Tag: Case Law

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession

The Supreme Court affirmed the executability of a warrant of possession, ruling that a party who receives substantial monetary compensation in lieu of specific performance cannot retain possession of the property. The Court held that equity prevents unjust enrichment and that execution proceedings exist to enforce judgments, not to facilitate windfalls for unscrupulous litigants. Facts Of The Case: On 12.06.1989, the defendants agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff for ₹14,50,000, with ₹25,000 paid as earnest money. Possession of the vacant ground floor was handed over to the plaintiff. In 1990, the plaintiff first filed and withdrew a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, in June 1990, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the Trial Court ...
Read More
Why a Poorly Drafted Plaint Can Derail Your Case: Lessons from a Recent Supreme Court Judgment
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Why a Poorly Drafted Plaint Can Derail Your Case: Lessons from a Recent Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court held that even if a Will is proved, a prayer for mere injunction without seeking declaration of title is unsustainable when the plaintiff admits the defendant is in possession. The Court clarified that injunction against alienation is maintainable, but injunction against interference with possession requires a declaration of title and a prayer for recovery. Facts Of The Case: The dispute centered on a property originally owned by Rangaswamy Naidu. His daughter, Rajammal (respondent-plaintiff), filed a suit against her brother, Munuswamy (original defendant), seeking an injunction to restrain him from alienating the property and from interfering with her peaceful possession. She claimed absolute title under a Will dated 30.09.1985, by which her father had allegedly beque...
Read More
Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)

The Supreme Court clarified that a valid Hiba (gift under Muslim Law) requires conclusive proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Mere oral claims or a memorandum are insufficient without contemporaneous evidence of the donee acting upon the gift. The Court also emphasized that declaratory suits must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues, and long delays can render a suit barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: Khadijabee was the original owner of an agricultural land. She allegedly made an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres to her daughter, Syeda Arifa Parveen (the Plaintiff), in 1988, followed by a memorandum of gift in 1989. After Khadijabee's death in 1990, her husband, Abdul Basit, mutated the entire property in his name. In 1995, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance

Based on the proceedings, the Supreme Court has issued a series of substantive directions in a long-pending writ petition. The legal focus is on monitoring compliance with these judicial mandates, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction. The matter is scheduled for a future hearing specifically to review the implementation of its orders and assess further progress. Facts Of The Case: Based on the provided court proceeding document, which is a record of the pronouncement of an order and not the full case file, the specific facts and history of the case are not detailed. However, the document header identifies it as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, filed by S. Rajaseekaran against the Union of India and Others.The case is categorized under "PIL-W", indicating it was filed as...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years

The Supreme Court allowed a life convict's appeal for premature release, interpreting the 2010 remission guidelines. The Court held the offence, motivated by perceived family prestige, fell under Category 3(b) requiring 22 years of incarceration, not Category 4(d) requiring 24 years, and ordered the appellant's immediate release. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Anilkumar, along with a co-accused, was convicted for the premeditated murder of a man and the attempted murder of his friend. The prosecution's case was that the attack was motivated by the fact that the deceased was in a romantic relationship with the appellant's sister. The appellant perceived this relationship as spoiling his sister's life and tarnishing the family's prestige. Following his conviction, the appellant wa...
Read More
Why the Accused Were Freed: Supreme Court Explains Legal Holes in Prosecution’s Murder Conspiracy Case
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Why the Accused Were Freed: Supreme Court Explains Legal Holes in Prosecution’s Murder Conspiracy Case

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented, including motive, last seen theory, and recoveries, was found unreliable, inconclusive, and legally inadmissible. The Court reiterated that appellate interference in an acquittal is unwarranted unless the judgment is perverse or based on a misreading of evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the murder of Shri Suresh Sharma, whose body was discovered on January 23, 2006, with his hands tied and visible signs of strangulation. The prosecution's case was that the respondents, Bhanwar Singh, Hemlata, and Narpat Choudhary, conspired to kill the deceased due to various motives. It was alleged that Hemlata and her husband Na...
Read More
Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”

The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders, emphasizing that the grant of bail must consider the totality of circumstances, including the accused's conduct and antecedents. The Court held that lower courts erred by ignoring relevant factors and precedents, and by granting bail mechanically without proper application of mind to the material on record. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint alleging that the accused respondents, a husband and wife, had cheated them of ₹1.9 crores by promising to transfer a piece of land that was already mortgaged and sold to a third party. An FIR was subsequently registered. The accused sought anticipatory bail, and the High Court granted them interim protection for nearly four years, during which media...
Read More
Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...
Read More
Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...
Read More
“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner

The Supreme Court applied the "pay and recover" principle, directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award despite a policy breach due to an invalid driving licence. The insurer was absolved from liability but was ordered to pay the claimant and was permitted to subsequently recover the amount from the insured vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a fatal vehicular accident on 13th October 2011, in which Nand Kumar, a conductor, died. The accident involved a truck driven by respondent No. 1. The deceased's mother, Rama Bai, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs, payable by the driver and the truck owner (respondent Nos. 1 & 2), after finding that the driver did not po...
Read More