Supreme Court

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

Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements

The Supreme Court ruled that tender conditions must be explicit and unambiguous. A bidder cannot be disqualified for non-submission of a document not expressly mandated by the tender. The tendering authority must act fairly and cannot impose hidden requirements, especially when a submitted certificate adequately demonstrates compliance with the stated criteria. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a tender issued by Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL) for coal beneficiation work. Maha Mineral, the appellant, submitted its bid relying on its past experience as a 45% partner in a Joint Venture (JV) named Hind Maha Mineral LLP. To prove this, it submitted a work execution certificate from the Maharashtra State Mining Corporation (MSMC), which explicitly stated its 45% share an...
Read More
Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings, ruling that a title deed is primary evidence of ownership. Mere presence of waste or manure on a property does not establish possession for the defendant. A declaratory suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable when the defendant fails to prove their own possession. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff, Suresh Tukaram Nerkar, filed a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession, and for a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants. His claim was based on a sale deed (Ext. 81) purportedly covering 150 square metres of land, which included a residential building on one portion ('ABCD') and an adjacent open plot ('PCDF'). The suit was triggered by the defendants, parti...
Read More
Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

In a significant ruling on motor accident claims, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles from Pranay Sethi and Somwati. The Court established that the income of a deceased, even if not fully substantiated, cannot be assessed lower than the notional income of an unskilled labourer, with due consideration for annual increments. It upheld the application of standard multipliers, future prospects, and clarified that loss of consortium is payable to spouses, children, and dependent parents. Facts Of The Case: In a tragic accident on July 25, 2010, four friends from Bijapur on a pilgrimage to Shirdi lost their lives when their car was involved in a head-on collision with a rashly and negligently driven goods lorry on NH-13. The case concerns one of the deceased, a qualified pharmacist, wh...
Read More
Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against concurrent orders of CERC and APTEL. It upheld that coal linkage for a power plant is allocated to the project as a whole, not to specific PPAs. Consequently, the additional cost from 'Change in Law' events must be apportioned pro-rata among all power procurers based on their energy drawal. Facts Of The Case: GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) set up a power plant and entered into long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with three utilities: Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar. The project was allocated coal from specific linkages and a captive block, intended for the entire plant. When changes in law and a coal supply shortfall increased GKEL's costs, it sought compensation. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) ruled GKEL w...
Read More
Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims

The Supreme Court held that for motor accident compensation, the functional disability affecting earning capacity, not just medical disability, is determinative. Income tax returns must be reasonably considered unless proven fabricated. Just compensation includes actual medical expenses proven by vouchers and future medical needs, but future prospects are not awarded when the claimant can continue earning post-disability. Facts Of The Case: On April 9, 2007, the appellant, Anoop Maheshwari, was riding his motorbike when it was hit by a rashly and negligently driven truck. The accident resulted in Maheshwari suffering a severe injury, specifically a hemipelvectomy, which is the amputation of one leg along with a portion of the pelvic bone. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal established t...
Read More
Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted

Supreme Court Judgment Based on the policy's "Limitation as to Use" clause, the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company cannot deny liability for a utility vehicle registered and permitted as a "contract carriage" to carry passengers. The clause applies only to goods carriages, and the insurer, having issued the policy with full knowledge of the vehicle's registration and permit, is bound to indemnify the owner for third-party claims. The "pay and recover" order was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a tragic accident involving a utility vehicle, which led to the filing of five separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) by the legal representatives of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle, Shyam Lal, was the appellant b...
Read More
Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's finding that the death was not a direct consequence of the motor accident injuries. The legal requirement of establishing a direct causal nexus between the accident and the death was not satisfied, as the medical evidence indicated the fatality was a possible after-effect of the surgery and the victim's pre-existing conditions, not the injuries themselves. Facts Of The Case: On April 29, 2006, an Excise Guard died following injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The accident occurred when the motorcycle he was riding collided with another motorcycle. He was initially hospitalized from April 29 to May 3, 2006, for injuries including a compound fracture of multiple metatarsals in his right foot and a fracture in his l...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower courts. The ruling signifies that the appellants' legal challenge against the insurance company's position was not tenable in law. The court found no merit to interfere, allowing the impugned judgment and the terms of the insurance policy to stand. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by Vanita and others, likely the legal heirs of a deceased, seeking compensation under a motor accident claim. The accident presumably involved a vehicle insured with M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially ruled in the case, and its decision was subsequently challenged in a High Court. It appears that the claimants' appeal was unsuccessful in the Hig...
Read More
Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) CPC without foundational pleadings, issues, or recorded reasons. A will, once duly executed and proved, must be given effect to, and succession cannot be reopened on a new legal case at the second appeal stage. The testamentary disposition was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the estate of C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius. The couple executed a registered joint will in 2003, bequeathing their properties to their son, C.P. Francis (the Appellant), subject to the condition that he pay specific monetary sums to his siblings. After the parents' deaths, the other children (Respondents) filed a suit for partition, claiming their parents died intestat...
Read More