Tag: 2025 judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a Trust is not a juristic person capable of being sued. A complaint for a dishonored cheque issued on behalf of a Trust is maintainable against the Trustee who signed it, without needing to array the Trust itself as an accused. The ruling clarifies that vicarious liability attaches directly to the responsible Trustee. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a financial arrangement concerning William Carey University. Facing a crisis, its sponsoring body, ACTS Group, entered an MoU with Orion Education Trust on 12.10.2017 to hand over the university's management. The Respondent, Vijaykumar Agarwal, was Orion's Chairman. In this capacity, he authorized the Appellant, Sankar Padam Thapa, to liaise wit...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: When a “Security Bond” is Actually a Mortgage: A Landmark Stamp Duty Ruling
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: When a “Security Bond” is Actually a Mortgage: A Landmark Stamp Duty Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a mortgage deed and a security bond for stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Court held that the substance of an instrument, not its nomenclature, determines its character. For Article 57 (security bond) to apply, a third-party surety distinct from the principal debtor must be involved. Since the deeds were executed by the principal debtors themselves to secure their own obligations, they were rightly classified as mortgage deeds chargeable under Article 40. Facts Of The Case: In Civil Appeal No. 7661 of 2014, M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. executed a "Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed" on 19.12.2006 in favour of the Meerut Development Authority (MDA). This was done to secure performance of its oblig...
Read More
Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession

The Supreme Court affirmed the executability of a warrant of possession, ruling that a party who receives substantial monetary compensation in lieu of specific performance cannot retain possession of the property. The Court held that equity prevents unjust enrichment and that execution proceedings exist to enforce judgments, not to facilitate windfalls for unscrupulous litigants. Facts Of The Case: On 12.06.1989, the defendants agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff for ₹14,50,000, with ₹25,000 paid as earnest money. Possession of the vacant ground floor was handed over to the plaintiff. In 1990, the plaintiff first filed and withdrew a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, in June 1990, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the Trial Court ...
Read More
Supreme Court Shields Minors’ Property Rights Against Unauthorized Guardian Sales
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Minors’ Property Rights Against Unauthorized Guardian Sales

The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a minor's property by a natural guardian without court permission is voidable. The minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate this transaction not only by filing a suit but also through unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed, within the prescribed period of limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around Plot No. 57, originally owned by three minor sons of Rudrappa. In 1971, their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa, sold this plot to Krishnoji Rao through a registered sale deed without obtaining prior permission from the court. Later, in 1993, Krishnoji Rao sold the same plot to Smt. K. Neelamma. Meanwhile, after the minors attained majority, they, along with their mother, sold the very same Plot No. 57 to K.S. Shivap...
Read More
Inconsistent Evidence Leads to Claim Rejection, Rules Supreme Court in Reliance Insurance Case
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Inconsistent Evidence Leads to Claim Rejection, Rules Supreme Court in Reliance Insurance Case

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that a claim petition under motor accident law must be established on a preponderance of probability. However, this standard is not met when the foundational evidence, including the FIR and eyewitness testimony, is found to be unreliable, unsubstantiated, and creates valid suspicion regarding the occurrence of the accident itself. Facts Of The Case: On June 18, 2014, the deceased, husband of the first appellant, was allegedly involved in a hit-and-run road accident at Singasandra crossroad. The accident was claimed to be witnessed by PW2, a neighbour, who testified that the driver of the offending vehicle abandoned the victim's body after promising to take him to a hospital. The wife of the deceased (PW1) was informed by P...
Read More
Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case

The Supreme Court partially restored the Tribunal's compensation award, upholding the adopted monthly income and modifying attendant charges. It clarified that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant, enhancement beyond the Tribunal's award or addition of future prospects cannot be claimed against the insurer's appeal. Facts Of The Case: On January 5, 2013, the appellant, Ramar, was standing by the side of the road when a rashly and negligently driven lorry hit him. The accident resulted in grievous injuries, leading to the amputation of his right leg from the thigh and a crush injury to his left leg, which paralyzed it. Medical evidence presented before the Tribunal, including the testimony of treating doctors and hospital records, proved the nature of the injuries and as...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that compensation for wrongful diversion of electricity under a Power Purchase Agreement is distinct from the reimbursement of fixed charges. The Court held that the beneficiary is entitled to both remedies concurrently, reinforcing the 'proportionate principle' and preventing unjust enrichment by the power generator. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a 1996 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB, later GUVNL) and Essar Power Limited (EPL). EPL's plant had a total capacity of 515 MW, with 300 MW allocated to GEB and 215 MW to its sister concern, Essar Steel Limited (ESL). The core issue arose when EPL began supplying more power to ESL from GUVNL's allocated 58% share, violating the ag...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test

This Supreme Court judgment struck down a Rajasthan VAT exemption notification for violating Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that granting a tax exemption exclusively to locally manufactured asbestos goods, without a valid justification discernible from the notification itself, constituted discriminatory protectionism against imported goods and was not a permissible differentiation. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, manufacturers of asbestos cement products with manufacturing units outside Rajasthan but sales depots within the state, challenged a Rajasthan Government notification dated 09.03.2007. This notification granted an exemption from Value Added Tax on the sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks manufactured within Rajasthan, provided they contained 25% or mo...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that when departmental proceedings are quashed for being illegal and vitiated by delay, the employee must be restored to the position they would have occupied in the service's normal course. This entitles them to retrospective promotion from the date their immediate junior was promoted, with all attendant consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, was a Block Development Officer in Jharkhand. In 2007, an audit objection raised a suspicion of misappropriation, but a subsequent inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner cleared her, finding the expenditure was within the estimated cost. A decade later, in 2017, a charge-sheet was issued on the same allegation, culminating in a punishment of wi...
Read More