Supreme Court

Here u will get all latest & landmark judgements of Supreme Court.

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation: Key Takeaways on Salary & Tax Calculation
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation: Key Takeaways on Salary & Tax Calculation

The Supreme Court clarified that for computing compensation in motor accident claims, the deceased's income includes all allowances, regardless of taxability. Future prospects for a permanent employee below 40 are to be added at 50%. Income tax deduction, if applicable, must be calculated as per the actual tax slab rates for the relevant year. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident claim filed by the dependents of a 27-year-old engineer employed with the Power Grid Corporation of India, who died in an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of approximately ₹88.20 lakhs. This computation included his full monthly salary of ₹53,367 (comprising basic pay, DA, and other allowances), applied a multiplier of 18, added 50% for future prospe...
Read More
Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

This Supreme Court judgment interprets Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affirming the method for determining market value based on comparable sale instances. It clarifies that rental compensation for pre-acquisition occupation is not statutorily mandated, but equitable interest may be awarded under Section 28 for specific periods of dispossession. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns a long-standing dispute over a 37-Are (3,700 sq. m.) plot of land in Nashik, originally part of Survey No. 8/1. In 1972, the Nashik Municipal Corporation (then Council) resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of this portion without formal acquisition. A 1978 notification under land acqu...
Read More
Supreme Court Protects 37.5-Acre Family Plantation from Kerala Vesting Act
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects 37.5-Acre Family Plantation from Kerala Vesting Act

The Supreme Court held that the lands were exempt from vesting under Sections 3(2) & 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It ruled that the appellants had sufficiently proved the existence of bona fide coffee and cardamom plantations prior to the appointed date (10.05.1971), thereby removing the land from the definition of "private forest" liable to be vested in the State. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a 37.50-acre property in South Wayanad, Kerala. The appellant, M. Jameela, and her predecessors claimed the land was developed as a coffee and cardamom plantation well before May 10, 1971—the "appointed day" under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The original owner, Imbichi Ahmed, had lawfully purchased the land...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application. It holds that where the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of an intra-court appeal, the parties revert to the status under the original High Court Single Judge order. Consequently, contempt for its violation lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/s Khurana Brothers, initially challenged an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court by filing an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. While the Division Bench dismissed this appeal, it made certain observations that, according to the petitioner, worsened its legal position compared to the Single Judge's order. The petitioner then sought and was granted leave to appeal to t...
Read More
Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed that school admission registers are admissible evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act to prove a victim's minority in POCSO cases. It clarified that a witness cannot be declared hostile for minor inconsistencies, reiterating that such a step is an extraordinary measure requiring clear hostility or resiling from a material statement. The Court also held that under the amended SC/ST Act, mere knowledge of the victim's caste is sufficient to attract Section 3(2)(v), especially when a presumption of such awareness arises under Section 8(c) from prior acquaintance. Facts Of The Case: On the night of May 10, 2018, the minor victim left her home to deliver food to her grandfather. Near a Sendhwar tree, the appellant, Shivkumar, allegedly abducted her by force, ...
Read More
Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

The Supreme Court held that under the AFC’s Staff Regulations, the gratuity ceiling for employees is linked to notifications issued by the State Government. Consequently, AFC employees are entitled to the enhanced gratuity limit prescribed by the Government of Assam, as the regulations incorporate such external ceilings for employee benefit. Facts Of The Case: The Assam Financial Corporation Limited (AFC) appealed against a High Court judgment favouring its retired employees. The employees, who retired between 2018–2019, had been paid gratuity under AFC’s internal regulations, which had a ceiling of Rs. 7 lakhs as per a 2012 office order. They contended that they were entitled to a higher gratuity ceiling as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was aligned with the enhanced...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

The Supreme Court held that at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence. If the complaint and prima facie documents disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must proceed to trial. The merits of allegations, including forgery and cheating, are to be tested through evidence, not nipped in the bud. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rajendra Singh, who had always identified as a General Category 'Sikh', fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste ('Sansi') certificate just before the 2008 Guna Assembly elections. Using this certificate, he contested and won from a reserved constituency. The complaint accused Rajendra Singh, his father Amrik Singh, and others in...
Read More
Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, holding that in cases of unnatural death within a household, the burden to explain the circumstances lies with the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence complete, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around the death of Smt. Pushpa, who was married to Mahesh Singh. Her family alleged she faced persistent dowry harassment and cruelty from her husband and father-in-law, Janved Singh. On December 31, 1997, Janved Singh reported to police that Pushpa died from accidental electrocution while ironing clothes. However, the post-mortem revealed the cause was asphyxia due to strangula...
Read More
Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...
Read More