Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In

12Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In

This Supreme Court judgment holds that once the Central Government permits women's induction into the JAG branch via notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, it cannot subsequently impose gender-based restrictions through administrative policies. Any such limitation violates Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as it constitutes indirect discrimination and exceeds the permissible scope of exceptions under Article 33. Facts Of The Case: The petitioners, two female candidates who secured the 4th and 5th ranks in the women's merit list for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch's 31st Course, challenged a recruitment notification dated 18th January 2023. The notification prescribed six vacancies for male candidates and only three for female candidates. Despite the petiti...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death

The Supreme Court clarified that in claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, a notional income for a deceased child need not be limited to the figures in Schedule II (for Section 163-A claims). It reinstated the Tribunal's calculation, confirming no deduction for personal expenses is required in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident involving a 10-year-old boy who was fatally struck by a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation while he was cycling to school. The parents of the deceased child filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, acknowledging the undisputed negligence of the bus driver, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,55,000. This calculation was based on attributing a notional monthly...

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, applying the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, held that a self-employed person, even one working abroad, is entitled to an addition of 40% of their established income towards future prospects when computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and conventional heads as per the standardized formula mandated by the Constitution Bench. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on 31st August 2007 at approximately 3:00 a.m. at Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal. The deceased, Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national, was travelling in a car from Delhi to Hoshiarpur when it was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Swaraj Mazd...

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the detailed procedure and timelines under Section 144C for eligible assessees operate within or in addition to the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153 for passing assessment orders. The divergence of opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench for final determination. Facts Of The Case: The case involved several foreign companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., engaged in oil exploration in India. For Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19, the companies filed returns declaring losses. Their cases were selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officers passed draft assessment orders ...

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer is liable to indemnify claims for the owner of goods or his authorized representative traveling in a goods vehicle. Furthermore, the registered owner remains liable for compensation until a transfer is formally reported to the Registering Authority under Section 50, and the insurer cannot avoid its liability based on unsubstantiated assertions. Facts Of The Case: A motor accident involving a goods vehicle resulted in several claims for death and injury. The injured and deceased were petty hawkers, such as a fish monger and a vegetable vendor, who were accompanying their goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company contested its liability on two primary gro...

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...

How Unexplained Injuries and a Family Dispute Led to an Acquittal by the Supreme Court

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

How Unexplained Injuries and a Family Dispute Led to an Acquittal by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt. The conviction was overturned due to material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained timeline of death, unrebutted defence evidence of family enmity, and a lack of medical corroboration for the alleged weapon and dying declaration. Facts Of The Case: Based on the altercation, the appellant and her husband were accused of fatally beating the deceased with sticks near a temple later that night. The prosecution's case, supported by eyewitnesses including the deceased's father (PW-7), was that the attack was retaliation for the afternoon dispute. The victim was allegedly carried home unconscious and died minutes later, with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged around 9:00 PM. How...

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...