Tag: Burden of Proof.

Can a Creditor Attach Property Already Sold? Supreme Court Clarifies the Law
18Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can a Creditor Attach Property Already Sold? Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC cannot apply to property transferred prior to a suit, as the remedy for challenging such a transfer lies exclusively under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. It clarified that claim proceedings cannot substitute a substantive inquiry into fraudulent transfers. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a sale agreement dated May 10, 2002, between the original appellant, L.K. Prabhu, and the third defendant, V. Ramananda Prabhu, who acknowledged a liability of ₹17.25 lakhs. It was stipulated that upon default, the defendant would convey 5.100 cents of property with a building for ₹35 lakhs. On June 28, 2004, following further payments, a registered sale de...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case: Recovery of Weapon Alone is Not Proof
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case: Recovery of Weapon Alone is Not Proof

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was unsustainable. The Court ruled that the recovery of a firearm from a place accessible to others, without independent corroboration or proof it was the murder weapon, is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the murder of Promila on June 12, 2016, in village M.P. Majra, Haryana. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by her brother, Pradeep (PW-1), alleging that three unidentified men in a car shot her. Five days later, in a supplementary statement, Pradeep named the appellant, Govind, along with Sanoj and Amit, as the perpetrators. During the investigation, a country-made pistol and two live cart...
Read More
Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment

The Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim merely by invoking an exclusion clause for wear and tear. The burden lies on the insurer to prove material non-disclosure, fraud, or that the loss was definitively caused by an excluded peril. A valid statutory fitness certificate creates a strong presumption of the equipment's insurable condition, shifting the evidentiary onus onto the insurer. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a sugar mill, held an insurance policy from National Insurance Co. Ltd. covering its boiler. During the policy period in May 2005, an incident occurred causing two boiler tubes to detach. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing Exclusion Clause 5, which excludes losses from wear, corrosion, and gradual deterioration. It relied on a surveyor's ...
Read More
Supreme Court Sets Guidelines: What Constitutes an “Accidental Fire” for Insurance?
16Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Guidelines: What Constitutes an “Accidental Fire” for Insurance?

The Supreme Court held that in fire insurance claims, the precise cause of fire is immaterial unless fraud or instigation by the insured is proven. The insured is not required to prove the exact origin if the loss is due to fire. Exclusion clauses must be interpreted narrowly, and coverage provisions broadly, with ambiguities resolved in favor of the insured. Facts Of The Case: The case involves cross-appeals arising from a fire insurance claim dispute. Orion Commerx Pvt. Ltd. (the Insured) suffered a fire at its premises on September 25, 2010. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim, primarily relying on the report of its final Surveyor, which concluded the fire was not accidental and originated from multiple sources, thus excluding it from policy coverage...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the date of civil death is legally presumed to be after seven years from disappearance, not the date they went missing, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A court decree declaring death merely recognizes this presumption without fixing an earlier date. This legal presumption is central to claims dependent on establishing the date of death. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral ben...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the legal principle regarding multiple dying declarations. The Supreme Court held that each declaration must be assessed independently for evidentiary value. It ruled that the first, corroborated dying declaration recorded by an independent witness (a doctor) was reliable, and minor discrepancies in subsequent versions did not invalidate it, justifying the High Court's reversal of the acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The prosecution's case was that the appellant, Jemaben, conspired with a co-accused to kill Leelaben and her son, Ganesh. On the intervening night of November 29-30, 2004, while the victims were sleeping in their hut, Jemaben poured kerosene on Leelaben and set her on fire. Leelaben suffered severe burns and succumbed to her injuries on...
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
“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence. The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹9,000 from a labour contractor for renewing three licences. The prosecution alleged that a partial payment of ₹3,000 was made on 25.09.1997, with the balance demanded the next day. The complainant reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 26.09.1997. ...
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