Daily Judgments of 29 August
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-011188-011188 - 2025
Parties: M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court held that the vehicles of the appellant, which were used exclusively within the restricted premises of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL) and not on public roads, are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963.
The court relied on the precedent in Bolani Ores Limited v. State of Orissa, which held that if the public have no right of access to a place, it cannot be considered a "public place" for the purposes of a motor vehicle taxation act.
The court concluded that the RINL premises, being a restricted area, does not fall within the definition of a "public place" under the Act, and therefore, the vehicles used exclusively within this premises are not liable to pay the tax.
Crl.A. No.-002616-002616 - 2014
Parties: BHAGWATI DEVI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant (the mother-in-law) under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the evidence does not establish any demand for dowry or cruelty by the appellant that led the deceased (daughter-in-law) to commit suicide. The court noted the lack of allegations of dowry demand in the testimonies of the complainant (father of the deceased) and other witnesses, and found the evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased to be unreliable and inconsistent. The court placed reliance on the testimony of an independent witness (neighbor) who stated that the appellant did not make any dowry demand, as well as the medical evidence indicating death by strangulation rather than suicide. Accordingly, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A.
C.A. No.-000312-000312 - 2012
Parties: STATE OF PUNJAB vs EX. C.SATPAL SINGH
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI, JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the dismissal of the respondent Constable Satpal Singh from the Punjab Armed Forces was valid, as it was based on the proven gravest act of misconduct - his unauthorized absence from duty for 37 days without informing the department or seeking permission. The court found that the disciplinary authority had followed the due process and principles of natural justice, and while referring to the respondent's past misconduct, it was only to add weight to the decision, not the primary basis for the dismissal. The court noted that as a member of the disciplined police force, the respondent's prolonged unauthorized absence amounted to a grave violation of discipline, justifying the punishment of dismissal under the first part of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
C.A. No.-002986-002986 - 2012
Parties: CONST. AMAR SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court upheld the decision of the High Court, finding that while the first charge against the appellant CISF constable was not proved, the evidence supported the second charge of the appellant indulging in unwarranted activity that affected the reputation of the CISF among civilians. The High Court had examined the matter in detail and found the modified penalty of reduction in pay-scale for two years and withholding of increments to be commensurate with the wrong committed by the appellant. The Supreme Court saw no reason to interfere with the High Court's well-reasoned judgment.
C.A. No.-003005-003005 - 2015
Parties: M/S KKK HYDRO POWER LIMITED vs HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. .
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the appellant's plea for enhanced tariff of ₹2.95/kWh for the entire 4.90 MW project, including the initial 3 MW plant, is not valid. The court affirmed that a generating company and distribution licensee cannot execute a PPA and stipulate tariff on their own without seeking review and approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the court refused to interfere with the APTEL's order directing the Commission to determine a common tariff for the entire 4.90 MW project based on weighted average, as the HPSEB did not challenge that order.
Delhi High Court
ARB.P.-1733/2024
Parties: M/S KNR TIRUMALA INFRA PVT LTD vs NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the petitioner, M/s. KNR Tirumala Infra Pvt. Ltd., must nominate its arbitrator from the panel maintained by the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes (SAROD), in accordance with the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. The court found that the SAROD panel is broad-based and diverse, comprising eminent professionals, and that once parties have agreed to institutional arbitration under SAROD, they must follow the SAROD Rules in their entirety. The court dismissed the petition, giving the petitioner liberty to nominate its arbitrator from the SAROD panel, and held that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
FAO(OS)-59/2018
Parties: ARYA ORPHANAGE vs MUKTI DUTTA & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's application to reject the civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments that the suit was barred by limitation, res judicata, or provisions of the Indian Succession Act and Hindu Succession Act.
The court also affirmed the order allowing transposition of the Respondent No.2(iii) as a plaintiff in the civil suit, noting that the rights of the legal heirs were protected under Order XXIII Rule 1A.
MAT.APP.(F.C.)-251/2025
Parties: MS. TANVI CHATURVEDI vs MS. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court upheld the impleadment of the alleged paramour (R-2) as a party in the matrimonial proceedings, as it was necessary and mandated by statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
The court also directed the disclosure of the husband's call detail records (CDRs) and tower location data of both the husband and R-2, finding this circumstantial evidence directly relevant to the adultery allegations, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Further, the court partially allowed the wife's request for production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. It directed the husband to produce certain financial records and hotel booking details, while rejecting requests that were found to be speculative or not directly relevant.
RERA APPEAL-5/2024
Parties: CJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & ANR. vs REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR NCT OF DELHI AND UT CHANDIGARH & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court upheld the orders of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) dismissing the appeals filed by the Appellant Company (CJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) against the orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Adjudicating Authority.
The High Court held that the Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificate (OCC) for the commercial complex built by the Appellant Company cannot be deemed to be granted, as the Appellants did not comply with the necessary requirements and procedures. The High Court also found that the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) are applicable to the property in question since no valid OCC exists.
