Supreme Court

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

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree of permanent injunction creates a perpetual right enforceable at any time against future breaches, clarifying that satisfaction recorded in one execution petition doesn't bar subsequent petitions under Section 47 CPC for fresh violations. It held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act imposes no time limit for enforcing perpetual injunctions, rejecting the erroneous application of res judicata by lower courts. The judgment emphasizes that each breach of injunction constitutes a fresh cause of action, requiring executing courts to examine subsequent execution petitions on merits regardless of prior disposals. The Court distinguished between temporary and permanent injunctions while underscoring the continuing nature of injunctive relief. Facts Of The C...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is crucial in corruption cases involving influential accused. It clarified that confessional statements of co-accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot be considered at the bail stage, being inadmissible under Sections 25-26 of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated that political vendetta allegations alone cannot justify anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence exists. It directed investigating agencies to avoid third-degree methods while preserving their right to seek custodial interrogation if warranted. The judgment reaffirmed the higher threshold for anticipatory bail compared to regular bail in serious economic offences. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from allegations of corruption ...
Read More
Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala government's directive to create a corpus fund from NRI student fees lacked legislative backing, violating the principle that fees cannot be levied without statutory authority. It ruled that unaided institutions retain autonomy over fee structures, subject only to anti-profiteering regulations, and emphasized that welfare measures must be enacted through proper legislation. The Court allowed colleges to retain collected funds but mandated their use for subsidizing economically weaker students. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the Kerala government's directive requiring self-financing medical colleges to contribute a portion of fees collected from Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students towards a corpus fund. This fund aimed to subs...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years

The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership dispute between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under Karnataka Societies Act) and ISKCON Mumbai (Maharashtra Public Trust) over temple properties. It upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the rightful owner, citing documentary evidence (sale deeds, allotment records) and rejecting claims of fraudulent manipulation. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, emphasizing societies' independent legal status under state registration laws. The judgment clarified that funding sources (even from ISKCON Mumbai) don’t determine ownership, and dismissed ancillary appeals linked to the dispute. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a protracted legal battle between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registrati...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of temple receivers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that advocates should not routinely manage religious institutions due to potential conflicts of interest. It directed courts to appoint administrators with religious and administrative expertise while prioritizing expedited dispute resolution. The Court also permitted the state to utilize temple funds for land acquisition under strict conditions, ensuring ownership remains with the deity/trust. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in prolonged receiverships and aligns with Article 25(2) of the Constitution, allowing state intervention for public order and pilgrim welfare. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the management of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Ma...
Read More
Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father

The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a non-custodial parent to file repeated applications for visitation rights imposes undue procedural burdens. It held that interim custody arrangements must balance a child's welfare with both parents' rights, emphasizing structured access schedules over case-by-case approvals. The judgment establishes that meaningful parent-child contact shouldn't be hindered by procedural formalities when consistent involvement is demonstrated, particularly in transnational custody cases. The Court directed family courts to implement standing visitation orders pending final custody determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a custody dispute between Eby Cherian (appellant), an engineer working rotational overseas postings, and Jerema John (respondent), a ...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruled that arbitral tribunals have the power to award compound interest (interest on interest) under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It clarified that the "sum awarded" includes both principal and pre-award interest, and post-award interest can be calculated on this total amount. The judgment overruled earlier contrary interpretations, affirming arbitrators' discretion in interest calculations unless expressly barred by contract. The Court emphasized this aligns with the compensatory purpose of arbitration awards for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Interstate Construction (appellant) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (respondent) regarding construction work for Ramagundam Super Therma...
Read More
No Relaxation in OBC Certificate Requirements: Supreme Court Rules Against Candidates for Wrong OBC Certificate Format
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Relaxation in OBC Certificate Requirements: Supreme Court Rules Against Candidates for Wrong OBC Certificate Format

The Supreme Court upheld the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment Board's decision to reject OBC certificates not submitted in the prescribed state format, ruling that compliance with recruitment notification terms is mandatory. The Court emphasized that candidates must adhere to specified requirements and cannot claim relaxation if they fail to meet procedural conditions. Non-compliance disqualifies them from reservation benefits, as the state's format ensures verification of creamy layer exclusion. The judgment reinforced that recruitment rules must be strictly followed, and courts should not interfere unless constitutional violations are established. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals arising from separate writ petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment...
Read More