Case Law - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

The Supreme Court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution, as the standards of proof and purpose differ. However, it remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity of the prosecution sanction, emphasizing that sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, T. Manjunath, a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Bengaluru, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 through an intermediary. Following a trap by the Lokayukta, a criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Transport Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution, and a chargesheet was filed. The appellant sought dischar...

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

The Supreme Court held that transactions involving the outright sale of land, even if accompanied by ancillary facilitation activities, do not constitute taxable services of a ‘Real Estate Agent’ under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity must involve a clear contract of agency. Mere sale of immovable property is excluded from the definition of ‘service’. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, M/s Elegant Developers, entered into three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for the identification, acquisition, and development of land parcels for real estate projects. Under these agreements, Elegant Developers was responsible for tasks like purchasing contiguous land blocks, obtaining title clearances, securing necessary government approva...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

29Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...

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...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of Dowry Case, Reiterates Limits of High Court’s Power

21Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of Dowry Case, Reiterates Limits of High Court’s Power

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a "mini-trial" on the credibility of allegations. The power to quash an FIR is to be exercised sparingly and only when allegations, taken at face value, disclose no cognizable offence. The existence of prima facie allegations necessitates permitting the investigation to proceed. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Muskan, married respondent No. 1, Ishaan Khan, on 20.11.2020. After five to six months of marriage, she alleged that her husband and his family (respondents 1 to 5) began harassing and taunting her for insufficient dowry. Specific incidents included being slapped by her brother-in-law on 22.07.2021 and, on 27.11.2022, her husband demanding Rs. 50 lakhs from h...

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts

20Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts

The Supreme Court held that the application of a "split multiplier" in motor accident compensation cases is impermissible. Relying on the structured formula from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court ruled that compensation must be calculated using a single multiplier based solely on the victim's age, as superannuation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a deviation from this settled method. Facts Of The Case: On 3rd August 2012, T.I. Krishnan, aged 51, died in a road accident on the Pala-Thodupuzha Road when his car was hit by a rashly driven bus. His surviving family—his wife and children—filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pala, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, in April 2014, awarded approximately ₹44 lakhs, determining...

Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On

19Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate's referral under Section 156(3) CrPC for police investigation is justified when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and such a direction is conducive to justice. The High Court's orders quashing the referral were set aside, emphasizing that the police must be allowed to investigate prima facie allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a property via an oral gift from his father, challenging a registered sale deed in favour of accused No. 1, Veena. The suit was dismissed in 2013. During the pendency of his appeal (RFA No. 4095/2013) before the High Court, a status quo order on the property's title and possession was initially granted b...

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

15Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the first appellate court's findings of fact, particularly regarding additional payment and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The Court reiterated that time is not ordinarily the essence in immovable property contracts and that acceptance of further payment post-deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to forfeit earnest money, making the suit for specific performance maintainable without a separate declaratory relief. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Annamalai, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 08.01.2010 with Saraswathi (D-1) and Dharmalingam (D-2) for two property items. The total consideration was Rs. 4,80,000, of which Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as a...

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...

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of counsel to respect the Court's expressed inclination and maintain decorum. While continuous insistence after the Court indicates its mind is improper, the Bench accepted an unconditional apology in this instance. Accordingly, it exercised its discretion to delete adverse remarks and the costs imposed in the original order. Facts Of The Case: The State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it to be contrary to statutory provisions. During the hearing on September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly communicated to the Commission's counsel that the matter did not warrant...