Tag: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Returns Children to Adoptive Parents, Prioritizes Family Bonds Over Procedure
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Returns Children to Adoptive Parents, Prioritizes Family Bonds Over Procedure

The Supreme Court ruled that removing children from their adoptive parents violated the principle of the child's best interest, a cornerstone of juvenile justice law. Invoking Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the Court ordered the children's immediate return, prioritizing family bonds and rehabilitation over procedural non-compliance in adoption. Facts Of The Case: In a series of connected cases, multiple sets of appellants from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana claimed to be the adoptive parents of minor girls. They had adopted the children, ranging from two days to twenty days old, directly from the biological parents between 2021 and early 2024 under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, on May 22, 2024, police authorities forcibly took custody of...
Read More
Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death

The Supreme Court clarified that in claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, a notional income for a deceased child need not be limited to the figures in Schedule II (for Section 163-A claims). It reinstated the Tribunal's calculation, confirming no deduction for personal expenses is required in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident involving a 10-year-old boy who was fatally struck by a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation while he was cycling to school. The parents of the deceased child filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, acknowledging the undisputed negligence of the bus driver, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,55,000. This calculation was based on attributing a notional monthly...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, applying the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, held that a self-employed person, even one working abroad, is entitled to an addition of 40% of their established income towards future prospects when computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and conventional heads as per the standardized formula mandated by the Constitution Bench. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on 31st August 2007 at approximately 3:00 a.m. at Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal. The deceased, Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national, was travelling in a car from Delhi to Hoshiarpur when it was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Swaraj Mazd...
Read More
Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the detailed procedure and timelines under Section 144C for eligible assessees operate within or in addition to the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153 for passing assessment orders. The divergence of opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench for final determination. Facts Of The Case: The case involved several foreign companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., engaged in oil exploration in India. For Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19, the companies filed returns declaring losses. Their cases were selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officers passed draft assessment orders ...
Read More
Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer is liable to indemnify claims for the owner of goods or his authorized representative traveling in a goods vehicle. Furthermore, the registered owner remains liable for compensation until a transfer is formally reported to the Registering Authority under Section 50, and the insurer cannot avoid its liability based on unsubstantiated assertions. Facts Of The Case: A motor accident involving a goods vehicle resulted in several claims for death and injury. The injured and deceased were petty hawkers, such as a fish monger and a vegetable vendor, who were accompanying their goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company contested its liability on two primary gro...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

The Supreme Court held that the electricity board was estopped from resiling from its contractual obligation to provide a concessional tariff after having sanctioned, agreed, and partially implemented it. The board's unilateral withdrawal of the concession after over two years was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an existing industrial unit with a Low Tension (LT) power connection, underwent significant expansion by installing a large induction furnace, which necessitated a High Tension (HT) or bulk power supply. It applied for this new connection in 1998. The respondent electricity board, after inspection, sanctioned the HT connection via a memo that explicitly stipulated the appellant’s eligibility for a 25% concessional tarif...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that allowances forming part of a deceased's salary, if used for family support, must be included in income computation for motor accident compensation. It applies established principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi to include future prospects and awards consortium as per Magma General Insurance, ensuring just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Facts Of The Case: On February 16, 2009, Lokender Kumar died in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Santro car on the Sohna-Gurgaon Road. His widow and two minor children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Gurgaon, seeking Rs. 25 lakhs in compensation. The Tribunal, considering his basic salary of Rs. 3,665 per month and applying a multip...
Read More