Tag: Civil Appeal

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
Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privity of contract, ruling that Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) was solely liable for transmission bay costs under its agreement with HP Power Transmission Corporation (HPPTC), despite internal arrangements with third parties. The Court held that non-signatories (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) could not be bound by the contract, reversing APTEL’s order. The judgment reaffirmed that contractual obligations apply only to parties to the agreement, unless explicitly extended. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC) and M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) over the liability for construction and maintenance costs of a 66kV power transmission bay at Urni, Himachal Pradesh. BHP, along with two other power com...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...
Read More
Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Disabled CRPF Officer in Accident Case : Future Prospects & Pension Rights
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Disabled CRPF Officer in Accident Case : Future Prospects & Pension Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that pension benefits cannot be deducted from salary when computing motor accident compensation, as they are statutory rights unrelated to the accident. It upheld 78% disability (overriding lower courts' 50-61.94% assessments) and mandated 30% future prospects for the 43-year-old victim. The Court enhanced compensation to ₹67.36 lakhs with 7% interest, applying multipliers consistently with Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi precedents, while clarifying that post-accident medical assessments must prevail over initial disability evaluations if unrebutted. Facts Of The Case: On May 10, 2010, Hanumantharaju B., a CRPF Sub-Inspector, met with a motor accident in Bengaluru when an Omni car collided with his motorcycle. He suffered grievous injuries, underwent multiple surg...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Dependency Rights in Accident Claims: Key Takeaways on Legal Heirs & Dependency
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Dependency Rights in Accident Claims: Key Takeaways on Legal Heirs & Dependency

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision denying enhanced compensation to the married daughter (Appellant No. 1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as she failed to prove financial dependency on the deceased. However, it reversed the dismissal of the mother’s (Appellant No. 2) claim, awarding her ₹19.22 lakhs, recognizing her dependency and applying principles from Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for just compensation. The ruling clarified that legal heirs must establish dependency for loss-of-income claims, except under Section 140’s no-fault liability. Facts Of The Case: On January 26, 2008, Smt. Paras Sharma died in a road accident when a Rajasthan Roadways bus, negligently taking a sudden right turn, crushed her two-wheeler. Her married daughter (Appellant No. 1) and elderly ...
Read More