Supreme Court

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

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Advance Money in Property Dispute : No Refund for Defaulting Buyer
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Advance Money in Property Dispute : No Refund for Defaulting Buyer

The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of advance money in a specific performance suit, clarifying the legal distinction between "earnest money" and "advance money." It held that time was of the essence in the sale contract, and the purchaser’s default justified forfeiture. The Court further ruled that earnest money, if provided as security for performance and not merely part-payment, may be lawfully forfeited. Moreover, it held that an alternative relief for refund under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, must be specifically claimed; in its absence, such relief cannot be granted. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute over the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 25.07.2007, executed between K.R. Suresh (plaintiff) and R. Poornima and her family m...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Power of Arbitral Tribunals to Join Non-Signatories: Key Ruling on Arbitration and Corporate Group Doctrine
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Power of Arbitral Tribunals to Join Non-Signatories: Key Ruling on Arbitration and Corporate Group Doctrine

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral tribunal has the authority to implead non-signatories to an arbitration agreement under the Group of Companies doctrine. It affirmed that such power is not confined to referral courts under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding the tribunal's jurisdiction. Facts Of The Case: The case arises from a dispute involving Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited (SPCPL), which entered into a Works Contract dated 21.11.2016 with ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (AISPL), part of the ASF Group. The contract was later novated to Black Canyon SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (BCSPL), another ASF Group entity, through a Novation Agreement dated 17.04.2018. A Settlement Agreement was executed in 2020 due to performance issues. BCSPL initiated arbitrat...
Read More
SC Clarifies Gang Rape Laws: Acquits Accused Under SC/ST Act
1May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SC Clarifies Gang Rape Laws: Acquits Accused Under SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 366 (kidnapping), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape), ruling that even if only one accused commits rape, all participants acting in common intention are equally liable. However, it acquitted the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, citing lack of evidence that the crime was committed on the ground of caste identity. The Court reiterated that corroboration is not mandatory if the victim’s testimony is credible and condemned the outdated "two-finger test" in sexual assault cases. The sentence under Section 376(2)(g) was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years to align with the co-accused’s punishment. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on the night of 23-24 June 20...
Read More
Civil Dispute, Not Crime: SC Quashes FIR Against Businessman Calls It a Contract Issue
1May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Civil Dispute, Not Crime: SC Quashes FIR Against Businessman Calls It a Contract Issue

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), holding that unpaid export transactions constituted a civil dispute, not a criminal offense. The Court emphasized that mere breach of contract, without dishonest intent at inception, cannot attract criminal liability. It ruled that the exporter (M/s. Oswal Overseas), not the accused, was the entrusted party, and the complainant failed to establish fraudulent inducement or entrustment under Sections 405/415 IPC. The judgment reaffirmed that criminal proceedings cannot remedy purely contractual disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a business dispute between Ashok Kumar Jain (appellant), director of a Sri Lankan export-import firm, and a Gujarat-based textile trader...
Read More
Railway Guards’ Seniority Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Rules for Surplus Railway Employees
1May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Railway Guards’ Seniority Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Rules for Surplus Railway Employees

The Supreme Court upheld the Railway Board's policy under Paragraph 313A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989, ruling that surplus employees absorbed in a new division lose past service benefits for seniority and are treated as fresh entrants. Those who voluntarily opted for transfer were also placed at the bottom of the recruitment grade, affirming the Tribunal and High Court's decisions. The Court rejected arguments challenging the retrospective application of the circular, clarifying that redeployed staff cannot claim seniority based on prior service. Facts Of The Case: The case involved railway employees (guards and senior guards) from Bhavnagar Division of Western Railway who were affected by operational changes due to the conversion of meter gauge to broad g...
Read More
“Customs Duty on Imported Goods: SC Upholds Inclusion of Agent Fees in Assessable Value”
1May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Customs Duty on Imported Goods: SC Upholds Inclusion of Agent Fees in Assessable Value”

The Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of engineering and technical service fees (8% of FOB value) paid to a local agent in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Court ruled that such payments, being a condition of sale and linked to pre-importation services, were integral to the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment clarified that post-importation service charges are excludable, but pre-import support services directly connected to the sale attract customs duty. The appeal by Coal India was dismissed, affirming the authorities' stance on valuation. Facts Of The Case: In 2000, Central Coalfields Limited (a subsidiary of Coal India) invited tenders for spare parts for P&H Shovels. M...
Read More