(1) SUPREME COURT
Circumstantial evidence
A. Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 201—Murder based on circumstantial evidence—Recovery of dead body and incriminating articles at instance of accused—Chain of circumstances complete—Conviction affirmed—Deceased missing—Ransom calls made from her mobile phone—Accused found in possession of deceased’s mobile and sold it—Dead body recovered from well at accused’s disclosure—Scooty of deceased also recovered pursuant to disclosure—Medical evidence proved homicidal death by ligature strangulation—Held, circumstances form complete and unbroken chain pointing only to guilt of accused—Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda satisfied—Concurrent findings of courts below upheld—Conviction under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC sustained. [Paras 13, 19, 2...
(2) SUPREME COURT
A. Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 67—Joint Development Agreement (JDA)—Liability for delay in handing over possession—Whether landowners jointly and severally liable along with developer—Interpretation of JDA and GPA—Landowners entered into JDA with developer and executed GPA authorising developer to enter into sale agreements, receive consideration and execute conveyances in respect of developer’s share—Delay in construction and handing over possession of flats falling in developer’s share—NCDRC held developer alone liable for payment of delay compensation—Held, on conjoint reading of JDA and GPA, responsibility to undertake construction and deliver possession vested solely with developer—Landowners indemnified against consequences of developer’s acts/om...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Consumer Protection
A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 12, 14 & 22—Deficiency in service—Delay in delivery of possession of flat—Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate—Award of compensation beyond contractual stipulation—Scope—Flat buyers paid almost entire sale consideration—Developer failed to complete project and hand over possession within stipulated period and did not obtain requisite Occupancy Certificate—NCDRC directed completion, obtaining of Occupancy Certificate and payment of compensation by way of interest @ 8% p.a.—Developer contended that compensation was restricted to nominal rate stipulated in Flat Buyer Agreement—Held, jurisdiction of consumer fora is statutory and not curtailed by contractual terms—One-sided clauses limiting compensation co...
(4) SUPREME COURT
Drugs and Cosmetics
A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940—Sections 18(a)(vi), 18-B, 27(d), 28-A—Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945—Rule 74—Schedules M & U—Non-maintenance/manipulation of manufacturing and batch records—Scope of offence—Whether confined to S. 18-B r/w S. 28-A or attracting S. 18(a)(vi) punishable under S. 27(d)—Inspection revealed non-maintenance of statutory registers, discrepancies in batch production records, manipulation and tampering of manufacturing data, and failure to furnish requisite documents relating to manufacture and distribution of drug—Allegations not limited to mere non-furnishing of information but extended to contravention of provisions governing manufacture under Chapter IV and Rules—Held, such violations fall within ambit of S. 18(a)(vi) (manufacture in contravention...
(5) SUPREME COURT
A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015—Section 9(2) proviso—Constitution of India—Article 32—Plea of juvenility at belated stage—Conviction under Ss. 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed by High Court and SLP dismissed—Plea of juvenility raised for first time in writ petition under Article 32 nearly four decades after incident—State objected to maintainability and belated invocation—Held, proviso to S. 9(2) JJ Act permits plea of juvenility to be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal of case—Maintainability under Article 32 not barred merely on ground of delay—Claim required to be examined if prima facie material placed on record. [Paras 10 to 14] B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015—Determinati...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Bail, NDPS
A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 21(c) and 29—Bail—Recovery of commercial quantity—Additional driver—Completion of investigation—Grant of bail—20,000 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup seized from container—Appellant alleged to be additional driver who fled from spot—Implicated on statement of co-accused and CDR details—Charge-sheet filed, charges framed and trial commenced—Appellant in custody for over one year—Held, question whether appellant had requisite mens rea to be examined at trial—Continued incarceration not warranted after filing of charge-sheet and commencement of trial—Bail granted subject to conditions. [Paras 5-7] B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 37—Rigours of b...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Remedy
A. Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960—Section 95—Revisional order—Remedy—Whether under Article 227 or Article 226 of Constitution—Revisional order passed under S. 95 Act, 1960—Petition filed invoking supervisory jurisdiction—Held, in view of Raj Kumari Goala v. Sabita Goala, remedy against revisional order under S. 95 lies under Article 226 of the Constitution and not under Article 227—High Court justified in declining interference—No ground to interfere with impugned orders. B. Constitution of India—Article 226—Liberty to file writ petition—Limitation and other issues kept open—Special Leave Petition disposed of—Petitioner granted liberty to file writ petition under Art. 226 challenging revisional order under S. 95 Act, 1960—He...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Bail granted
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 439—Regular bail—Economic offence—Completion of investigation—Prolonged custody—Bail granted—Accused charged under Ss. 406, 420 r/w S. 34 IPC, S. 66-D IT Act and Ss. 3 & 4 MPID Act in cryptocurrency investment scam—Alleged misappropriation exceeding Rs 99 lakhs—Appellant arrested on 06-01-2024 and in custody for over two years—Investigation complete and charge-sheet filed—Trial yet to commence—Held, continued incarceration unjustified once investigation completed and trial likely to take considerable time—Without expressing opinion on merits, appellant entitled to regular bail—High Court order set aside. [Paras 4-5] B. Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of bail
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 439(2)—Cancellation of bail—Subsequent addition of offence under Section 308 IPC—Whether custodial interrogation necessary—Appellants initially granted bail as offences under Ss. 323, 341, 324, 325, 504 r/w S. 34 IPC were bailable—Subsequently S. 308 IPC added on basis of medical report—Bail cancelled by Trial Court under S. 439(2) CrPC and affirmed by High Court—Held, though addition of S. 308 IPC justified, custodial interrogation not required considering nature of allegations, maximum punishment of seven years, and existence of cross-FIR—Cancellation of bail not warranted—Bail restored subject to execution of fresh bonds. [Paras 5-8] B. Penal Code, 1860—Section 308—Effect of addition of non-bailable offence after ...
(10) SUPREME COURT
Conviction, Eye witness
A. Penal Code, 1860—Sections 307 and 149 read with Section 341—Conviction based on testimony of injured eye-witness—Validity—Appellants convicted under Ss. 307/149 and 341/149 IPC and S. 27 Arms Act—Conviction primarily based on testimony of injured eye-witness—Co-accused acquitted—Held, testimony of injured eye-witness carries great evidentiary value and cannot be discarded merely because other accused were acquitted—Conviction upheld—Role of appellants clearly established through ocular evidence. [Para 6] B. Penal Code, 1860—Section 307 read with Section 149 & Arms Act, 1959—Section 27—Sentencing—Reduction to period already undergone—Mitigating circumstances—Appellants sentenced to 7 years’ RI under S. 307/149 IPC and 5 years unde...
(1) DELHI
Quashing of proceeding
A. Companies Act, 1956—Sections 108 & 629A—Transfer of Shares—Issue Estoppel: A complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies based on allegations already adjudicated in a prior private complaint by a shareholder is barred by the principle of issue estoppel—Re-litigation of matters conclusively decided in earlier proceedings is impermissible. B. CrPC, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of Proceedings—Where a complaint by the Registrar of Companies is based on the same facts as a previously dismissed private complaint, it is barred by issue estoppel—The High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process. C. Issue Estoppel—Application in Criminal Trials—The principle of issue estoppel applies in criminal trials, precluding re-litigation o...
(2) DELHI
Bail Application
A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Section 439 CrPC—Bail Application—Applicant arrested on 03.03.2025, not named in initial FIR/ECIR, only included in 7th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint; no prima facie allegations in NIA predicate offence proceedings—Delayed inclusion reflects absence of a prima facie case, supporting bail consideration. B. PMLA, 2002—Sections 3, 4 & 70—Money Laundering; "Proceeds of Crime"—Mere association with an organization or holding position is insufficient to establish personal involvement in money laundering—Property qualifies as “proceeds of crime” only if directly derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. C. PMLA, 2002—Section 66(2)—Disclosure to Concerned Agency—Disclosure of inf...
(3) DELHI
A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 37—Appeal Against Order Under Section 34; Scope of Interference—Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is narrow, limited to examining legality of the trial court’s findings under Section 34, and does not permit reassessment of the merits of the arbitral award. B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 34 & 37—Limited Judicial Interference—Courts must respect the finality of arbitral awards and party autonomy—Re-appreciation of evidence, factual findings, or substituting the court’s view for that of the arbitrator is impermissible unless the award is patently illegal or contrary to public policy. C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 34—Grounds for Challenge—Interference is confined to s...
