JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

The Court ruled that the suit by Respondent No. 1 against the appellant State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC. It also determined that the repealed Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 did not apply, as the transaction predated the Act. The Court criticized the trial court for inadequately addressing jurisdiction and maintainability issues, leading to an unenforceable decree against the appellant. The Court set aside the lower orders, mandated the refund of over Rs. 2.92 crore to the decree holder, and expressed disapproval of the representation of the State-owned corporation's legal interests.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA

The Court ruled that civil courts retain jurisdiction over the recovery of reasonable school fees, despite the Haryana School Education Act and Rules providing an alternative remedy through the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC). The court clarified that the FFRC's authority is limited to addressing complaints regarding capitation or excessive fees and does not permit schools to enforce fee payments. The court reinstated the trial court's order for fee recovery, contingent on the FFRC's assessment of the fee hike's reasonableness, and reduced the interest rate from 12% to 6%.

JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

The Court ruled that disputes between the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and rice millers are arbitrable, despite ongoing criminal proceedings for alleged misappropriation of public funds. The Court clarified that while disputes involving 'serious fraud' typically cannot be arbitrated due to public law implications, the present case did not meet this threshold. Additionally, the Court dismissed arguments regarding limitation and the Recovery Act, emphasizing that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, its role is limited to confirming the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving other issues, including arbitrability, for the arbitral tribunal.

JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 450 IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act for raping and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old victim. The High Court's affirmation of the trial court's verdict was deemed justified, as the victim's testimony was credible and consistent, despite lacking corroborative medical evidence. The Court emphasized that a rape victim's testimony can suffice for conviction unless there are compelling reasons to doubt its veracity.

JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

The Court ruled that a Court of Session can summon an individual as an accused to stand trial, even without a police charge-sheet, if evidence of their involvement in the crime is present. Affirming the precedent in Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court clarified that once a case is committed by a Magistrate, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, which includes summoning individuals whose involvement is prima facie established. The Court emphasized that cognizance pertains to the offence, not the offender, and it is the court's responsibility to identify all real offenders. It rejected the argument that cognizance can only be taken once, asserting that the Magistrate's cognizance is limited to committing the case, while the Sessions Court can take cognizance of the entire incident upon committal.

JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment erroneous for several reasons. It ruled that the High Court improperly relied on confessional statements made by the appellant in the first information report, which are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also noted that the High Court overemphasized medical evidence and expert testimony, which cannot solely support a conviction. Furthermore, the High Court misapplied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code by failing to consider critical factors, such as whether the appellant took undue advantage or acted cruelly. Given the lack of credible evidence to establish guilt, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges.

JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents did not establish a valid sale agreement, as they failed to present witness testimony and their evidence was self-serving. Additionally, they could not clarify the possession transfer of the disputed property. Consequently, the Court overturned the High Court's decision, ordering the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000 to the respondents within four weeks, acknowledging the appellant's admission of debt despite lack of evidence for its discharge.

JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

The Court ruled that the appellant society, a registered non-profit, qualifies as a 'constructive trust' under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to alleged misappropriation of its properties and funds by the respondents, breaching their fiduciary duties. Despite the respondents' personal grievances, the court emphasized that the primary focus of the suit was the mismanagement and misuse of charitable funds, justifying the application of Section 92. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file the suit, instructing the High Court to assess the need for a 'constructive trust' and identify the properties involved, while also determining appropriate reliefs. The court warned against using a Section 92 suit to resolve disputes related to the society's daily management or member elections.

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

The Court ruled that the return of possession of the ground floor of the White House to Sincere Securities Private Limited is not prohibited by Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The case involved a decision by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), consisting solely of UCO Bank, and the Resolution Professionals, who determined that retaining the property was not beneficial for the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) due to high rental costs. The court emphasized the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom during the CIRP and noted that the suspended director of the corporate debtor was unwilling to cover the costs of retaining possession. Consequently, the court overturned the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order and reinstated the National Company Law Tribunal's directive for the Resolution Professional to promptly return possession to the appellants.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA

The Court dissolved the marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife, determining it had irretrievably broken down under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC, deeming the allegations as ordinary marital disputes. The settlement included the appellant gifting his apartment to the respondent, subject to conditions, and ordered closure of all pending proceedings between the parties, prohibiting further actions.

JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision allowing the Respondent's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, finding the Appellant had unequivocally admitted in her written statement that the suit property was jointly purchased. The court ruled that the Appellant's claim of the property as a "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, did not bar partition proceedings, as the right of residence is not absolute and can be addressed through partition or alternative accommodation. The High Court deemed the Impugned Order well-reasoned and not subject to interference.

JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 394, 397, 411, and 34 of the IPC, as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court found the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and weapon recovery, sufficient to establish guilt. The court rejected the appellant's challenge to Section 397 IPC, affirming that the use of a deadly weapon during the escape with stolen property falls within its scope. Additionally, the court dismissed the plea for sentence reduction due to the appellant's prior criminal history.

JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 56-year-old woman accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420/34 IPC. The court determined that the matter was primarily a civil dispute, noting the existence of multiple pending civil suits between the parties. It found insufficient forensic evidence to conclusively link the accused to the thumb impressions on the Agreement to Sell and identified irregularities in payment records. Given the familial relationship and the nature of the dispute, the court concluded that there was no justification to deny bail, allowing her release upon a personal bond and surety.

JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

The High Court dismissed Satyam Chauhan's anticipatory bail application, accused of engaging in sexual relations with a 19-year-old under false pretenses of marriage. The court noted the petitioner's attempt to fabricate a defense by filing a counter-complaint for blackmail, indicating complicity. Examination of chat transcripts revealed no evidence supporting the petitioner's claim that the prosecutrix had a boyfriend. Consequently, the court determined that granting anticipatory bail was inappropriate and dismissed the application.

JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

The High Court dismissed a petition by the in-laws of the complainant to quash an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The court determined that the petitioners' prior withdrawal of a complaint under Section 306 IPC constituted an abuse of process. It concluded that quashing the FIR would not serve the interests of justice, particularly given the welfare of the deceased's minor children. The court found no grounds to quash the FIR or halt the proceedings based on a settlement between the parties.

JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

The High Court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's furlough request, emphasizing the importance of reformation through furlough. The court ordered the petitioner's immediate release on a two-week furlough, contingent upon furnishing a personal bond. Additionally, the Jail Superintendent was instructed to provide written notice of the surrender date to the petitioner.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The High Court upheld the suitability of land used by the Pune Cantonment Board and Pune Municipal Corporation for solid waste processing under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. It rejected petitions for relocation, affirming operations comply with Maharashtra Pollution Control Board authorization. While recognizing residents' health concerns, the court mandated that mixed solid waste not be dumped on-site and required scientific processing methods, including composting and recycling. The court also ordered measures to mitigate odor, toxic gases, and dust, and instructed the Pollution Control Board to enforce compliance with authorization conditions. The decision on potential relocation of facilities was left to local authorities and the State Government.

JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The High Court upheld the arbitral tribunal's decision to refund the security deposit to GoldenSource, rejecting Paperbox's claim that 'vacant possession' required stripping the premises to a bare shell. The court affirmed the tribunal's interpretation of the agreement, confirming that the refund was due in June 2020 and that the arbitral award was not subject to interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court analyzed the agreement and the parties' conduct, dismissing the petitions against the arbitral awards.

JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

The High Court held that the sale of HDPE bags by M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited (ACCL) was a separate contract from the sale of cement, based on a detailed examination of facts and the principles established in Raj Sheel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court deemed it unnecessary to interpret Section 15A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as the favorable finding on the primary issue rendered further determination academic. The judgment addressed multiple references across different assessment years due to the common legal issues involved.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The High Court ruled that for computing deductions under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act, the Assessee is entitled to a 20% deduction on profits as per the Profit & Loss Account finalized under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer cannot disregard the profits shown in audited accounts, referencing consistent judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court's ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT. It found the Assessing Officer's reduction of Rs.78,86,857/- from net profit for the deduction was erroneous.