Supreme Court

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

Supreme Court Explains When Courts Can Recall Witnesses: Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
6May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When Courts Can Recall Witnesses: Order 18 Rule 17 CPC

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing that the power to recall witnesses rests solely with the court to clarify ambiguities, not to fill lacunae in a party's case. The ruling reaffirmed that such discretion must be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked by parties for re-examination or cross-examination. The Court underscored that Section 151 CPC (inherent powers) may permit witness recall in exceptional cases, but routine use is barred to prevent trial delays. The judgment aligns with precedents holding that procedural tools must aid judicial clarity, not protract litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a petition filed by Shubhkaran Singh challenging two orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. The first order, dated 7 Janu...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Against Powergrid: Self-Insurance Policy Covers Transformer Fire Losses
5May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against Powergrid: Self-Insurance Policy Covers Transformer Fire Losses

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). The Court ruled that replacement of damaged transformers did not qualify for additional capitalization under Regulation 53 of the Tariff Regulations, as it was part of the appellant's duty to maintain the transmission system. The self-insurance policy covered the cost of replacement, and the claim for revised availability certificates was rendered redundant. The Court affirmed that the Appellate Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and not a mere rubber-stamping of CERC's findings. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Powergrid Corporation of India Limited (appellant) challenging orders of the Central Electricity Regulatory ...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Motor Vehicle Act: Insurer Must Pay Compensation Even for Uninsured Trailer
5May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Motor Vehicle Act: Insurer Must Pay Compensation Even for Uninsured Trailer

The Supreme Court ruled that when a tractor (insured) causes an accident involving an attached trailer (uninsured), the insurer is liable for third-party compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that the trailer, being part of the tractor's operation, need not be separately insured, emphasizing the Act's welfare-centric interpretation. The insurer's liability was capped at the policy limit, with recovery rights against the vehicle owner for excess amounts. The judgment harmonized precedents on composite vehicle insurance and statutory compensation. Facts Of The Case: On February 29, 2012, Nagarajappa (deceased) was working as a coolie on a tractor-trailer transporting soil when the vehicle overturned due to the driver’s negligence, resulting in his fatal injuries. ...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Judgment on Disability Rights: Orders Fair Admission for Disabled MBBS Aspirant Under SC-PwBD Quota
5May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment on Disability Rights: Orders Fair Admission for Disabled MBBS Aspirant Under SC-PwBD Quota

The Supreme Court ruled that denying MBBS admission to a meritorious PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities) candidate under the SC-PwBD quota violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, overturning NMC’s exclusionary guidelines and directing AIIMS to admit the appellant in the 2025-26 session Facts Of The Case: Kabir Paharia, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate with 42% locomotor disability (congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands and toes in the left foot), scored 542 marks in NEET-UG 2024, securing All India Rank (AIR) 176 in the PwBD (Persons with Benchmark Disabilities) category. Despite his high merit, he was denied MBBS admission after medical boards at Var...
Read More
SC Rules on Church of South India Elections: Moderator’s Election Declared Invalid
4May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SC Rules on Church of South India Elections: Moderator’s Election Declared Invalid

The Supreme Court ruled that the Special Synod Meeting of the Church of South India (CSI) on 07.03.2022 was validly convened, but amendments to the CSI Constitution increasing clergy retirement age were invalid due to insufficient ratification by diocesan councils. The Moderator’s election was declared invalid, while other office bearers' elections were upheld pending final suit disposal. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from the election of office bearers in the Church of South India (CSI), an unregistered religious body. The plaintiffs challenged amendments to the CSI Constitution, particularly the increase in retirement age for clergy from 67 to 70 years, alleging procedural irregularities. They also contested the election of the Moderator, citing criminal antecedents. Four civil ...
Read More
SC Quashes NCLAT Approval of JSW’s Bhushan Power Takeover Due to Legal Violations “Orders Liquidation”
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SC Quashes NCLAT Approval of JSW’s Bhushan Power Takeover Due to Legal Violations “Orders Liquidation”

The Supreme Court adjudicated on the validity of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s approval of JSW’s resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It addressed procedural compliance under Sections 29A, 30, and 61, overreach by NCLAT in modifying NCLT’s order, and jurisdictional limits concerning ED’s attachment powers under PMLA. Facts Of The Case: The insolvency resolution process for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL) commenced on a petition filed by Punjab National Bank, admitted by NCLT on July 26, 2017. Interim Resolution Professionals invited claims, with financial creditors claiming over ₹47,000 crores and operational creditors over ₹600 crores. JSW Steel emerged as the successful resolution applicant after a multi-stage bid evaluation by the Committ...
Read More
Supreme Court Reduced 6-Month Sentence in Forgery Contempt Case: Landmark SC Judgment
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduced 6-Month Sentence in Forgery Contempt Case: Landmark SC Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for fabricating and submitting fake High Court orders to obstruct court proceedings. Rejecting the plea of limitation under Section 20, the Court ruled that contempt proceedings were validly initiated within one year. However, it reduced the sentence from six months to one month, emphasizing that forgery of judicial records undermines the administration of justice. The Court clarified that strict proof is required in contempt cases but found the charges proven beyond doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute where the District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, passed a decree in 2004 in favor of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust, ordering the eviction of the contemno...
Read More
SC Upholds Right to Fair Consideration: Police Constable Denied Promotion Due to Expunged Punishment
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SC Upholds Right to Fair Consideration: Police Constable Denied Promotion Due to Expunged Punishment

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, a Police Constable, was unjustly denied promotion consideration due to a previously set-aside punishment. The Court emphasized the right to be considered for promotion unless disqualified, ruling that the appellant must be evaluated for promotion from 2019 with consequential benefits, as the disqualification was based on an invalidated penalty. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Sakthi, was a Police Constable in Tamil Nadu who joined service on 01.03.2002. In 2019, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector under the 20% departmental quota. However, his application was rejected by the Superintendent of Police on the grounds of a past disciplinary action—a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulativ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Stamp Vendors as Public Servants Under Anti-Corruption Law : Landmark Judgement
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Stamp Vendors as Public Servants Under Anti-Corruption Law : Landmark Judgement

The Supreme Court held that licensed stamp vendors qualify as "public servants" under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as they perform a public duty and are remunerated by the government through discounts. However, the appellant’s conviction was overturned due to insufficient proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Court emphasized a purposive interpretation of anti-corruption laws to curb corruption effectively. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 9 December 2003, when a complainant visited the Sub-Registrar’s Office in Janakpuri, Delhi, to purchase a stamp paper worth ₹10. The appellant, a licensed stamp vendor, allegedly demanded ₹12 instead. The complainant filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), leadin...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Advance Money in Property Dispute : No Refund for Defaulting Buyer
2May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Advance Money in Property Dispute : No Refund for Defaulting Buyer

The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of advance money in a specific performance suit, clarifying the legal distinction between "earnest money" and "advance money." It held that time was of the essence in the sale contract, and the purchaser’s default justified forfeiture. The Court further ruled that earnest money, if provided as security for performance and not merely part-payment, may be lawfully forfeited. Moreover, it held that an alternative relief for refund under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, must be specifically claimed; in its absence, such relief cannot be granted. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute over the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 25.07.2007, executed between K.R. Suresh (plaintiff) and R. Poornima and her family m...
Read More