Tag: Binding Precedent

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fresh SLP Allowed After Unconditional Withdrawal of Earlier Petition
27Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fresh SLP Allowed After Unconditional Withdrawal of Earlier Petition

The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition challenging the same judgment is not maintainable after an earlier SLP was dismissed and a subsequent recall petition was withdrawn without liberty to approach the Court again. The principle of finality in litigation bars re-agitating the same issue inter-partes, even if questions of law are kept open. Facts Of The Case: The litigation originated from a judgment dated May 15, 2012, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.1679/2010, concerning pensionary benefits payable by the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited to its retirees. This judgment was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 26, 2024, in LPA No.316/2012. The Bank challenged this Division Ben...
Read More
Supreme Court: Concluded Land Compensation Agreement is Final, Bars Interest Claim
7Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Concluded Land Compensation Agreement is Final, Bars Interest Claim

The Supreme Court held that a concluded compensation agreement voluntarily entered into under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, is a final and binding contract. Such an agreement precludes parties from subsequently invoking statutory provisions, like Section 12 for interest, as the contract subsumes all related claims and disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the acquisition of lands in Coimbatore District, initially leased to the Defence Department in 1942, for the expansion of Coimbatore Airport runway. Proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 were initiated in 2011. In 2018, a meeting was convened under Section 7(2) of the Act between authorities and landowners, resulting in a...
Read More
Judiciary vs Parliament: Supreme Court Repeats Warning on Tribunal Independence
7Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Judiciary vs Parliament: Supreme Court Repeats Warning on Tribunal Independence

In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, declaring its provisions on age limits, tenure, and appointment committees unconstitutional. The Court held the Act was an impermissible legislative override, violating the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence, and constitutional supremacy established in its prior judgements. Facts Of The Case: The Madras Bar Association challenged the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, before the Supreme Court of India. The Act sought to govern the appointment, tenure, qualifications, and service conditions of members across various tribunals. Its key provisions included a minimum age of 50 for appointment, a fixed four-year tenure, a ...
Read More
Supreme Court Reiterates: No Forest Land Acquisition Without Proper Notice
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reiterates: No Forest Land Acquisition Without Proper Notice

This Supreme Court judgement reinforces that for land to vest as a "private forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975, a valid notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act must be properly served on the owner, initiating a live statutory process. Mere issuance or a stale, dormant notice from decades past is insufficient to trigger acquisition. The Supreme Court underscored strict compliance with this mandatory procedure and the binding nature of its precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landowners in Maharashtra whose properties were claimed by the State to have been declared "private forests" and automatically vested in the government on 30 August 1975 under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acqu...
Read More
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
No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a contractual clause merely barring interest on delayed or disputed payments does not, by itself, expressly or by necessary implication prohibit an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest. The power to award such interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is only denuded if the agreement contains a clear and comprehensive bar. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 21.11.2004, which directed the appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), to pay a total sum of USD 6,56,272.34 to the respondent, M/s G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd., for outstanding invoices and other claims. The arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's preliminary objection to the ma...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle of "equal pay for equal work" for contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties as their regular and ad-hoc counterparts. It directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post, holding that the nature of the appointment (contractual) does not negate the entitlement to pay parity when the work is the same. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the State of Gujarat where a significant number of sanctioned posts for Assistant Professors in Government Engineering and Polytechnic colleges remained vacant for years. To address this shortage, the state government made appointments on both ad hoc and contractual bases. The respondents were Assistant Professors appointed on a contractua...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...
Read More