Tag: Case Law

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...
Read More
Supreme Court Exposes False Allegations, Quashes FIR in Sexual Assault Case
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Exposes False Allegations, Quashes FIR in Sexual Assault Case

The Supreme Court of India quashed FIRs No. 103 of 2022 and 751 of 2021, and all consequent proceedings, finding no prima facie material to substantiate allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage. The Court noted inherent contradictions in the complaints and found the complainant's allegations to be fabricated and malicious, indicating manipulative and vindictive tendencies. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag, the appellant, challenging an order from the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which rejected his petition to quash FIR No. 103 of 2022. This FIR, registered at Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, alleges offenses under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v)...
Read More
Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...
Read More
Supreme Court Late Payment Surcharge Valid: Coal India’s Levy Ruled as ‘Change in Law’
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Late Payment Surcharge Valid: Coal India’s Levy Ruled as ‘Change in Law’

The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) ruling that a Coal India Limited (CIL) notification imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) constitutes a "change in law" event under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The judgment affirmed that the power generator is entitled to compensation from the notification date with carrying cost at Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) rates on a compounding basis, based on restitutionary principles. The Court clarified that only a substantial question of law is appealable, and the supplementary bill is required only after due adjudication. Facts Of The Case: A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was signed on January 28, 2010, between Rajasthan Discoms and Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. for 1200 MW. On December 19, 2017, Coal India ...
Read More
SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...
Read More
UP Gangster Act Misuse? Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Fair Enforcement
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

UP Gangster Act Misuse? Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Fair Enforcement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under the UP Gangsters Act, emphasizing that a gang chart's approval requires independent application of mind by authorities and cannot be based solely on prior FIRs, especially without overt acts, violence, or economic gain. The judgment clarified the stringent conditions necessary for invoking the Act and upheld the importance of due process in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that refused to quash proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against the appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal. The appellant was implicated in a "gang chart" based on previous FIRs. He sought to quash the proceedings and non-bailable warrants i...
Read More
Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months. Facts Of The Case: This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1955 for "Verumpattom Rights" over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for "Jenmam ...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition

The Supreme Court, exercising judicial review over executive decisions, set aside the High Court's directive for village recognition in Nagaland. The Court emphasized adherence to customary laws and specific Office Memorandums requiring "No Objection Certificates" from ancestral villages. It remanded the matter for comprehensive consideration of objections, including those from the appellant, affirming that inter-district boundary disputes are irrelevant to village recognition. Facts Of The Case: This Supreme Court judgment stems from a dispute concerning the recognition of Kakiho Village in Nagaland. The core of the matter involved the application of existing government Office Memorandums (O.M.'s) dated March 22, 1996, and October 1, 2005, which outline criteria for village recognition...
Read More
Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates
6Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

The Supreme Court disposed of contempt petitions, affirming wilful disobedience of prior orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and December 10, 2024, regarding the issuance of DRCs/TDRs. The Court rejected attempts to re-examine previously decided issues or impose new conditions, emphasizing its limited contempt jurisdiction. DRCs/TDRs are to be released to complainants upon filing an undertaking, with the State retaining a first charge on any future compensation from civil appeals Facts Of The Case: This case involves contempt petitions filed due to alleged wilful disobedience of court orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and March 19, 2024. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated December 10, 2024, found the contemnors guilty of wilful non-compliance despite purported c...
Read More
“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, requiring pre-institution mediation for commercial suits unless urgent interim relief is sought. However, it clarified that non-compliance before August 20, 2022 (the date of its earlier ruling in Patil Automation) does not warrant plaint rejection—instead, courts may refer parties to mediation while keeping suits in abeyance. The judgment harmonizes procedural rigor with practical enforcement, ensuring mediation’s role in reducing litigation backlog without unduly penalizing past filings. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a money suit filed by the Union of India against M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. in the Commercial Court, Alipore, seeking recovery of ₹8.73 crores as differential freight...
Read More