Tag: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree of permanent injunction creates a perpetual right enforceable at any time against future breaches, clarifying that satisfaction recorded in one execution petition doesn't bar subsequent petitions under Section 47 CPC for fresh violations. It held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act imposes no time limit for enforcing perpetual injunctions, rejecting the erroneous application of res judicata by lower courts. The judgment emphasizes that each breach of injunction constitutes a fresh cause of action, requiring executing courts to examine subsequent execution petitions on merits regardless of prior disposals. The Court distinguished between temporary and permanent injunctions while underscoring the continuing nature of injunctive relief. Facts Of The C...
Read More
Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala government's directive to create a corpus fund from NRI student fees lacked legislative backing, violating the principle that fees cannot be levied without statutory authority. It ruled that unaided institutions retain autonomy over fee structures, subject only to anti-profiteering regulations, and emphasized that welfare measures must be enacted through proper legislation. The Court allowed colleges to retain collected funds but mandated their use for subsidizing economically weaker students. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the Kerala government's directive requiring self-financing medical colleges to contribute a portion of fees collected from Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students towards a corpus fund. This fund aimed to subs...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years

The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership dispute between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under Karnataka Societies Act) and ISKCON Mumbai (Maharashtra Public Trust) over temple properties. It upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the rightful owner, citing documentary evidence (sale deeds, allotment records) and rejecting claims of fraudulent manipulation. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, emphasizing societies' independent legal status under state registration laws. The judgment clarified that funding sources (even from ISKCON Mumbai) don’t determine ownership, and dismissed ancillary appeals linked to the dispute. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a protracted legal battle between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registrati...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of temple receivers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that advocates should not routinely manage religious institutions due to potential conflicts of interest. It directed courts to appoint administrators with religious and administrative expertise while prioritizing expedited dispute resolution. The Court also permitted the state to utilize temple funds for land acquisition under strict conditions, ensuring ownership remains with the deity/trust. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in prolonged receiverships and aligns with Article 25(2) of the Constitution, allowing state intervention for public order and pilgrim welfare. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the management of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Ma...
Read More
Supreme Court Verdict on Ownership and Illegal Possession:Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Appeal in the Land Dispute Case
24May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict on Ownership and Illegal Possession:Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Appeal in the Land Dispute Case

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, ruling that the appellant unlawfully occupied land in Survey No. 9 despite holding a deed for Survey No. 10. The Court emphasized that land grabbing requires illegal possession with intent, distinct from mere trespass, and affirmed the Special Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes summarily. The appellant’s claim of adverse possession failed due to lack of hostile animus and proof of long-standing occupation. The judgment reinforced the strict interpretation of land grabbing under the Act, aligning with precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002). Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over 252 square yards of land in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar V...
Read More
“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”

The Supreme Court held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) can exercise regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to impose compensation for delays, even without specific regulations under Section 178. It clarified that CERC’s orders under Section 79 are appealable to APTEL under Section 111, not through writ petitions unless jurisdictional or constitutional issues arise. The Court emphasized that regulatory gaps can be addressed via Section 79, distinguishing it from legislative rule-making under Section 178. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative remedy existed. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) and Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company L...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...
Read More
“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, requiring pre-institution mediation for commercial suits unless urgent interim relief is sought. However, it clarified that non-compliance before August 20, 2022 (the date of its earlier ruling in Patil Automation) does not warrant plaint rejection—instead, courts may refer parties to mediation while keeping suits in abeyance. The judgment harmonizes procedural rigor with practical enforcement, ensuring mediation’s role in reducing litigation backlog without unduly penalizing past filings. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a money suit filed by the Union of India against M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. in the Commercial Court, Alipore, seeking recovery of ₹8.73 crores as differential freight...
Read More
Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”

The Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot be compelled to provide non-monetary relief like prosthetic limbs or ongoing medical supervision to accident victims. Emphasizing indemnity principles, the Court held compensation must be monetary, calculating ₹12 lakh for future prosthetic/wheelchair needs. It overturned the High Court's directive for in-kind support, reaffirming insurers' liability is limited to pecuniary compensation under motor accident laws. The judgment clarifies that "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes imposing perpetual welfare obligations on insurers. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident on 21.12.2008, where respondent Suraj Kumar, a 22-year-old tempo cleaner, suffered severe injuries...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”

The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s compensation award for the family of a deceased truck driver, rejecting the High Court’s reduction of income from ₹10,000 to ₹4,076 per month. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance, it upheld ₹10,000 as justified wages for 2014. The Court also affirmed loss of consortium for children and parents under Somwati v. New India Assurance, stressing equitable apportionment. The judgment reinforces fair compensation principles in motor accident claims, emphasizing statutory and precedential rights of dependents. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a fatal motor accident where a truck driver, aged 28, was hit and killed by another negligently driven truck while he was boarding his parked vehicle. The deceased’s legal representatives—his wido...
Read More