Tag: B.R. Gavai

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...
Read More
Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below on the appellants' involvement in causing the deaths. However, it altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, finding that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to kill. The sentence already undergone was deemed sufficient. Facts Of The Case: On the morning of August 6, 1986, complainant Ram Gopal (PW-1) went with his father and two uncles to a river ghat to measure agricultural land for partition. There, they encountered the four accused appellants, including the owner of the adjacent land, Raghav Prashad. The accused, who were hiding, suddenly emerged and a dispute over the measurement ensued. This altercation quickly turned vi...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the in-laws. It held that general and vague allegations, without specific details of cruelty or unlawful demands, do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that proceedings without such foundational ingredients amount to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the complainant, sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the complainant and the appellants' son/brother took place ...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against concurrent orders of CERC and APTEL. It upheld that coal linkage for a power plant is allocated to the project as a whole, not to specific PPAs. Consequently, the additional cost from 'Change in Law' events must be apportioned pro-rata among all power procurers based on their energy drawal. Facts Of The Case: GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) set up a power plant and entered into long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with three utilities: Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar. The project was allocated coal from specific linkages and a captive block, intended for the entire plant. When changes in law and a coal supply shortfall increased GKEL's costs, it sought compensation. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) ruled GKEL w...
Read More
Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty

In this judgment, the Supreme Court curtailed the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) powers, ruling that environmental compensation cannot be arbitrarily linked to a polluter's turnover, lacking a direct nexus to the actual damage. It also held that the NGT lacks jurisdiction to direct investigations by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, affirming that such actions require a scheduled offence to be registered. The Court emphasized that penalties must be determined based on established methodologies and legal principles, not rhetoric. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Adil Ansari before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2019 against M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. The allegations were that the company, an exporter of handicraft ite...
Read More
Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...
Read More
Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...
Read More
Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...
Read More