Tag: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Commercial Contracts & Interest Rates: Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Party Autonomy’ Over ‘Public Policy’
3Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Commercial Contracts & Interest Rates: Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Party Autonomy’ Over ‘Public Policy’

The Supreme Court held that under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, party autonomy prevails; where a commercial contract specifies an interest rate, the arbitral tribunal has no discretion to deviate. A stipulated interest rate of 36% with monthly rests in a bill discounting agreement between equal bargaining parties is not unconscionable or against public policy. The rule of contra proferentem does not apply to mutually negotiated commercial contracts. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a bill discounting facility extended by the respondent, Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited, to M/s BPL Display Device Ltd (BDDL) and the appellant, BPL Limited, through sanction letters dated 27.12.2002 and 11.06.2003. The facility allowed BDDL to ...
Read More
Supreme Court: Person Not Made Party in Case Can Challenge Order That Harms Him
27Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Person Not Made Party in Case Can Challenge Order That Harms Him

This Supreme Court held that the bar against intra-court appeals under the Allahabad High Court Rules must yield to natural justice. Where a Single Judge's order prejudices a non-party, that person can appeal with leave. The Court reaffirmed that procedural rules cannot thwart the right to a remedy (ubi jus, ibi remedium) for affected persons. Facts Of The Case: A fair price shop license granted to Respondent No. 1 was revoked by the licensing authority for breaching its terms and conditions. Pursuant to this revocation, the license was allotted to the Appellant, Abhishek Gupta. Respondent No. 1 challenged the revocation order and its appellate affirmation before the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. Critically, the Appellant, who was the current allottee of the shop ...
Read More
Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute

The Supreme Court held that High Courts under Section 100 CPC must frame only correct and appropriate substantial questions of law; erroneous formulation vitiates the second appellate judgment. Liberty to sue reserved in statutory proceedings does not permit reconsideration of concluded issues. Matter remanded for fresh admission and framing of proper substantial questions. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, concerning land in Tamil Nadu. The appellant-temple authority obtained patta grants in its favour through orders passed under the Act. However, when the matter reached the High Court in its appellate statutory capacity, the Court by order dated 22.09.1989 confirmed the grant of patta...
Read More
Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that central excise duty is leviable only on movable “goods.” The final assembled boiler, being an immovable plant, is not excisable. Consequently, the value of bought-out items delivered directly to the site cannot be included in the assessable value for duty computation. The extended limitation period for the show-cause notice was also held inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Lipi Boilers Ltd., entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture, and supply machinery for a steam generating plant, including a 50 TPH boiler. The boiler was manufactured and cleared from the factory in a Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition upon payment of central excise duty. Certain essential items, such as feed pumps and fans, were purchased duty-...
Read More
Supreme Court Reiterates: No Forest Land Acquisition Without Proper Notice
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reiterates: No Forest Land Acquisition Without Proper Notice

This Supreme Court judgement reinforces that for land to vest as a "private forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975, a valid notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act must be properly served on the owner, initiating a live statutory process. Mere issuance or a stale, dormant notice from decades past is insufficient to trigger acquisition. The Supreme Court underscored strict compliance with this mandatory procedure and the binding nature of its precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landowners in Maharashtra whose properties were claimed by the State to have been declared "private forests" and automatically vested in the government on 30 August 1975 under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acqu...
Read More
Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of counsel to respect the Court's expressed inclination and maintain decorum. While continuous insistence after the Court indicates its mind is improper, the Bench accepted an unconditional apology in this instance. Accordingly, it exercised its discretion to delete adverse remarks and the costs imposed in the original order. Facts Of The Case: The State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it to be contrary to statutory provisions. During the hearing on September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly communicated to the Commission's counsel that the matter did not warrant...
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance for Deal Breaching Construction Laws
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance for Deal Breaching Construction Laws

The Supreme Court held that an agreement mandating construction violating building laws is void and unenforceable. The illegality rendered specific performance impossible under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, as the unlawful object was essential to the contract. The Court affirmed that contracts contravening statutory provisions cannot be severed to remove their core illegal purpose. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Canara Bank, entered into an agreement with the respondent, K.L. Rajgarhia, on 27.12.1984 for the purchase of residential flats to be constructed on a plot in East of Kailash, Delhi. The total consideration was ₹32,07,500, of which approximately 90% (₹28,86,750) was paid upfront. The agreement stipulated the construction and delivery of eight flats and a basement with...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: Family Gifts & Registered Deeds Matter More Than Authority Claims
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Family Gifts & Registered Deeds Matter More Than Authority Claims

The Supreme Court upheld the exemption from Open Space Reservation charges under Annexure XX of the Development Regulations, applicable to holdings below 3000 square metres. It affirmed that a lawful pre-1975 subdivision, evidenced by registered deeds and revenue records, created a separate holding, preventing the authority from notionally recombining it with a larger parent estate to levy charges. Facts Of The Case: The property originated from the estate of Haji Syed Ali Akbar Ispahani. Following a 1949 partition, 21 grounds in Nunganbakkam were allotted to his son, Syed Jawad Ispahani. In 1972 and 1973, Syed Jawad gifted 11 grounds to his own son, Syed Ali Ispahani, via registered deeds, and separate pattas were issued for this holding. In 1984, Syed Ali gifted a small portion (125 sq...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Income for Accident Claim Not Capped by Workmen’s Compensation Act
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Income for Accident Claim Not Capped by Workmen’s Compensation Act

The Supreme Court held that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal must assess compensation based on the Act's principles. It is impermissible to apply the income ceiling from the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, once the claimant has elected the remedy under the M.V. Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a 23-year-old lorry loader, suffered grievous injuries in a vehicular accident on 1st December 2015, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal, assessing his monthly income at Rs. 9,000, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,35,400, which included a significant component for future loss of income. On appeal by ...
Read More
Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...
Read More