Tag: Court Order

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court against an advocate, holding that such observations could have been avoided. The Court considered the possibility of a bona fide omission by the counsel, who was not involved in the connected case, and ruled that the expunction of the adverse comments was warranted in the circumstances of the case. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an advocate named Siddharth Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on behalf of his clients. During the proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its final order, made adverse observations against the appellant, noting that his conduct "bor...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower courts. The ruling signifies that the appellants' legal challenge against the insurance company's position was not tenable in law. The court found no merit to interfere, allowing the impugned judgment and the terms of the insurance policy to stand. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by Vanita and others, likely the legal heirs of a deceased, seeking compensation under a motor accident claim. The accident presumably involved a vehicle insured with M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially ruled in the case, and its decision was subsequently challenged in a High Court. It appears that the claimants' appeal was unsuccessful in the Hig...
Read More
Betrayal of Trust is Demonic: Supreme Court’s Powerful Stand on Incest & POCSO Act Upholds Life Term for Father Who Raped Minor Daughter
29Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Betrayal of Trust is Demonic: Supreme Court’s Powerful Stand on Incest & POCSO Act Upholds Life Term for Father Who Raped Minor Daughter

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under POCSO Act Section 6 and IPC Section 506, affirming the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29. It emphasized that a child victim's credible testimony requires no corroboration and denied bail, highlighting the severity of familial sexual abuse and the imperative for stringent punishment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellant, Bhanei Prasad @ Raju, who was convicted for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his own minor daughter. The victim was approximately ten years old at the time of the incidents, which were not isolated but constituted sustained assaults within the family home. The prosecution case was built primarily on the unwavering and credible oral testimony of the victim (PW-3), ...
Read More
Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail without properly considering the absence of "new circumstances" as mandated by the Court's earlier judgment cancelling bail. The impugned order lacked cogent reasoning, relied on irrelevant factors like jail overcrowding, and failed to accord due deference to the Supreme Court's previous decision, warranting its quashing. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the informant, Ajwar, against an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused, Waseem. Waseem was charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder). His bail was initially granted by the High Court in 2022 but was cancelled by the Supreme Court. A subsequent grant of bail by the High Court was again cancelled by th...
Read More
Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”

The Supreme Court enhanced the appellant-wife's permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years, modifying the High Court's order. The Court held the previous alimony inadequate given the respondent-husband's income and the appellant's need to maintain her standard of living. Financial support for the 26-year-old son was not mandated. Facts Of The Case: Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and had a son on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife then filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 for interim maintenance, and the Trial Court awarded her ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expens...
Read More
Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...
Read More