Tag: Court procedure

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the suit, affirming that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a threshold scrutiny. Contentions regarding cause of action, limitation, and res judicata are mixed questions requiring a full trial, not adjudication at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No.26246 of 2023) filed by the respondents (Archbishop of Bangalore & Others) against the appellant, C.M. Meenakshi, and others. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of absolute ownership over a scheduled property in Bangalore, cancellation of two sale deeds from 2014 and 2020, and permanent injunctions to prevent any alteration or alienation of the property. During the suit's pendency, defendants 1 to 8 f...
Read More
No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for aggravated sexual assault on a child. The Court ruled that cogent ocular evidence from witnesses, including the victim's traumatized behavior, can sustain a conviction even if medical evidence does not show injury or penetration. The sentence was partially modified. Facts Of The Case: On August 15, 2021, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, returned to the victim's home in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with her father and another man after collecting wood. After consuming alcohol, the victim's four-year-old daughter was sleeping inside. Around 4:30 p.m., the mother went inside to give food to the appellant and found him wearing only shorts, sitting near her daughter's legs. Th...
Read More
Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”
31Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”

In this suo moto contempt proceeding, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing trend of lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges in pleadings. Reaffirming that an advocate's overriding duty is to the court as its officer, the Court cautioned that subscribing to such pleadings amounts to contempt. However, accepting the unconditional apology tendered before the concerned High Court Judge, it closed the proceedings. Facts Of The Case: In a criminal transfer petition (TP(Crl.) No. 613 of 2025) filed before the Supreme Court, the pleadings contained scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting Judge of the Telangana High Court. When the bench expressed its displeasure, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition. The Court, however, refused permis...
Read More
Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...
Read More
Natural Justice Upheld: Supreme Court Says Parties Must Be Heard on Adverse Directions
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Natural Justice Upheld: Supreme Court Says Parties Must Be Heard on Adverse Directions

The Supreme Court ruled that a writ court cannot travel beyond the reliefs sought in the petition and pass adverse orders that render a petitioner worse off. Such directions, issued without notice, violate principles of natural justice. A litigant cannot be penalized for approaching the court, as it would seriously impact access to justice. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Chinmaya Mission Trust. The Trust had been allotted land in 1974 near the Vadakkunnathan Temple in Thrissur to build a hall for marriages and cultural activities, for an annual license fee of Rs. 101. After subsequent allotments, the total fee was fixed at Rs. 227.25 per annum. In 2014, the Board unilaterally enhanced this fee to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum. The Trust challenged this dr...
Read More
Supreme Court Says Failure in Treatment Isn’t Always Negligence :A Landmark Ruling for Doctors
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says Failure in Treatment Isn’t Always Negligence :A Landmark Ruling for Doctors

The Supreme Court held that consumer fora cannot travel beyond the pleadings to construct a new case for the complainant. It emphasized that medical negligence cannot be presumed merely because of an adverse treatment outcome. The Court ruled that the NCDRC overstepped its jurisdiction by basing its finding on antenatal care negligence, which was never pleaded by the complainant, and set aside the order. Facts Of The Case: A patient, Charanpreet Kaur, died from atonic Post-Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) hours after delivering a stillborn child at Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, under the care of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. Her husband, Manmeet Singh Mattewal, filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence specifically in the post-delivery treatment. He contended the nursing home was il...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC does not bar prosecution for tampering with court records after proceedings conclude, as such acts no longer affect "proceedings in court" under Section 195(1)(b). It held that fabricating documents in record rooms post-withdrawal constitutes standalone offences under IPC, not requiring court-sanctioned complaints. The judgment clarified that Section 195 applies only when offences directly impact live judicial proceedings or documents in active court custody, distinguishing between administrative record-keeping and judicial administration of justice. The Court affirmed that FIRs remain valid for post-proceeding forgeries. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2005 FIR lodged by the Registrar of Bharuch District Court against Parshotta...
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