Supreme Court

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

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling
31Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, ruling that the lessee’s failure to pay the statutorily fixed fair rent—despite not seeking a stay of the fair rent order—constituted wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, 1960. The Court affirmed that pending appeals do not automatically suspend the tenant’s obligation to pay determined rent. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a lease agreement dated 11.10.1999, whereby M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. (landlord) leased portions of a godown in Coimbatore to K. Subramanian (tenant) for a total monthly rent of Rs. 48,000. The tenant, however, contended the rent was only Rs. 33,000. In 2004, the landlord applied for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, on 10.01.2007, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,43,6...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments
31Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments

This Supreme Court judgment directs statutory reconstitution of the Delhi Ridge Management Board under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to function as a single-window authority. It mandates the Board to ensure the protection, removal of encroachments, and ecological restoration of both the notified Ridge and the Morphological Ridge, with oversight by the Central Empowered Committee and the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the long-standing litigation over the protection and management of the Delhi Ridge, a vital ecological area within the National Capital Territory. The primary legal proceedings originate from Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India) and connected matters. The Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicat...
Read More
Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”
31Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”

In this suo moto contempt proceeding, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing trend of lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges in pleadings. Reaffirming that an advocate's overriding duty is to the court as its officer, the Court cautioned that subscribing to such pleadings amounts to contempt. However, accepting the unconditional apology tendered before the concerned High Court Judge, it closed the proceedings. Facts Of The Case: In a criminal transfer petition (TP(Crl.) No. 613 of 2025) filed before the Supreme Court, the pleadings contained scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting Judge of the Telangana High Court. When the bench expressed its displeasure, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition. The Court, however, refused permis...
Read More
Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that central excise duty is leviable only on movable “goods.” The final assembled boiler, being an immovable plant, is not excisable. Consequently, the value of bought-out items delivered directly to the site cannot be included in the assessable value for duty computation. The extended limitation period for the show-cause notice was also held inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Lipi Boilers Ltd., entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture, and supply machinery for a steam generating plant, including a 50 TPH boiler. The boiler was manufactured and cleared from the factory in a Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition upon payment of central excise duty. Certain essential items, such as feed pumps and fans, were purchased duty-...
Read More
Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

The Supreme Court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution, as the standards of proof and purpose differ. However, it remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity of the prosecution sanction, emphasizing that sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, T. Manjunath, a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Bengaluru, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 through an intermediary. Following a trap by the Lokayukta, a criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Transport Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution, and a chargesheet was filed. The appellant sought dischar...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted

The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance, ruling that a suit for specific performance is maintainable without a declaratory relief against a unilateral termination when the agreement is not determinable in nature. The subsequent purchasers were held not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: On 28.04.2000, the original vendors executed an unregistered Agreement to Sell (ATS) in favour of the original vendees for agricultural land in Karnataka. The vendees paid a substantial part of the consideration and performed their obligations, including getting the land converted and tenants relocated. In 2003, the original vendors issued a unilateral termination notice citing pending litigation...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

The Supreme Court held that transactions involving the outright sale of land, even if accompanied by ancillary facilitation activities, do not constitute taxable services of a ‘Real Estate Agent’ under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity must involve a clear contract of agency. Mere sale of immovable property is excluded from the definition of ‘service’. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, M/s Elegant Developers, entered into three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for the identification, acquisition, and development of land parcels for real estate projects. Under these agreements, Elegant Developers was responsible for tasks like purchasing contiguous land blocks, obtaining title clearances, securing necessary government approva...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...
Read More
Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. It emphasized that the conclusive presumption of a child's legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be displaced by proving "non-access." Absent such proof and a direct nexus to the alleged offence, forced testing violates the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Facts Of The Case: Respondent No. 1, Kamar Nisha, was married to Abdul Latheef in 2001. Latheef, suffering from a skin ailment, was successfully treated by the appellant, Dr. R. Rajendran. Latheef confided in the doctor about his lack of progeny, leading to a request for medical assistance for his wife. Following this, an extramarital relationship developed between the appellant and...
Read More