Tag: Case Law

Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, emphasizing that the testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon as a "sterling witness." It held that even if medical evidence is not conclusive, it does not rule out the offence, and consent is immaterial when the victim is below 16 years of age. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2007 against the appellant, Varun Kumar, for offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years. The victim's testimony detailed that she was taken to Una and subsequently to a relative's house, where the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual and unnatural intercourse o...
Read More
Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case

In the Special Leave Petitions concerning the Karur stampede, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 32. It ordered the transfer of investigation to the CBI, citing the necessity to ensure credibility, impartiality, and public confidence in the probe, which involves serious allegations and impacts fundamental rights. Facts Of The Case: This case stems from a tragic stampede on September 27, 2025, during a political rally organized by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Karur, Tamil Nadu, resulting in 41 deaths and over 100 injuries. Multiple writ petitions were subsequently filed before the Madras High Court, primarily at its Madurai Bench, seeking a CBI investigation, compensation for victims, and the formulation of safety guidelines ...
Read More
Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused appellant, holding that no prima facie case was established under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court ruled that mere subsequent purchase of property from a co-accused, without allegation of inducement or involvement in the initial fraudulent transaction, does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha in October 2022 against Gunasekaran (Accused No. 1) for offences under Section 420 of the IPC. She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently represented himself as the owner of a vacant plot, inducing her into an unregistered sale agreement for ₹1.64 crore. She paid substantial sums totaling ₹92 lakhs ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post

This Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment reinterpreted Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It held that judicial officers are not barred from applying for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment. The Court clarified that the seven-year practice requirement under Article 233(2) applies only to candidates not already in judicial service, thereby overruling contrary precedents like Dheeraj Mor. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a batch of petitions challenging the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of District Judges. The core dispute was whether a person already in the state judicial service (a Civil Judge) could apply for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment, a stream historically reserved fo...
Read More
Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery

The Supreme Court held that merely proving a driver’s licence is fake does not absolve the insurer unless it is established that the vehicle owner knowingly breached the duty of due diligence in employing the driver. Absent proof of such breach, the insurer remains liable to third parties and cannot recover from the owner under a “pay and recover” order. Facts Of The Case: The accident occurred on January 26, 1993, at 2:00 AM at an intersection, involving a collision between a truck and a Matador van. The Matador van was carrying ten passengers, including the driver. Tragically, nine persons lost their lives in the accident, while two sustained injuries. Claims were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased passengers, as wel...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: When a “Security Bond” is Actually a Mortgage: A Landmark Stamp Duty Ruling
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: When a “Security Bond” is Actually a Mortgage: A Landmark Stamp Duty Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a mortgage deed and a security bond for stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Court held that the substance of an instrument, not its nomenclature, determines its character. For Article 57 (security bond) to apply, a third-party surety distinct from the principal debtor must be involved. Since the deeds were executed by the principal debtors themselves to secure their own obligations, they were rightly classified as mortgage deeds chargeable under Article 40. Facts Of The Case: In Civil Appeal No. 7661 of 2014, M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. executed a "Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed" on 19.12.2006 in favour of the Meerut Development Authority (MDA). This was done to secure performance of its oblig...
Read More
Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review or recall its own order under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) once it has attained finality. Such power is barred by Section 362 CrPC, which only permits the correction of clerical errors. The Court quashed the impugned orders directing transfer of investigation to the CBI as they amounted to an impermissible review. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman, alleged criminal intimidation, theft, and criminal conspiracy by accused individuals, including a former Revenue Minister. Following his complaint, FIRs were registered. Dissatisfied with the local police investigation, which filed a negative report in one case, he approached the Rajasthan High Court seek...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Man in POCSO Death Penalty Case Citing Procedural Flaws
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Man in POCSO Death Penalty Case Citing Procedural Flaws

This Supreme Court judgment sets aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence, holding that the trial was vitiated due to a denial of fair trial rights, including inadequate legal representation and failure to provide documents. The prosecution's circumstantial evidence—last seen, CCTV footage, disclosure statements, and DNA reports—was found unreliable and unproven beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: A seven-year-old girl went missing on February 5, 2017, from her residence in Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu, while her parents were out shopping. After an unsuccessful search, a missing persons report was filed. Investigations, including reviewing CCTV footage from a nearby temple, led the police to suspect the appellant, Dashwanth, a neighbour residing in the same building. He was ...
Read More
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