Tag: Civil Appeal

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs

The Supreme Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹15 to ₹50 lakhs, balancing the husband's capacity to pay against the wife's qualifications and potential to earn. The ruling underscores that alimony is not merely sustenance but must provide financial security commensurate with the marital standard of living. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the wife, M.V. Leelavathi, against a Karnataka High Court order that upheld the dissolution of her marriage to Dr. C.R. Swamy on grounds of cruelty and confirmed a permanent alimony award of ₹15,00,000. The couple married in February 2009 and the marriage remained childless. The husband, a doctor, filed for divorce in 2011 alleging mental cruelty. The wife contested the petition and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal r...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies

The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a plea of estoppel against law after its own conduct induced the other party to alter its position to its detriment. The doctrine of election and estoppel by conduct precludes a party from approbating and reprobating, thereby preventing it from challenging the validity of a compromise decree it had previously accepted. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, claiming the appellants had been removed as trustees, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain them from entering a school run by Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit was barred by Section 92 CPC. During the pendency of the respondents' appeal against this order, the parties mutually appointed a sol...
Read More
When Can an Election Be Overturned? Supreme Court Explains the Difference Between Major and Minor Non-Disclosure
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When Can an Election Be Overturned? Supreme Court Explains the Difference Between Major and Minor Non-Disclosure

The Supreme Court ruled that non-disclosure of income details in an election affidavit is not automatically a 'substantial defect' voiding an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The defect must be of a consequential nature to constitute a corrupt practice or improper nomination acceptance. The people's mandate cannot be invalidated on mere technicalities. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Ajmera Shyam, an Indian National Congress candidate, challenged the election of respondent Smt. Kova Laxmi (BRS party) to the Telangana Legislative Assembly from the Asifabad (ST) constituency. The election was declared on December 3, 2023, with Laxmi winning by a margin of 22,798 votes. The challenge was based on the alleged improper acceptance of her nomination pa...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Trademark Law :No Monopoly on Common Words
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Trademark Law :No Monopoly on Common Words

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that deceptive similarity must be assessed holistically, not by dissecting composite marks. The common element "PRIDE" was generic and non-distinctive. No likelihood of confusion was found, as the overall impression, trade dress, and dominant features of the rival marks were distinct. Interim injunction was rightly denied. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, are manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, holding registered trademarks for 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM’S' whiskies. They filed a suit against the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging that his use of the mark 'LONDON PRIDE' for whisky, along with its packaging and trade dress, constituted tra...
Read More
Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The decree was granted subject to the husband paying a one-time permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crores to the wife, ensuring a complete settlement. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the appellant-husband, A. Ranjithkumar, and the respondent-wife, E. Kavitha, was solemnized on February 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the couple relocated to the United States of America, where the husband was employed. A son was born from the union on April 7, 2010. However, the marital relationship soured, leading the husband to file a divorce petition on September 26, 2012, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Th...
Read More
Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...
Read More
Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim

The Supreme Court held that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value for caste claims and that the affinity test is not a litmus test. It cannot be the sole basis for rejection, especially given modernization and assimilation. The Court emphasized that such claims must be evaluated primarily on reliable documentary evidence. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, sought admission to a medical college based on a caste certificate claiming he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of Koli Mahadev. His claim was supported by historical documents, including the 1943 school record of his grandfather, which explicitly mentioned the caste as Koli Mahadev. Subsequent school records from 1975 and 1979 for his father and uncle, as well as his own school record...
Read More
No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...
Read More