Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail Rejection, Stresses Timely Bail Hearings

4Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail Rejection, Stresses Timely Bail Hearings

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation may be necessary to establish complicity and intent, even in cases based on documentary evidence. The Court underscored the gravity of allegations involving abuse of official position. It further issued general directions mandating the expeditious disposal of bail applications to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21. Facts Of The Case: Based on a complaint concerning fraudulent property transfer, an FIR was registered in 2019 regarding events from 1996. The core allegation was that a sale deed was executed using forged Powers of Attorney, which were purportedly signed by individuals who were already deceased. This sale deed was then used to mutate l...

Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders

4Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2025 EIA Notification, clarifying that the "General Conditions" under the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to building and construction projects. Consequently, such projects will continue to be appraised and granted environmental clearance by State-level authorities (SEIAA/SEAC) and not be automatically elevated to the Central level for approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT had directed that all building and construction projects falling within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted areas, or other eco-sensitive zones must be treated as ‘Category A’ projects. This meant they would require environmental clearance from ...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case

4Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court clarified that when a sale deed is void ab initio due to non-execution by the owner, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period. Article 59, which applies to voidable instruments requiring cancellation, is inapplicable. A plaintiff challenging a void transaction is not obligated to seek its cancellation and can file a simpliciter suit for possession within twelve years from when the defendant's possession became adverse. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Rasali, instituted a suit claiming a one-third share in agricultural land, alleging that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, which purportedly transferred the land to the defendant, Shanti Devi, was fraudulent. The...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Order: Sexual Harassment Judgement to be Part of Accused’s Permanent Record

2Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Order: Sexual Harassment Judgement to be Part of Accused’s Permanent Record

This Supreme Court ruling clarifies that under the POSH Act, a complaint must be filed within three months (extendable to six) of the last incident of sexual harassment. Subsequent administrative actions, unless directly linked to the original misconduct as a "continuing wrong," do not extend this limitation period. The Court distinguished between a "continuing wrong" and a "recurring wrong," holding that independent administrative decisions do not constitute a fresh act of sexual harassment. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Vice-Chancellor of NUJS, Kolkata, and Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik, a faculty member. The appellant, Ms. Patnaik, lodged a formal complaint of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor with the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) on Decem...

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

2Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It holds that allottees with agreements structured for assured returns or buy-back clauses, without a genuine intent to possess the property, are speculative investors. Such investors are barred from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, as the Code is not a recovery mechanism for speculative investments. Facts Of The Case: This case consolidates four civil appeals concerning the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate developers by individual allottees. The primary appellant, Mansi Brar Fernandes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Gay...

After Long Legal Battle, Supreme Court Ends Marriage but Secures Daughter’s Future

2Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

After Long Legal Battle, Supreme Court Ends Marriage but Secures Daughter’s Future

The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree on grounds of cruelty, finding the marriage had irretrievably broken down. While not interfering with the divorce, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to direct the husband to pay ₹10 Lakh for his daughter's marriage, enforcing a father's financial duty irrespective of marital status. Facts Of The Case: The parties were married in May 1996 and have two children. In 2009, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging various instances of mental cruelty by the wife. The wife countered these allegations, stating that she was the one subjected to cruelty, and subsequently initiated proceedings against the husband under the Domestic Violence Act. During these proceedings, the husband made a claim that the children ...

Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses

2Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses

The Supreme Court held that inspection, search, and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, must comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of the Cr.P.C., including recording "reasons to believe" and the presence of independent witnesses under Section 100(4). Non-compliance with these statutory procedures vitiates the entire action, rendering it illegal and unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, ITC Limited, maintained a warehouse for its 'Classmate' brand stationery. On July 2, 2020, Legal Metrology officers inspected these premises without a warrant and seized 7600 packages of exercise books for an alleged violation of Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The appellant challenged this action before the Karnataka High Cour...

A Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Directs States to Transform Beggars’ Homes from Prisons to Places of Care

1Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

A Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Directs States to Transform Beggars’ Homes from Prisons to Places of Care

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directives for all Beggars' Homes across India, mandating minimum standards for healthcare, sanitation, nutrition, and infrastructure. The judgment affirms that such institutions are a constitutional trust and that inhumane conditions violate the fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21, requiring a shift from a punitive to a rehabilitative model. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation filed after news reports in May 2000 exposed a cholera and gastroenteritis outbreak at the Beggars’ Home in Lampur, Delhi, leading to multiple inmate deaths. The reports alleged that contaminated drinking water was the cause, a fact later confirmed by a magisterial inquiry which found faecal con...

Public Interest Isn’t Just Revenue: Supreme Court Prioritizes Tender Sanctity Over Higher Bid

1Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Public Interest Isn’t Just Revenue: Supreme Court Prioritizes Tender Sanctity Over Higher Bid

The Supreme Court held that post-tender rectification of a financial bid is impermissible as it undermines the sanctity and finality of the tender process. Judicial interference in tender awards is unwarranted absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or perversity. The terms of the tender document, which expressly prohibited changes to the bid, are binding on the parties. Facts Of The Case: The State of West Bengal invited bids for a Road User Fee collection contract. Mandeepa Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) participated and was found technically qualified. Upon opening the financial bids, Prakash Asphaltings (the Appellant) was declared the highest bidder (H1) at ₹91.19 crores for the 1095-day contract, while Mandeepa was the lowest (H4) at approximately ₹9.73 lakhs. After this resu...

Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court

1Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Coal India's Interim Pricing Policy, ruling that the 20% price increase for the non-core sector was a valid economic policy decision. The Court affirmed that such price fixation, based on reasonable classification and to subserve the common good, does not violate Article 14, and set aside the refund directed by the High Court. Facts Of The Case: Following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Ashoka Smokeless that struck down the e-auction system for coal sales, Coal India Limited (CIL) introduced an Interim Coal Policy on December 15, 2006. This policy increased the price of coal by 20% over the pre-e-auction notified price specifically for linked consumers in the non-core sector, such as manufacturers of smokeless fuel. An associat...