Tag: case law analysis

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
Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms the application of the "pay and recover" principle where an insured vehicle deviates from its permitted route. While the insurer remains statutorily liable to compensate accident victims, it is entitled to subsequently recover the paid amount from the policyholder for breaching the contract's geographical terms. Facts Of The Case: On October 7, 2014, the deceased Srinivasa (alias Murthy) died on the spot after his motorcycle was hit by a rashly and negligently driven bus (KA-52-9099). His dependents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹18,86,000. Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the High Court for enhanced compensation, while the insurance company also appealed...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case
25Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, applies only to the preparation of a merit list and not to determining eligibility. The termination orders were quashed for violating principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice regarding the exclusion of vocational subject marks. Facts Of The Case: The State of Jharkhand advertised posts for Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2015. The appellants—Ravi Oraon, Premial Hembrom, and Surendra Munda—successfully applied, were selected, and commenced their duties in December 2015. In September 2016, they were issued show cause notices alleging they did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of 45% marks in their intermediate examination and questioning the validity ...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains “Sufficient Cause”: Key Tests for Granting Stay on a Money Decree
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains “Sufficient Cause”: Key Tests for Granting Stay on a Money Decree

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's grant of unconditional stay on a money decree's execution under Order XLI Rule 5, CPC, ruling that deposit of the decretal amount is not mandatory. An unconditional stay can be granted in exceptional cases where the decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal, or facially untenable, upon establishing "sufficient cause." Facts Of The Case: The petitioners, Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr., proprietors of the "Beverly Hills Polo Club" (BHPC) trademark, filed a suit for infringement and damages against Amazon Technologies Inc. and others before the Delhi High Court. The suit claimed damages of approximately Rs. 2 crore. Amazon was proceeded against ex parte in April 2022. The learned Single Judge, after an ex parte trial, decreed the suit...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...
Read More
Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings, ruling that a title deed is primary evidence of ownership. Mere presence of waste or manure on a property does not establish possession for the defendant. A declaratory suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable when the defendant fails to prove their own possession. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff, Suresh Tukaram Nerkar, filed a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession, and for a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants. His claim was based on a sale deed (Ext. 81) purportedly covering 150 square metres of land, which included a residential building on one portion ('ABCD') and an adjacent open plot ('PCDF'). The suit was triggered by the defendants, parti...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 498-A IPC. It held that the conviction, based solely on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses, was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that cruelty under Section 498-A must be proven by continuous or persistent conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide, which was not established by the prosecution evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the death of Chandra Devi, who was found deceased in her matrimonial home on June 15, 2001. Her father, Dharmanand Joshi (PW-1), filed a complaint the next day, alleging that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging. He reported seeing wounds on her body and expressed suspicion about her death, stating that the deceased had previously told him her mother-in-l...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement, a prerequisite for specific performance under Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. The burden of proof was not discharged as the sole evidence was self-serving and key witnesses were not examined. The High Court's reversal of concurrent factual findings was erroneous. Facts Of The Case: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 12.02.1999, claiming the appellant (defendant) had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 70,000. They asserted having paid Rs. 55,000 as advance and taken possession, subsequently renting the property back to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, denying any agreement to sell. His defense was that...
Read More