Supreme Court

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

Model Litigant?: Supreme Court Slams State Agency for Derailing 3-Year Arbitration Process
14Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Model Litigant?: Supreme Court Slams State Agency for Derailing 3-Year Arbitration Process

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement survives even if the unilateral appointment mechanism is invalid; such offending portions are severable. Courts cannot review Section 11 orders absent patent error. Joint Section 29A extensions constitute waiver under Section 4 but cannot cure Section 12(5) ineligibility, which requires express post-dispute written waiver. Non-speaking SLP dismissal does not affirm underlying judgment Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a contract dated 04.03.2014 awarded by Respondent No. 1, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, to the appellant, Hindustan Construction Company Limited, for construction of a bridge over the River Sone in Bihar. The contract contained Clause 25 providing for arbitration. The appellant had previously inv...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence
14Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence

The Supreme Court held that a defective Section 313 CrPC statement, with only generic questions failing to put specific incriminating circumstances, causes grave prejudice and vitiates trial. Non-examination of a material Investigating Officer attracts adverse inference. Subsequent FIR superseding the original constitutes an embellished statement under Section 161 CrPC. Defence witnesses carry equal evidentiary value to prosecution witnesses. Facts Of The Case: On 11th May 1990, Gajendra Prasad Gupta was assaulted and fatally injured while returning from a village fair. His father, Rameshwar Sahu, initially gave a Fardbeyan on 12th May 1990 before ASI R. Paswan, which was treated as FIR. This statement described an altercation at the sweet stall and a subsequent attack by three uni...
Read More
Political Patronage, Hostile Witnesses, and Fair Trial: Supreme Court Declines to Cancel Bail in High-Profile Murder Case
13Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Political Patronage, Hostile Witnesses, and Fair Trial: Supreme Court Declines to Cancel Bail in High-Profile Murder Case

The Supreme Court held that a coordinate bench cannot modify or relax bail conditions imposed by an earlier bench absent gross error or changed circumstances, emphasizing judicial discipline, finality of orders, and sanctity of verdicts. Cancellation of bail requires proof of breach, not mere apprehension. Trial courts must avoid unwarranted criticism of court-appointed special public prosecutors. Facts Of The Case: The case arises from a murder conspiracy allegation registered on 8th October 2019, wherein Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman and co-accused were charged under Sections 302/120B IPC and Arms Act for the killing of a political rival. Anisur was arrested on 16th November 2019 and trial commenced before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Tamluk. On 26th February 2021, the West Bengal gover...
Read More
No Dismissal for Honourably Acquitted Employee: Supreme Court Upholds Fair Play, Awards Family Pension
13Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Dismissal for Honourably Acquitted Employee: Supreme Court Upholds Fair Play, Awards Family Pension

The Supreme Court held that dismissal from service for suppression of involvement in a criminal case was disproportionate, despite misconduct being proved. The punishment was modified to compulsory retirement, entitling the deceased appellant’s legal representatives to arrears of pension and family pension. Acquittal with a specific finding of alibi further warranted penalty modulation. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force in 1994. In 2007, an FIR was registered against him, his father, and brothers under Sections 363 and 366 IPC for alleged abduction of a girl. The charge-sheet was initially filed only against his brother, but in 2010, the appellant was summoned under Section 319 CrPC, and charges were framed against him. Immediat...
Read More
Conservation or Cruelty? Supreme Court Steps In to Save Delhi’s Deer From Faulty Relocation Plan
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Conservation or Cruelty? Supreme Court Steps In to Save Delhi’s Deer From Faulty Relocation Plan

The Supreme Court found prima facie violations of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, CZA norms, and IUCN translocation guidelines. It directed the Central Empowered Committee to conduct an independent scientific assessment of carrying capacity, post-release survival, and regulatory compliance. The Court prohibited further translocation pending expert evaluation, emphasizing constitutional duties under Articles 48A, 51A(g), and 21. Facts Of The Case: The A.N. Jha Deer Park, established in 1968 by the Delhi Development Authority in Hauz Khas, New Delhi, operated as a captive zoo facility under a license issued by the Central Zoo Authority under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Despite repeated extensions and warnings, evaluation reports from 2014 to 2022 revealed persistent non-com...
Read More
Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute

The Supreme Court held that High Courts under Section 100 CPC must frame only correct and appropriate substantial questions of law; erroneous formulation vitiates the second appellate judgment. Liberty to sue reserved in statutory proceedings does not permit reconsideration of concluded issues. Matter remanded for fresh admission and framing of proper substantial questions. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, concerning land in Tamil Nadu. The appellant-temple authority obtained patta grants in its favour through orders passed under the Act. However, when the matter reached the High Court in its appellate statutory capacity, the Court by order dated 22.09.1989 confirmed the grant of patta...
Read More
Errors Do Not Change Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses Konkan Railway’s Review Plea in Resignation Dispute
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Errors Do Not Change Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses Konkan Railway’s Review Plea in Resignation Dispute

The Supreme Court held that apparent errors in factual findings do not warrant review unless they materially alter the decision. Justice and equity may override strict contractual principles where long, unblemished service exists. Settled “no work, no pay” rule is not absolute; back-wages can be reduced proportionately without disturbing reinstatement. No review lies for re-argument. Facts Of The Case: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. approached the Supreme Court by way of a review petition against the judgment dated 13th September, 2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10567 of 2024. In the original appeal, the respondent-employee, S.D. Manohara, had challenged the decision of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which had held that he could not withdraw his resignation. The employe...
Read More
Supreme Court Converts Life Imprisonment to 25 Years in POCSO Matter: Here’s Why the Court Showed Leniency
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Converts Life Imprisonment to 25 Years in POCSO Matter: Here’s Why the Court Showed Leniency

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Exercising its sentencing power, the Court commuted the sentence of life imprisonment until natural death to a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment without the benefit of remission, citing the appellant's age, clean antecedents, and satisfactory jail conduct. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from FIR No. 08/2022, registered on 04.05.2022, against the appellant, Deepankar Tikedar. The allegations pertained to the commission of sexual offences against a minor girl, who was reportedly between 15 to 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The appellant was subsequently tried and convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376(3) of the Indian Pe...
Read More
CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales

The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC bars judgment debtors from challenging an execution sale on grounds they could have raised before the sale proclamation was drawn up. Failure to object to the sale of an entire property, rather than a sufficient part, at the appropriate stage precludes a subsequent challenge under Order XXI Rule 90. Facts Of The Case: In 1995, decree-holder Rasheeda Yasin filed a suit for recovery of ₹3.75 lakhs against Komala Ammal and her son K.J. Prakash Kumar. An ex-parte decree was passed in 1997. Execution proceedings began in 1998 to attach and sell the judgment debtors' property—a house and site in Chennai. After multiple unsuccessful auctions due to high upset prices, the court, upon the decree-holder's applications, progressively reduced the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions

The Supreme Court held that a defective affidavit filed in support of a Section 7 IBC application is a curable procedural irregularity and does not render the application non est. The Court emphasized that the mandatory notice under Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC must be specifically issued to the applicant before rejection, and procedural rules should not defeat substantive rights. Facts Of The Case: HDFC Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for a defaulted loan of ₹5.5 crores. The application, verified on July 26, 2023, was supported by an affidavit deposed on July 17, 2023. The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench rejected the petition at the threshold, citing this date discrepancy in the affidavit as a fatal ...
Read More