Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against Judicial Officer: Protects Subordinate Judiciary

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against Judicial Officer: Protects Subordinate Judiciary

The Supreme Court expunged the strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer, emphasizing that higher courts should refrain from making adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., highlighting that criticism of judicial orders should focus on errors rather than personal conduct. The judgment also recommended incorporating provisions in High Court Rules to mandate disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications, ensuring transparency and informed judicial decisions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned observations were expunged. Facts Of The Case: The case involves ...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning the High Court's conviction under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses in the trap proceedings. It emphasized the double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals and ruled that conjectures cannot substitute legal proof. The judgment reaffirmed that mere recovery of tainted money, without conclusive proof of demand, is insufficient for conviction under anti-corruption laws. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M. Sambasiva Rao, an Assistant Administrative Officer at United India Insu...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles

The Supreme Court held that a driver with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can operate a commercial vehicle (gross weight ≤7500 kg) without additional endorsement, affirming Mukund Dewangan. However, the Insurance Company was liable under the "Pay and Recover" principle despite the "Liability Only Policy" excluding gratuitous passengers, citing Baljit Kaur and Pranay Sethi. Compensation was enhanced by 10% under conventional heads. Facts Of The Case: On 27th November 2013, Gokul Prasad, a 32-year-old cloth seller, died in an accident involving a TATA 407 truck (registration No. M.P. 53G/0386) near Kurwaiha Ghati Road. The truck, driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 3, was returning from a weekly market. The deceased’s legal representatives (Appellants) filed a claim under S...

Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, ruling that courts are not restricted to the factors listed in clauses (a) to (f) for imposing sentences higher than the minimum. The judgment affirmed that judicial discretion allows consideration of additional relevant factors, such as the quantity of contraband, to justify enhanced punishment. It overturned the High Court’s erroneous view that special reasons under Section 32-B were mandatory for exceeding the minimum sentence. The decision reinforces that sentencing flexibility under the NDPS Act remains broad, subject only to reasonableness and relevance of the factors considered. Facts Of The Case: In September 2018, the police in Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, received information that Narayan Das and anothe...

How a Missing Detail in a Will Led to Its Rejection by the Supreme Court

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

How a Missing Detail in a Will Led to Its Rejection by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that a Will omitting the testator’s wife without justification raises suspicious circumstances, vitiating its validity under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court emphasized that propounders must explain unnatural exclusions to prove the testator’s free will, failing which the Will becomes invalid. Suspicion arises from non-mention of a natural heir (wife) and lack of reasons for disinheritance, shifting the burden to the propounder to dispel doubts. Registration and signatures alone cannot override such irregularities if the disposition appears coerced or influenced. The judgment reaffirms judicial scrutiny of Wills to ensure genuine voluntary execution. Facts Of The Case: Maya Singh owned agricultural ...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings, allowing time-barred claims to be referred for settlement. However, the Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3), as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, incorporates the Limitation Act into such arbitrations. The Court emphasized that the MSMED Act’s provisions override general laws, ensuring a balanced approach to dispute resolution while protecting suppliers' rights. The disclosure of unpaid amounts in financial statements under Section 22 may extend limitation periods, subject to case-specific scrutiny. Facts Of The...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Ends Gender Bias Tribal Women Now Have Equal Rights to Ancestral Property!

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Ends Gender Bias Tribal Women Now Have Equal Rights to Ancestral Property!

The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any established custom or law governing inheritance for Scheduled Tribes, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 must apply. The Court held that denying tribal women equal inheritance rights violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution, as discrimination based on gender lacks a rational nexus. The judgment overruled the lower courts’ dismissal of the claim, affirming that legal heirs of tribal women are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property unless a contrary custom is proven. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance rights of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, belonging to the Gond Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh. The appellants,...

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court clarified the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it can be invoked based on evidence collected during trial, even if the person was not charge-sheeted. The Court held that the standard for summoning an additional accused is stricter than a prima facie case but does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must show strong complicity, and the power should be exercised sparingly to ensure fairness. The Court restored the Trial Court's summoning order, underscoring that the High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at this stage. The judgment reaffirmed that the provision aims to prevent the guilty from escaping justice. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 29th November 2017, w...

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, applies only when the number of eligible candidates is less than the advertised vacancies. Since one recommended candidate was rejected, the next eligible candidate (appellant) should have been appointed instead of carrying forward the vacancy. The Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory rules in judicial appointments, reinforcing that vacancies must be filled from the existing merit list unless rules explicitly permit otherwise. The judgment clarifies that "selected direct recruits available for appointment" includes candidates next in line if recommended candidates are not approved. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Tosh Kumar Sharma, who participated in the 2016 recruitment proce...

Supreme Court Verdict : Police Can’t Serve Appearance Notices via WhatsApp

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict : Police Can’t Serve Appearance Notices via WhatsApp

The Supreme Court dismissed the application seeking modification of its earlier order, holding that electronic communication (e.g., WhatsApp) is not a valid mode for serving notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court emphasized that such notices, which impact personal liberty, must adhere strictly to prescribed modes of service under the BNSS. It clarified that while electronic service is permissible for court summons under Sections 63, 64, and 71 of the BNSS, the same cannot be extended to investigative notices under Section 35, as the legislative intent excludes electronic modes for this purpose. The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case aro...