Article 136 Constitution - The Legal Chamber

Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage

24Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the use of "artificial means" for electricity theft under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is necessary to invoke the statutory presumption against the consumer. The evidence was deemed insufficient, speculative, and not beyond reasonable doubt to establish offences under Sections 39 or 44. Facts Of The Case: Officials from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) detected a 36.6% discrepancy between supplied units and meter readings at M/s. Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. in March 1993. An inspection revealed three holes in the company's meter box. The prosecution alleged that unauthorized wires were inserted through these holes to slow the meter and steal electricity, ca...

Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)

1Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)

The Supreme Court clarified that a valid Hiba (gift under Muslim Law) requires conclusive proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Mere oral claims or a memorandum are insufficient without contemporaneous evidence of the donee acting upon the gift. The Court also emphasized that declaratory suits must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues, and long delays can render a suit barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: Khadijabee was the original owner of an agricultural land. She allegedly made an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres to her daughter, Syeda Arifa Parveen (the Plaintiff), in 1988, followed by a memorandum of gift in 1989. After Khadijabee's death in 1990, her husband, Abdul Basit, mutated the entire property in his name. In 1995, ...

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

19Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

13Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) CPC without foundational pleadings, issues, or recorded reasons. A will, once duly executed and proved, must be given effect to, and succession cannot be reopened on a new legal case at the second appeal stage. The testamentary disposition was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the estate of C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius. The couple executed a registered joint will in 2003, bequeathing their properties to their son, C.P. Francis (the Appellant), subject to the condition that he pay specific monetary sums to his siblings. After the parents' deaths, the other children (Respondents) filed a suit for partition, claiming their parents died intestat...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Legal Heir Can Continue Criminal Appeal if Original Victim Dies

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Legal Heir Can Continue Criminal Appeal if Original Victim Dies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the legal right of a victim to prefer an appeal under Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. The Supreme Court held that upon the death of the original victim-appellant, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal, ensuring the victim's statutory right is not extinguished. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred stemming from previous enmity. The accused persons, armed with guns, sharp weapons, and bricks, assaulted informant Tara Chand (PW-1), his brother Virendra Singh, and his son Khem Singh (PW-3). As a result, Virendra Singh died, while Tara Chand and Khem Singh sustained injuries. The specific roles attributed were that accused Ashok fired at Virendra Singh, accused Pramod fi...

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims

28Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims

The Supreme Court held that the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. Consequently, upon the death of the original appellant-victim, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal. The definition of ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC is broad and inclusive, enabling such substitution to ensure the right of access to justice is not defeated. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred in which Virendra Singh was killed, and informant Tara Chand (PW-1) and his son Khem Singh (PW-3) were injured. The Sessions Court convicted accused Ashok, Pramod, and Anil @ Neelu, sentencing them to life imprisonment, but acquitted six other accused. The convicted accused appealed to the High Court, which, vi...

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Acid Attack Case but Reduces Term for Elderly Accused

29May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Acid Attack Case but Reduces Term for Elderly Accused

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of two appellants under Section 326A IPC for an acid attack, affirming the High Court’s ruling. While maintaining life imprisonment for the advocate (Accused No.2), it reduced the sentence of the elderly co-accused (Accused No.1) to 10 years, considering his age and health. The Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact require no interference unless perverse or legally flawed, emphasizing strict scrutiny in acid attack cases. Procedural lapses in investigation were deemed non-fatal, and medical evidence conclusively established the victim’s injuries. The judgment underscores parity in sentencing while balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. Facts Of The Case: On June 8, 2014, at approximately 8:00 PM near Govind Nagar railway crossing...