Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating

19Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, holding that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence absent proof of dishonest intent at the inception. The allegations disclosed only a civil dispute, and continuing criminal prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Arshad Neyaz Khan, entered into an agreement to sell his property to the complainant, Md. Mustafa, in February 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 43,00,000, out of which an advance of Rs. 20,00,000 was paid. Nearly eight years later, in January 2021, the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant had failed to either transfer the property or refund the advance amount, accusing him of cheating, crimin...

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

19Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...

Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test

19Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test

This Supreme Court judgment struck down a Rajasthan VAT exemption notification for violating Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that granting a tax exemption exclusively to locally manufactured asbestos goods, without a valid justification discernible from the notification itself, constituted discriminatory protectionism against imported goods and was not a permissible differentiation. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, manufacturers of asbestos cement products with manufacturing units outside Rajasthan but sales depots within the state, challenged a Rajasthan Government notification dated 09.03.2007. This notification granted an exemption from Value Added Tax on the sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks manufactured within Rajasthan, provided they contained 25% or mo...

Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an arbitral award granting a composite interest rate from the cause of action until the date of repayment, based on a contract between the parties, excludes the default application of separate post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Party autonomy governs, and a decree-holder cannot claim compound interest at the execution stage if it was not stipulated in the contract or awarded by the tribunal, as this would amount to impermissibly modifying the award. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.04.2014 between HLV Limited and PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of land in Hyderabad. PBSAMP paid an advance of Rs. 15.5 crores to HLV. After...

Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged

The Supreme Court held that while there is no absolute rule for parity in interest rates between builders and buyers, the principle of equity and fairness may warrant it in cases of one-sided agreements and egregious conduct. The Court modified the awarded interest from 9% to 18% p.a., aligning the builder's liability for delay with the rate it charged the buyer, to serve the ends of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant booked a plot in the respondent's project in 2006, paying a significant advance. A Plot Buyer Agreement was executed in 2007, stipulating possession within 24 months of sanction of service plans and allowing the respondent to charge 18% p.a. interest on delayed payments by the appellant. By 2011, the appellant had paid over ₹28 lakhs. That year, the respondent invoke...

Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the rescission of land grants for breach of mandatory cultivation conditions under the Portuguese-era Organic Structure. It ruled that the conditions, rooted in public policy, could not be waived or condoned by mere state inaction. The Court further held that new legal grounds cannot be raised at the appellate stage, confining its analysis to the original pleadings and the specific provisions of the agrarian law. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns land in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, originally granted by the Portuguese government between 1923 and 1930 under contracts known as ‘Alvaras’. These grants, based on the legal principle of ‘emphyteusis’, gave the holders inheritable and transferable rights subject to the mandatory condition of bringing the land und...

“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner

The Supreme Court applied the "pay and recover" principle, directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award despite a policy breach due to an invalid driving licence. The insurer was absolved from liability but was ordered to pay the claimant and was permitted to subsequently recover the amount from the insured vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a fatal vehicular accident on 13th October 2011, in which Nand Kumar, a conductor, died. The accident involved a truck driven by respondent No. 1. The deceased's mother, Rama Bai, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs, payable by the driver and the truck owner (respondent Nos. 1 & 2), after finding that the driver did not po...

Allegations Must Be Specific: Supreme Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Dowry Law

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Allegations Must Be Specific: Supreme Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Dowry Law

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 498A IPC and the Dowry Act against a brother-in-law, emphasizing that vague and omnibus allegations without specific instances of cruelty or harassment do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated the legal principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, cautioning against the misuse of criminal provisions in matrimonial disputes and underscoring the necessity for concrete allegations to initiate prosecution. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by Smt. Jyoti Garg (Respondent No. 2) against her husband, mother-in-law, and her brother-in-law, Shobhit Kumar Mittal (the Appellant). The complainant alleged that within days of her marriage in 2014, she was harassed fo...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute, Decries Criminalization of Civil Disputes

15Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute, Decries Criminalization of Civil Disputes

The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings which are manifestly mala fide or constitute an abuse of the legal process are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle purely civil disputes or for wreaking vengeance, applying the principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and charge sheet. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Anukul Singh, became embroiled in a criminal prosecution originating from a property dispute. His father had purchased a piece of land, and after objecting to the performance of Qurbani (animal sacrifice) on it, the appellant alleged harassment from local authorities and the Shaher Imam. Subsequently, eight FIRs were register...

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

13Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...