Further, the High Court upheld the REAT's decision to impose the condition of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The High Court held that the pre-deposit requirement is not onerous and must be complied with by the Appellants to pursue their appeals before the REAT.
The High Court dismissed the appeals but granted the Appellants 30 days to revive the appeals before the REAT, provided they comply with the pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act.
BAIL APPLN.-2465/2025
Parties: ABDUL MALIK ALIAS PARVEZ vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the accused, Abdul Malik alias Parvez, who was charged under Sections 20, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession of a small quantity of ganja (871 grams) and alleged involvement in an international drug syndicate.
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to establish the accused's complicity in the alleged conspiracy related to the recovery of a larger quantity of 5137 grams of ganja from intercepted parcels at the Foreign Post Office. The court held that the mere possibility of the accused's involvement in collecting those parcels, based on his mobile phone location, was not enough to infer his connection to the larger conspiracy.
The court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the quality of the ganja recovered from the accused was similar to the ganja found in the parcels, as there was no forensic evidence to support this. Ultimately, the court found no reason to deny the accused's liberty and granted him bail on furnishing a personal bond.
CRL.M.C.-2363/2025
Parties: ALTAF vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused, Altaf, seeking to quash the FIR against him for offenses under Sections 137/65(1)/351 of the BNS Act and Section 6 of the POSCO Act. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that the compromise between the victim (a minor girl) and her parents, and the potential stigma on the victim, should lead to the quashing of the proceedings. The court held that the stigma should be on the perpetrator, not the victim, and that only the victim can pardon the wrongdoer, which is not the case here as the victim is still a minor. The court also noted that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and that the victim was allegedly blackmailed into a physical relationship after being videotaped. The single-judge decision dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.
CRL.A.-141/2024
Parties: ASHOK BABU vs STATE GOVERNMENT OFNCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of common intention between the appellants to cause grievous hurt to the complainant, as required under Section 34 IPC. The Court found that the complainant's testimony did not attribute any specific overt act to the appellants, and the prosecution did not bring forth any other evidence or eyewitnesses to establish the appellants' participation in the offense. Consequently, the High Court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 325/34 IPC.
MAT.APP.(F.C.)-186/2019
Parties: SAPNA GIYA vs DEEPAK GIYA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant (the respondent's wife) and directed the respondent to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 2 lakhs per month for both the appellant and the child.
The court held that the arguments that the appellant refused to work despite opportunities or resigned from a well-paying job were not substantiated by evidence. The court also stated that the fact that the appellant's application for maintenance was filed after the respondent's divorce petition cannot be a valid ground to deny her maintenance, as such an application is maintainable during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)-131/2025
Parties: ANKUSH KUMAR PARASHAR vs SAPNA @ MONA AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court held that the wife (Respondent No. 1) had not deserted the husband (Petitioner) without any reasonable cause, as she had alleged harassment and ill-treatment, which the husband failed to rebut with evidence.
Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the court considered the husband's income, his financial obligations, and the lack of specific details about the expenses of the wife and child. The court then modified the maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 7,500 per month for the child, considering the totality of the circumstances.
W.P.(C)-11007/2025
Parties: PRAMITI BASU vs SECRETARY GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the employer's (Supreme Court of India's) decision to shortlist candidates for the Descriptive Test stage based on a benchmark of 43.18 marks in the Typing Test, despite the candidates having met the minimum criteria laid down in the advertisement, was valid.
The court found that Clause 18 of the advertisement expressly reserved the right of the employer to shortlist candidates in any manner considered appropriate, with the approval of the Competent Authority. This power was in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak, which permits recruiting bodies to devise appropriate procedures for selection, subject to the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.
The court held that the employer's decision to apply a shortlisting benchmark, based on a 1:10 ratio of candidates to the number of vacancies, was a valid exercise of administrative discretion, given the large number of candidates who qualified in the earlier stages. The court found the decision to be reasonable and not arbitrary, based on the material on record. The petitioners' challenge to the shortlisting process was therefore rejected.
W.P.(C)-12280/2023
Parties: KIRAN SONKUSALE vs CENTRE FOR RAILWAY INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CRIS)
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the denial of his promotion to the post of Principal Project Engineer (PPE) by the respondent, the Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS).
The court held that the petitioner's claim for promotion could not be granted due to the 6-month probation requirement under the respondent's Recruitment Rules, which the petitioner would not have been able to fulfill due to his voluntary resignation from the respondent's service. The court found the respondent's actions to be in accordance with its Recruitment Rules and not vitiated by arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the Department of Personnel & Training's Office Memorandum, as the respondent's own Recruitment Rules took precedence. The court also found the delay in constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not justify a departure from the probation requirements.
W.P.(C)-6606/2025
Parties: SMT SAVITA JAIN & ORS. vs THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court held that the ownership and title of the property in question is a disputed matter pending in a civil suit before the District Judge. The court, therefore, did not delve into the disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and title of the property.
