Civil Appeal - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Slams Fraudulent Litigation, Nullifies Compensation Order in Land Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Fraudulent Litigation, Nullifies Compensation Order in Land Dispute

The Supreme Court held that judicial orders obtained through fraud are null and void, as "fraud unravels everything." It emphasized that suppression of material facts vitiates proceedings, regardless of the court's hierarchy. The doctrine of merger does not apply to fraudulent judgments. The Court recalled its earlier order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication, affirming that fraud is an exception to finality in litigation. Procedural technicalities cannot shield fraudulent litigants from judicial scrutiny. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute over land ownership and compensation between Vishnu Vardhan, Reddy Veeranna, and T. Sudhakar. The trio jointly purchased land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 1997, which was later acquired by NOIDA in 200...

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...

Supreme Court Rules on Oral Family Arrangement: Legal Heirs Can’t Overturn Registered Will

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Oral Family Arrangement: Legal Heirs Can’t Overturn Registered Will

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a registered Will executed by Metpalli Rajanna, recognizing its presumption of genuineness under law. The Court ruled that the burden to disprove the Will lay on the contesting party, which was not discharged. It emphasized that the oral family settlement, supported by possession and revenue records, further validated the Will's distribution of properties. The trial court's decree granting absolute rights to the plaintiff under the Will was restored, overturning the High Court's interference. The judgment reaffirmed the sanctity of registered Wills and family arrangements in property disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over 4 acres and 16 guntas of land in Dasnapur village between the legal heirs of Metpalli Rajanna. Rajanna, ...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's cancellation of allotment due to the respondent's chronic default in payment over decades. The Court emphasized that public property must be managed transparently and in the public interest, rejecting the respondent's claims. It ruled that prolonged non-payment justified eviction, denying further indulgence and ordering possession to be surrendered within four months. The judgment reinforced that contractual obligations must be honored and that courts cannot indefinitely protect defaulters at the cost of public welfare. Facts Of The Case: In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board auctioned a prime commercial plot in Chennai, with S. Ganesan emerging as the highest bidder at ₹4,78,921. Despite the Board's acceptance of his bid, Gan...

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly rejected the applications for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant. The Court ruled that the second appeal abated entirely as the decree was joint and indivisible, and non-substitution of the deceased appellant's legal representatives would lead to inconsistent decrees. The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC does not override the abatement principles under Order XXII, especially when the appeal was jointly filed by all appellants. The judgment emphasized that abatement is inevitable if the decree is based on common grounds and its reversal would create conflicting outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from Civil Suit No. 13 of 1983 (r...

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 of the contract, which stated disputes "may be sought through arbitration," did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of "may" indicated no mandatory intent to arbitrate, requiring further mutual consent. The Court emphasized that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear, unequivocal commitment to resolve disputes through arbitration, excluding domestic courts. Mere enabling language without obligation is insufficient. The High Court’s dismissal of the arbitration application was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) (Appellant) and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent) over a contract for transportation/handling of goods. T...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings, allowing time-barred claims to be referred for settlement. However, the Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3), as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, incorporates the Limitation Act into such arbitrations. The Court emphasized that the MSMED Act’s provisions override general laws, ensuring a balanced approach to dispute resolution while protecting suppliers' rights. The disclosure of unpaid amounts in financial statements under Section 22 may extend limitation periods, subject to case-specific scrutiny. Facts Of The...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Ends Gender Bias Tribal Women Now Have Equal Rights to Ancestral Property!

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Ends Gender Bias Tribal Women Now Have Equal Rights to Ancestral Property!

The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any established custom or law governing inheritance for Scheduled Tribes, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 must apply. The Court held that denying tribal women equal inheritance rights violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution, as discrimination based on gender lacks a rational nexus. The judgment overruled the lower courts’ dismissal of the claim, affirming that legal heirs of tribal women are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property unless a contrary custom is proven. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance rights of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, belonging to the Gond Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh. The appellants,...

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, applies only when the number of eligible candidates is less than the advertised vacancies. Since one recommended candidate was rejected, the next eligible candidate (appellant) should have been appointed instead of carrying forward the vacancy. The Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory rules in judicial appointments, reinforcing that vacancies must be filled from the existing merit list unless rules explicitly permit otherwise. The judgment clarifies that "selected direct recruits available for appointment" includes candidates next in line if recommended candidates are not approved. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Tosh Kumar Sharma, who participated in the 2016 recruitment proce...