Tag: Case Law

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

The Supreme Court held that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) represent an equity investment, not a financial debt under the IBC. Preference shareholders are not creditors, and redemption is contingent upon company profits under the Companies Act. Therefore, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption. Facts Of The Case: EPC Constructions India Limited (EPCC) held outstanding receivables from Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited for construction work. In 2015, to help Matix meet lender-mandated debt-equity ratios, the parties agreed to convert ₹400 crores of dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS). Matix subsequently allotted CRPS worth ₹250 crores to EPCC. When the shares matured after three years, M...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the procedural conflict regarding offences under Section 195A IPC (threatening to give false evidence). The Supreme Court holds that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Consequently, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154/156 CrPC, and the restrictive complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not applicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate sets of proceedings. In the first, from Kerala, an FIR was registered under Section 195A IPC after a de facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to give false evidence. The accused sought bail, arguing the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requi...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...
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
Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discov...
Read More
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...
Read More
Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether MBBS (allopathic) and AYUSH (indigenous system) doctors can be treated equally for service conditions like retirement age and pay. The Court noted divergent precedents on whether classification based on educational qualification and differing job functions violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of Special Leave Petitions concerning the service conditions of doctors, specifically whether practitioners of allopathy (MBBS doctors) and those of indigenous systems like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, and Unani (AYUSH doctors) can be treated equally, particularly regarding retirement age. The legal dispute stems from varying retirement ages set by different states for the...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case
1Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case

This Supreme Court ruling clarified that High Courts cannot direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe merely on "doubt" or "assumption." Such an extraordinary power under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where material prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, ensuring investigative credibility and protecting fundamental rights. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the 2020 recruitment process for Class-III posts in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats. The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates, alleged the selection was arbitrary, unfair, and involved favoritism by the private external agency conducting the exams. They soug...
Read More
Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

The Supreme Court affirmed that an agreement to sell does not transfer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Property remains part of the deceased's matruka (estate) until a registered sale deed is executed. Inheritance under Muslim law applies to the entire estate, with the widow entitled to a one-fourth share as a sharer, absent descendants. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the inheritance of Chand Khan's property between his widow, Zoharbee (appellant), and his brother, Imam Khan (respondent). Chand Khan died issueless, leaving behind two plots of land. Zoharbee claimed the entire property as matruka (estate) and, under Muslim law, sought a three-fourths share as the surviving spouse. Imam Khan contended that one plot had been transferred v...
Read More
Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

The Supreme Court held that a candidate in the reserved panel (waitlist) has no vested right to appointment once the selected candidates join their posts. A legal concession made before a tribunal cannot bind the authorities if it contravenes statutory recruitment rules or extends the life of a waitlist indefinitely. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel (waitlist). All three selected candidates joined their posts, so the waitlist was not operated. In 1999, during litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the appellants (Union of India) gave a statement that the r...
Read More