The court granted liberty to the petitioners in W.P.(C) 8458/2025 to bring the property within the norms of the Building Bye Laws and remove the non-compoundable deviations and excess coverage by themselves within 4 weeks. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was directed to inspect the property after 4 weeks and point out any further unauthorized construction, which the petitioners in W.P.(C) 8458/2025 shall remove.
The court clarified that the regularization of the property shall be subject to the final judgment in the civil suit regarding the ownership of the property, and the petitioners in W.P.(C) 8458/2025 shall not create any third party rights in the property.
Calcutta High Court
CRA/453/2013
Parties: RABI MURMU Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant Rabi Murmu under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The court held that the extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant to the police and local witnesses were unreliable, as they were made in the presence of the police and there was no evidence that they were voluntary. The court also found gaps in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, as the recovery of weapons was not properly recorded, and there was no forensic evidence linking the weapons to the crime.
CRA/650/2009
Parties: HARA SK. & ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellants Hara Sk., Lalon Sk., Rohit Sk. and Khalek Sk. under Section 307/34 IPC, but converted the charge to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and reduced the sentence.
The court found that the eyewitness testimonies of the injured victims and other witnesses, along with the medical evidence, sufficiently proved the accused's involvement in the assault with sharp cutting weapons. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to attract the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Regarding the acquittal of accused Din Mohammad, the court held that the contradictory testimonies created a reasonable doubt about his presence and involvement, and hence the trial court was correct in extending the benefit of doubt to him.
The court also considered the ages of the younger accused (Lalon Sk. and Rohit Sk.) at the time of the incident and applied the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, releasing them on probation with certain conditions.
WPA/17856/2025
Parties: SUTAPA NAG Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court directed the state authority (respondent no. 2) to conduct a factual inquiry and decide the petitioner's claim for correct pay fixation based on her date of engagement as a casual teacher on June 13, 1994, instead of the date of August 1, 2011 considered by the authority. The court has provided a timeline for the respondent to complete the process, grant the parties an opportunity to be heard, and communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner.
The court has also directed the necessary pay fixation and payment of arrears with interest if the order is in favor of the petitioner, while making it clear that this order does not create any right or equity in favor of the petitioner if the claim is not found sustainable in accordance with law.
CO/2000/2024
Parties: KAWALJIT SINGH JOHAR Vs GIRISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the order directing the suit to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner (defendant No. 2). The court held that while the petitioner's negligence in delaying the proceedings is evident, the trial court also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding service of summons and fixing a date for filing the written statement.
The court observed that the service of summons under Order 5 Rule 1 CPC is a mandatory requirement, except where the defendant appears at the presentation of the plaint and admits the plaintiff's claim. Since the trial court did not record the petitioner's appearance and fix a date for filing the written statement, the period to file the written statement could not be calculated.
The court directed the petitioner to file the written statement within a fortnight, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the plaintiff. The matter was remitted back to the trial court to proceed with the suit accordingly.
MAT/1959/2023
Parties: SUBRATA HAIT Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The High Court of Calcutta held that the competent authority had jurisdiction to decide the claim made by the appellants in their representation dated 17.02.2022, as it was a claim for additional compensation for the period beyond the initial 60 days for which compensation had already been paid. The court found that the competent authority's order determining the compensation was not a review of an earlier order, but the first instance of determination under Section 10(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of User in Land) Act, 1962.
The court further held that the appellants are entitled to approach the concerned District Court under Section 10(2) of the Act for enhancement of the compensation determined by the competent authority. The court also observed that IOCL is estopped from arguing that the appellants had violated the restrictions under Section 9 of the Act, as the panchnama recorded the land was used for fishery purpose.
MAT/2420/2023
Parties: RAJAN KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Vs NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court held that the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act 1972 and the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act 1993 apply to the NKDA Act 2007, and the NKDA authorities must factor in the requirements of these acts. The court found that the promoter needed to obtain the consent of the existing flat owners before constructing an additional tower, as per the provisions of the WB Apartment Ownership Act 1972 and the WB Promoters Act 1993.
The court held that the revised sanction plan obtained by the promoter without the consent of the existing flat owners is illegal and is liable to be cancelled under the NKDA Act 2007. The construction of the 16th tower without the consent of the existing flat owners was found to violate their right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
In a majority decision, the court ordered the demolition of the 16th tower and directed the State Vigilance Commission to inquire into the officials involved in granting the revised sanction plan.
CRA (DB)/395/2024
Parties: M/S. RUPDARSHI TEXTILES PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT KOLKATA ZONE-I & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Rupdarshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and its majority shareholder, holding that the immovable property owned by the appellant company is a "proceed of crime" and cannot be excluded from the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. The court found sufficient material to indicate that the property was used to obtain credit facilities which were never repaid, and the subsequent share transfer transactions were part of a money laundering process.