Case Law - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Amicable Settlement Leads to Full Quashing of FIR, Including Dacoity Charge

4Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Amicable Settlement Leads to Full Quashing of FIR, Including Dacoity Charge

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for dacoity (BNS S. 310(2)/IPC S. 395) as the alleged acts lacked dishonest intention for theft/robbery—a prerequisite for dacoity. The Court held that subsequent full restitution and amicable settlement with the complainant negated the core criminal intent, rendering the entire prosecution unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, a school clerk, alleged that on October 4, 2024, six to seven unknown persons entered P.G. Public School in Nandurbar. They demanded specific Engineering and B.A.M.S. files, assaulted and intimidated staff, and forcibly took a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, cash (Rs. 1,50,000), and a computer. The accused were allegedly searching for institutional documents, and the taking of property was incidental. Subsequen...

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...

Supreme Court: Key Takeaway from a Property Dispute: Exhaust Legal Remedies First, Go to Court Later

4Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Key Takeaway from a Property Dispute: Exhaust Legal Remedies First, Go to Court Later

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory remedy under Sections 37-A/38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, providing a 30-day period to challenge an auction, is mandatory. Failure to exhaust this specific remedy within limitation bars subsequent writ jurisdiction under Article 226, irrespective of other pending proceedings or interim orders. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of late Ramaswamy Udayar for arrack shop dues from 1972-73. Following an ex-parte decree in 1987, the Revenue authorities issued an auction notice in 2005 for his properties. The appellant, his widow, challenged this notice via a writ petition. Although the High Court granted an interim stay on the confirmation of sale, the auction it...

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for aggravated sexual assault on a child. The Court ruled that cogent ocular evidence from witnesses, including the victim's traumatized behavior, can sustain a conviction even if medical evidence does not show injury or penetration. The sentence was partially modified. Facts Of The Case: On August 15, 2021, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, returned to the victim's home in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with her father and another man after collecting wood. After consuming alcohol, the victim's four-year-old daughter was sleeping inside. Around 4:30 p.m., the mother went inside to give food to the appellant and found him wearing only shorts, sitting near her daughter's legs. Th...

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim by impleaded defendants against a co-defendant is not maintainable in a suit for specific performance. Such a claim must be incidental to the original suit's cause of action and cannot be independently raised against another defendant. The Court set aside the admitted counter-claim. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sanjay Tiwari, filed a suit for specific performance against the first respondent, Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, based on an alleged oral agreement dated 02.12.2002 for the sale of 0.93 acres of land. The plaintiff claimed full payment was made and he was put in possession. The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that defendants 2 and 3 were in possession of part of the property, making the suit defective for non-joinde...

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the principle that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, especially one before the High Court itself, is a valid ground for refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that discretionary writ relief is generally unavailable where a litigant has, through their own fault, failed to exhaust an equally efficacious alternative forum provided by statute. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rikhab Chand Jain, faced proceedings concerning 252.177 kg of allegedly smuggled silver seized on September 27, 1992. The Additional Collector of Customs, respondent no. 3, ordered the confiscation of the silver and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant via an order dated May 7, 1996. The appellant app...

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It

The Supreme Court ruled that when a sanction order is issued pursuant to its ongoing monitoring of proceedings, its validity can only be challenged before the Supreme Court itself. No other court, including a High Court, is entitled to entertain such a challenge or grant a stay on that sanction while the matter remains pending before the apex court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the Supreme Court's suo moto action concerning illegal construction and rampant tree felling within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The investigation, initially directed by the Uttarakhand High Court and later monitored by the Supreme Court, was conducted by the CBI. The CBI filed a final report, leading to the requirement of prosecution sanction against involved officers. While the State of ...

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...

Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments

31Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments

This Supreme Court judgment directs statutory reconstitution of the Delhi Ridge Management Board under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to function as a single-window authority. It mandates the Board to ensure the protection, removal of encroachments, and ecological restoration of both the notified Ridge and the Morphological Ridge, with oversight by the Central Empowered Committee and the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the long-standing litigation over the protection and management of the Delhi Ridge, a vital ecological area within the National Capital Territory. The primary legal proceedings originate from Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India) and connected matters. The Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicat...

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that central excise duty is leviable only on movable “goods.” The final assembled boiler, being an immovable plant, is not excisable. Consequently, the value of bought-out items delivered directly to the site cannot be included in the assessable value for duty computation. The extended limitation period for the show-cause notice was also held inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Lipi Boilers Ltd., entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture, and supply machinery for a steam generating plant, including a 50 TPH boiler. The boiler was manufactured and cleared from the factory in a Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition upon payment of central excise duty. Certain essential items, such as feed pumps and fans, were purchased duty-...