Tag: Bombay High Court

Nomination vs. Succession: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Gets GPF Funds After Death
3Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Nomination vs. Succession: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Gets GPF Funds After Death

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a nomination under the General Provident Fund Rules only authorizes receipt of funds and does not confer absolute title. When a nomination becomes invalid due to the subscriber acquiring a family, the amount must be distributed equally among all eligible family members, regardless of any unmodified nomination. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from the death of Bolla Mohan, a government employee who died in service on July 4, 2021. Upon joining service in 2000, the deceased had nominated his mother, B. Suguna (respondent No. 1), as the recipient of his General Provident Fund (GPF), Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEIS), and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). However, on June 20, 2003, he married Bolla Malathi (the app...
Read More
Supreme Court: Courts Must Examine Contempt Grievances on Merits, Not Avoid Them
27Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Courts Must Examine Contempt Grievances on Merits, Not Avoid Them

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing a contempt petition on grounds of ambiguity in the original order. It clarified that contempt jurisdiction cannot be avoided merely because an order is allegedly capable of two interpretations. The Court must examine specific grievances of non-compliance based on material on record, not assume compliance from others' silence. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 filed by the predecessor of the appellants seeking completion of acquisition proceedings and possession of land bearing Gat No.78 in Village Chinchavali, Thane. On 17.01.2003, the Bombay High Court disposed of this petition along with four others through a common order. In this order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer s...
Read More
Moratorium Doesn’t Protect Inaction: Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Defaulting Developer’s Agreement
14Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Moratorium Doesn’t Protect Inaction: Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Defaulting Developer’s Agreement

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that validly terminated contracts do not constitute "assets" of a corporate debtor under the IBC, and its moratorium does not revive extinguished rights. It reaffirms that NCLT cannot interfere with terminations based on pre-existing, non-insolvency-related defaults. Furthermore, High Courts retain constitutional jurisdiction to direct statutory authorities, even during moratorium. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a 2005 Development Agreement between Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society and developer AA Estates for redevelopment of a dilapidated Mumbai building declared dangerous under municipal laws. The agreement required completion within 24 months, but the developer failed to meet this timeline. A Supple...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains: How Legal Representatives Must Be Heard Before Estate Is Attached
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains: How Legal Representatives Must Be Heard Before Estate Is Attached

The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, limiting judicial interference. Letters Patent Appeals against execution orders under the Act are not maintainable. It mandated the issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the CPC to legal representatives as a jurisdictional prerequisite before proceeding against a deceased judgment debtor's estate. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from an arbitral award dated 12.07.2010, passed in favour of the appellant, Bharat Kantilal Dalal, against his late father concerning family assets. After the father's death, the appellant sought to execute the award against his uncle (the father's brother), who was the sole beneficiary and executor under the father's Will. The uncle, along with other respondents, res...
Read More
Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...
Read More
Arrest Without Written Reason? Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal in Landmark Ruling
21Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Arrest Without Written Reason? Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal in Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requires the grounds of arrest to be furnished in writing to the arrestee in a language they understand, without exception, for all offences. Failure to do so renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, subject to a limited exception for certain in-the-moment offences where written grounds must be supplied at least two hours before the remand hearing. Facts Of The Case: On July 7, 2024, a white BMW, allegedly driven at high speed by Mihir Rajesh Shah, collided violently with a scooter from behind in Worli, Mumbai. The impact threw the scooter's male rider to the side and trapped his wife under the front left wheel and bumper of the car. Despite this, the driver allegedly continued driving, draggi...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

In this Supreme Court judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 149 applies when a member of an unlawful assembly shares its common object, irrespective of direct commission of the fatal act. It upheld that active facilitation and participation in a coordinated attack establishes guilt. Facts Of The Case: On April 27, 1999, Ankush Gholap and others were returning from Bhor in a jeep when they were intercepted by six accused persons on two motorcycles. The accused, armed with weapons like knives and a sattur, stopped the jeep near Navi Ali. Accused no. 3 removed the jeep's keys and assaulted the driver, while the others dragged Ankush and two other occu...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forgin...
Read More
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...
Read More