(4) KERALA
A. Family Court Act, 1984 / Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Conflicting Orders—Exceeding Jurisdiction: A Family Court order restraining the appellant from residing in the matrimonial home, despite an earlier protection order issued by the Judicial Magistrate, was held improper and set aside—The Family Court cannot act in a manner that effectively reviews or overrides a Magistrate’s order. B. Reconsideration of Interlocutory Orders—The Family Court was directed to reconsider the interlocutory application, taking into account all relevant factors, including subsequent orders from the Judicial Magistrate—Reconsideration is to be completed within a specified period, ensuring both parties are heard and due process is followed. ...
(5) KERALA
Quashing of proceeding
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court; Quashing of Proceedings: The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings where disputes between parties have been amicably settled, particularly in cases involving non-grave offences, and continuation of prosecution would not serve the ends of justice. B. IPC, 1860—Sections 420 & 34—Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy; Quashing of Proceedings: Where parties have genuinely resolved their disputes and the aggrieved party does not wish to continue prosecution, and no public interest is implicated, criminal proceedings can be quashed to secure justice. C. CrPC, 1973—Quashing of Proceedings; Settlement of Dispute: A bona fide and genuine settlement between parties, especially in offence...
(6) KERALA
Maintainability
A. Kerala High Court Act, 1958—Section 5(i)—Maintainability of Writ Appeal: A writ appeal against an interim order is maintainable if the order substantially affects rights or liabilities or causes prejudice, and not merely on procedural grounds. B. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226 & 227—Appealability: While jurisdiction under Article 226 differs from Article 227, orders passed under Article 226 can be challenged by way of writ appeal when the principal nature of the order affects rights substantially. C. SARFAESI Act, 2002—Sections 17 & 18—Alternative Remedy: Writ petitions under Article 226 should not be entertained where an effective statutory remedy, such as appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) with mandatory pre-deposit, is available. D. SARFAESI Act, 2002&...
(7) KERALA
Acquittal
A. IPC, 1860—Sections 120B & 420—Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating; PCA, 1988—Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2)—Abuse of Official Position: Conviction under Section 420 IPC requires proof of intention to cheat at the inception of the transaction—Evidence showing that a loan was converted into an ordinary loan with higher interest due to construction inability, and subsequently repaid, negates any deceitful intention or pecuniary gain—Acquittal was ordered where no loss to the bank or wrongful gain to the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt. B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2)—Dishonest Intention: The essence of the offence is dishonest intention and obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means—Acquittal was justified when there was no evi...
(8) KERALA
A. Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007—Sections 15(1)(a) & 2(p)(iii)—Known Rowdy—The petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” due to recurrent involvement in criminal activities, including recent offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, forming the basis for initiating externment proceedings. B. Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007—Section 15(1)(a)—Externment Order; Bail Consideration: While no law prohibits externment of a person on bail, the authority must consider whether existing bail conditions are sufficient to prevent further criminal activity. C. Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007—Section 15(1)(a)—Sufficiency of Bail Conditions—The authority examined the petitioner’s violation of prior bail conditio...
(9) DELHI
Burden of Proof
A. Railways Act, 1989—Section 123(c)—Untoward Incident—Bona Fide Passenger; Burden of Proof.—The claimant bears the initial burden of proving relevant facts by affidavit to establish entitlement as a bona fide passenger, which then shifts the evidentiary burden to the Railways—Mere absence of a ticket does not automatically disqualify a passenger from being bona fide. B. Railways Act, 1989—Section 123(c)—Untoward Incident; Death Compensation—Where the deceased’s body is found away from the railway tracks, it does not conclusively indicate that the deceased was not travelling on the train—Injured passengers may move from the train tracks to avoid further harm, and such movement does not negate the claim. C. Railways Act, 1989—Section 123(c)—Untoward Incident; Dea...
(10) DELHI
Suspension of sentence
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Suspension of sentence—Petitioner convicted under S. 138 NI Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine—During pendency of revision petitions, substantial payments made to complainant (₹ 1.5 crores in addition to ₹ 75 lakhs already deposited and released)—Considering partial satisfaction of liability and overall circumstances, sentence suspended temporarily—Suspension subject to furnishing personal bond and compliance with conditions—Interim protection granted pending further proceedings. [Paras 3 to 8] B. Criminal Procedure—Suspension of sentence—Conditions—While suspending sentence, Court imposed safeguards to secure presence of accused and ensure compliance—Conditions in...