Tag: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?
6Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

The Supreme Court examined whether Air Force Schools qualify as a "State" under Article 12 or an "authority" amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority held that despite partial government control and funding, the schools lacked pervasive state dominance, relegating disputes to private contract law. However, the dissenting opinion emphasized their public function, deep administrative control by the Indian Air Force, and indirect public funding, making them subject to writ jurisdiction. The split verdict clarifies the distinction between regulatory control and pervasive state authority in educational institutions Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals before the Supreme Court concerning the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad. In Ci...
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle
5Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle

The Supreme Court partially allowed the civil appeal, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision but directing reconsideration of the appellant's 'Z' grading in the 2001 promotion board. The Court affirmed the Chief of Army Staff's discretionary authority under Defence Services Regulations to modify Selection Board recommendations, while emphasizing fair reconsideration of the appellant's case within three months. The judgment clarified that promotions in the Territorial Army remain subject to the Army's hierarchical decision-making process, balancing institutional autonomy with individual rights to equitable evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.), who challenged his non-promotion to Colonel rank despite 22 years of service in the Territorial Army. ...
Read More
Ex-MLA’s Plea Rejected: Supreme Court Rules Against Fraud Claims in Rs. 2426 Crore Irrigation Scheme
5Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Ex-MLA’s Plea Rejected: Supreme Court Rules Against Fraud Claims in Rs. 2426 Crore Irrigation Scheme

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's rejection of a PIL alleging fraudulent revision of costs in the Palamuru-Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme. The Court held that factual adjudication cannot be pursued under Article 226 and upheld the High Court's discretion in refusing a CBI probe, citing prior findings by the Central Vigilance Commission and constructive res judicata. The ruling reaffirmed judicial restraint in interfering with discretionary orders absent jurisdictional errors. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Nagam Janardhan Reddy, a former MLA and Minister in Andhra Pradesh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, alleging fraudulent revision of cost estimates for the Palamuru-...
Read More
Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection

The Supreme Court ruled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a partition suit based on the Benami Act when plaint averments describe properties as joint family assets. Whether properties are benami or fall under exceptions (Section 2(9)(A)) requires evidence. Section 4’s bar applies only to proven benami transactions, not disputed claims requiring trial. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involved a family partition suit (Regular Suit No. 630A/2018) filed by Vidya Devi Gupta (mother) and Sudeep Gupta (younger son) against Sandeep Gupta (elder son), his wife Shaifali Gupta, and their children, along with subsequent property purchasers Deepak Lalchandani and Surya Prakash Mishra. The plaintiffs claimed that multiple properties acquired in individual family members’ names – in...
Read More
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