Supreme Court

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

Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms
8Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms

The Supreme Court ruled that the Punjab government's recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians violated constitutional and statutory norms. The Court held that the State failed to consult the Punjab Public Service Commission as mandated under Article 320(3)(a) and disregarded UGC Regulations 2010, which were binding. The retrospective amendment to exclude these posts from the Commission’s purview was deemed illegal. The selection process, based solely on a written test without interviews or academic evaluation, was found arbitrary under Article 14. The Court quashed the appointments, directing fresh recruitment in compliance with UGC Regulations 2018. Facts Of The Case: In January 2021, the Punjab government sent requisitions to the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to fil...
Read More
Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-1) and documentary evidence (FIR, charge sheet) while relying on an unproven police statement (Ex-D1). It reinstated the MACT's compensation award, ruling that the insurer failed to disprove negligence by the offending vehicle's driver under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Court emphasized that non-examination of additional witnesses or delayed reporting was not fatal to the claim. Compensation of ₹12.43 lakhs was upheld, with 85% apportioned to the deceased's wife. Facts Of The Case: On September 24, 2021, Nathuram Ahirwar was riding a motorcycle with his wife (PW-1) as a pillion rider when their vehicle was allegedly hit from behind by a mini-truck (APE pickup) bearing registration MP 04...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which mandates lawyers to inform the court about a party's death, prevents the opposing side from claiming abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court emphasized that no party can benefit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria). It clarified that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration, highlighting the distinction between joint and indivisible decrees in abatement cases. The judgment reinforces the duty of pleaders to ensure fair litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed by the appellants (Binod Pathak & others) before the Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, ...
Read More
Who Pays Entry Tax? Supreme Court Decides Liquor Warehouse vs. Manufacturer Case
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays Entry Tax? Supreme Court Decides Liquor Warehouse vs. Manufacturer Case

The Supreme Court upheld the levy of entry tax on liquor manufacturers under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 1976. It ruled that manufacturers "caused the entry of goods" into local areas under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(3), even through state warehouses. The Court clarified that Section 3B (special provision for liquor) was merely an enabling provision, and the absence of a notification under it did not bar tax collection under Section 14 (general machinery provision). The judgment affirmed that the tax liability rests on manufacturers, not warehouses, as they initiated the goods' movement into the state. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/S United Spirits Ltd. and other liquor manufacturers challenging their liability to pay entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act,...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Electricity Regulators in Franchisee Disputes
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Electricity Regulators in Franchisee Disputes

The Supreme Court ruled that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) lack jurisdiction to entertain petitions solely based on public interest under the Electricity Act, 2003. It held that franchisees, as agents of distribution licensees, are not directly regulated by ERCs, and investigations under Section 128 must target licensees, not franchisees. The Court emphasized that ERCs cannot micromanage franchisee agreements, as their regulatory oversight is limited to licensees. The judgment clarified that contractual disputes between licensees and franchisees fall outside ERCs' adjudicatory scope under Section 86(1)(f). The appeal was allowed, setting aside APTEL's order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Torrent Power Limited (appellant) and the Uttar Pradesh Elec...
Read More
Teachers’ Gratuity Rights Clarified: Supreme Court Decides Between State Rules and Payment of Gratuity Act
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Teachers’ Gratuity Rights Clarified: Supreme Court Decides Between State Rules and Payment of Gratuity Act

The Supreme Court ruled that aided school teachers in Maharashtra are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (under Article 309) for gratuity, not the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that since their pay and service conditions are state-regulated, they fall under the more beneficial state scheme, which includes pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG). Legal heirs need not produce a heirship certificate if nominated, but must submit an indemnity undertaking. Interest at 7% was mandated for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Vikram Ghongade, is the son of a deceased teacher employed at an aided school in Maharashtra. His mother passed away while in service, and he sought gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. How...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Judgment Allows Secret Spouse Recordings as Evidence in Divorce Cases
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment Allows Secret Spouse Recordings as Evidence in Divorce Cases

The Supreme Court held that covertly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in divorce proceedings under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits disclosure of marital communications in suits between married persons. The Court clarified that such evidence does not violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, as Section 122’s exception prioritizes fair trial rights over spousal privacy in matrimonial disputes. The ruling emphasized that Family Courts can admit such evidence if it meets the relevance, authenticity, and accuracy standards under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, which govern electronic records. The judgment harmonized the Evidence Act’s provisions with the Family Courts Act, 1984, ensuring procedural f...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that a company qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC if it suffers loss or injury due to an offence, entitling it to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court clarified that such appeals are independent of Section 378 CrPC and need not be restricted to cases where the victim is the complainant. The judgment reinforces the expansive interpretation of "victim" to include corporations, ensuring their right to challenge wrongful acquittals in criminal cases involving infringement or fraud. Facts Of The Case: Asian Paints Limited, a leading paint manufacturer, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand name at a shop owned by Ram Babu in Jaipur. The company had authorized M/s Solution, an IPR consultanc...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims

The Supreme Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proof of negligence is not required for claiming compensation, as the provision operates on a structured formula basis. The Court emphasized that compensation must be computed as per the Second Schedule of the Act, excluding non-scheduled heads like loss of love and affection. It ruled that the deceased, being a third party to the offending vehicle, entitled the claimants to compensation, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The judgment clarified that Section 163A has an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act, ensuring expedited compensation without fault liability adjudication. Facts Of The Case: On the night of November 15, 2006, Surender Singh was driving a tr...
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family

The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court's decision, ruling that the delay in FIR registration and minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony did not disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing that the insurer failed to examine the investigating officer to challenge the evidence. The judgment reinforced the principle that technicalities should not override substantive justice in motor accident claims. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a motor accident where the deceased, a school peon, died after his motorcycle collided with a speeding vehicle. His wife and three minor children filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded them compensation of ₹46,29,15...
Read More