Tag: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will, or receipt of payment does not constitute a transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Only a duly registered sale deed confers ownership. The doctrine of part-performance under Section 53A is inapplicable without the transferee being in possession, and a Will must be proved in strict compliance with the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property in Delhi between two brothers, Suresh Chand (Plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (Defendant No. 1), after the death of their father, Kundan Lal. Suresh claimed ownership of the property based on a set of documents executed by their father on a single day in 1996, including a Genera...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes

The Supreme Court affirmed that the electricity tariff and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are not purely private contracts. Under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, they must be reviewed and approved by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. A generating company and distribution licensee cannot unilaterally set or modify tariffs without the regulatory commission's mandatory approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the tariff payable for electricity supplied by M/s. KKK Hydro Power Limited. The company initially established a 3 MW hydro plant under a 2000 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a fixed tariff of ₹2.50/kWh. In 2007, it augmented the project's capacity to 4.90 MW. A new PPA was executed in 2008 for the revised capacity, but it ret...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that misconduct, proven on the preponderance of probabilities and bringing disrepute to a disciplined force, warrants a commensurate penalty. It found no grounds for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Constable Amar Singh, was serving with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the Mallaram Camp. On August 27, 1995, he was granted a two-hour out-pass to visit a hospital. Instead of doing so, he went to a residential colony located approximately 12 kilometres from the camp to enquire about quarters allotted to another constable. His presence and actions there agitated the local ci...
Read More
No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences

The Supreme Court ruled that while it is desirable to inform an employee if past misconduct will be considered for punishment, it is not mandatory when the current charge itself constitutes a "gravest act of misconduct." In such cases, referring to past conduct merely to add weight to the decision does not vitiate the dismissal order, especially within a disciplined force where habitual absenteeism is a serious violation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ex. Constable Satpal Singh, was appointed in the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989 and later transferred to the Commando Battalion. The immediate trigger for the case was his unauthorized absence from April 4, 1994, to May 12, 1994 (37 days), after he overstayed a one-day casual leave. A departmental enquiry was initiated for this absence, w...
Read More
Supreme Court Relief for Companies: Tax Exemption for Vehicles Confined to Plant Premises
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Relief for Companies: Tax Exemption for Vehicles Confined to Plant Premises

The Supreme Court ruled that motor vehicle tax under the Andhra Pradesh Act is leviable only if a vehicle is used or kept for use in a "public place." It held that restricted industrial premises, inaccessible to the public, do not constitute a public place. Consequently, vehicles operating exclusively within such enclosed areas are not liable for the tax, and a rule creating a presumption of 'use' must be read in harmony with this charging section. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited, was awarded a contract to operate within the enclosed central dispatch yard of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL). Pursuant to this, it deployed 36 registered motor vehicles which, from April 1, 2021, were confined solely to operating inside this restricted premises,...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Govt Can’t Cancel Ongoing Job Recruitments Midway
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Govt Can’t Cancel Ongoing Job Recruitments Midway

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates that executive instructions, such as a New Recruitment Policy, cannot override or supplant statutory rules or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. A recruitment process, once commenced under specific statutory rules, cannot be altered midway by executive fiat, as doing so amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun and violates principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tripura initiated a recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles, conducted strictly under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and its corresponding Rules. The process, involving advertisements, physical tests, written exams, and interviews, had advanced significantly, with pr...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...
Read More
Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the priority of charges between the EPFO, under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and secured creditors, including Axis Bank, under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The core legal issue for fresh adjudication is the conflict between the statutory first charge of EPFO dues and the primacy claimed by secured creditors. Facts Of The Case: M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulted on its Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) dues from July 2013. The EPFO determined a liability and, upon learning the company's properties were to be auctioned by various banks, invoked its priority under the EPF Act. The EPFO specifically asserted a first charge over the 'Attibele property' being auctioned by Axis B...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling : Businesses Take Note ,Email Exchanges Can Create a Binding Arbitration Agreement
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling : Businesses Take Note ,Email Exchanges Can Create a Binding Arbitration Agreement

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that a valid arbitration agreement can be constituted through conduct and correspondence, without a signed contract. The Supreme Court held that if parties have demonstrably acted upon the terms of an unsigned agreement, they are bound by its arbitration clause, and a referral court need only conduct a prima facie review of the agreement's existence. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a proposed contract for the sale of 6,000 metric tons of zinc metal between Glencore International AG (Appellant) and Shree Ganesh Metals (Respondent No.1). The terms were negotiated via email, and Glencore sent a formal contract (No. 061-16-12115-S) incorporating an arbitration clause, which it signed. The Respondent, however, never signed this document. Despite...
Read More
Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision confirming the validity of a court-auctioned property sale. It endorsed the directions for a fresh survey to demarcate the exact purchased area and for the auction purchaser to pay additional consideration, citing his conduct, while ruling that subsequent challenges to the sale were barred by law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a debt recovery proceeding initiated by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) against a company, for which the respondent, G.M. Krishna, was a guarantor. Following a decree, KSFC attached the respondent's agricultural land for auction. The appellant, R. Raghu, emerged as the highest bidder in a court auction in 2003, and a sale certificate was subsequently issued. The responden...
Read More