contraband was examined by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and found to contain controlled substances like morphine, codeine, and thebaine.
The court rejected the appellant's argument that the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act (regarding pre-trial disposal of seized drugs) had vitiated the trial. The court held that since the appellant was arrested at the spot with the contraband in his possession, and the seized articles were produced and identified at the trial, the lack of formal proceedings under Section 52A did not invalidate the trial.
The judges wrote a unanimous judgment upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
WPA/2299/2003
Parties: KRISHNA CHANDRA GHOSH & ORS. vs DIPOK KUMAR DUTTA
Judge(s): JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court held that there was no deliberate or wilful non-compliance by the Secretary of the school and the District Inspector with the directions in the order dated November 17, 2003. The court found that the petitioners had failed to provide evidence of proper service of the order on the contemnors, and the directions in the order were dependent on the Secretary providing relevant documents to the District Inspector within two weeks. Without receiving these documents, the District Inspector could not have complied with the order to approve the appointments. The court also noted that the petitioners had not diligently pursued their rights and remedies under the November 2003 order. Additionally, the court held that the contempt petition filed by one of the petitioners, Uttam Kumar Sarkar, was barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court discharged the rules issued in the contempt petitions and dismissed the contempt petitions.
WPA/2763/2025
Parties: MIDNAPUR DISTRICT SERVICE CUM MARKETING & INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE UNION LTD. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court upheld the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, which had determined that the Midnapur District Service cum Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. (the petitioner) was covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as it had more than 10 employees. The court found the authorities' findings to be specific, clear, and based on the evidence on record, including the petitioner's own records showing the existence of a gratuity fund and payment of gratuity to another employee. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the number of employees was always less than 10, and held that the respondent employee, Rejaul Hoque, was entitled to the gratuity dues as adjudicated by the authorities.
WPA/4521/2025
Parties: SATYABATI HARIJAN vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the right to pension is a legally enforceable right earned by employees through years of dedicated service, not an act of charity. The court found that administrative inefficiencies and inter-departmental communication issues between the Respondent Municipality and the Director of Local Bodies had resulted in undue delay in the release of pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner and similarly situated employees. The court directed the Respondent Municipality to furnish the necessary information to the Director of Local Bodies within one week, following which the Director shall complete the process of re-designating the employees as "Conservancy Workers" within two weeks. The court further directed the creation of supernumerary posts, if required, to accommodate all 148 similarly situated employees. Finally, the Respondent Municipality was ordered to release the pension and retirement dues to the petitioner and others within four weeks of the completion of the re-designation process.
CO/2733/2024
Parties: SHRI KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN vs KISHAN KUMAR KHAITAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of the petitioner's application to direct the plaintiffs to produce the medical records of the deceased testator, Mukhi Devi Khaitan. The court found that the petitioner had not shown any error in the trial court's order, as the medical records were not the sole means of establishing the testator's mental and physical capacity to execute the will. The court noted that the petitioner could have examined hospital authorities or taken other steps to obtain the evidence, rather than solely relying on the plaintiffs to produce the records. While acknowledging the potential relevance of the medical records to the issue of suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's execution, the court did not find grounds to interfere with the trial court's decision, as the application was filed at a belated stage. The court clarified that it has not made any findings on the merits of the case, and the trial court remains free to consider any special circumstances for adducing additional evidence.
CRR/4428/2022
Parties: SUMAN RAY @ SUMAN ROY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner, Suman Ray, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him under Section 289/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court held that the case involves several disputed questions of fact, such as the number of dogs, their ownership, the extent of the complainant's injuries, and the veracity of the complaint, which cannot be resolved at the quashing stage and require a full-fledged trial. The court found that the allegations, if proven, could prima facie constitute an offence under Section 289 IPC, which deals with negligent conduct with respect to animals that poses a probable danger to human life or grievous hurt. The absence of "obvious external injury" in the medical report does not negate the possibility of internal injuries or psychological trauma.
The court dismissed the petitioner's revision application, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant the quashing of the ongoing criminal proceedings, and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously.
WP.TT/61/2015
Parties: CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LIMITED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DUBURDIH CHECK POST & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by CJ Darcl Logistics Limited and set aside the penalty imposed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. The court held that the penalty was not justified as the petitioner had produced the valid way-bill within the time permitted by the authorities, even though it was not available at the time the vehicle was detained at the check-post between Jharkhand and West Bengal. The court relied on previous judgments that held penalties should not be imposed automatically and that interception of goods at the check-post does not mean the goods have entered the state. The Chief Justice and another judge agreed on the decision to allow the writ petition.