Indian case law - The Legal Chamber

When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs

The Supreme Court ruled that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be construed as a constructive trust under Section 92 CPC if it is created for public charitable purposes and its properties are held in a fiduciary capacity. This allows aggrieved parties to sue for breach of trust and seek remedies like a scheme for administration. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Operation ASHA, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was established to provide healthcare services, particularly tuberculosis treatment, to underprivileged sections of society. A dispute arose in 2020 when its co-founder and CEO, Sandeep Ahuja (Respondent No. 3), terminated the services of another co-founder, Dr. Shelly Batra (Respondent No. 1), alleging misrepresentation ...

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Awards Pension to Temporary Railway Employee’s Family

12Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Awards Pension to Temporary Railway Employee’s Family

The Supreme Court ruled that temporary railway employees completing over one year of continuous service are entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, regardless of regularization. The Court emphasized that legislative intent protects dependents of deceased employees, rejecting the 10-year threshold argument and directing arrears payment with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia relief under Article 142. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Mala Devi, widow of Om Prakash Maharaj, a temporary railway employee who died in service after 9 years and 8 months of continuous work. Appointed as a "Summer Waterman" in 1986, he later cleared screening tests and was deputed as a Guard/Shuntman before his fatal accident in 1996. While Mala Devi received ex-gratia payment and compassio...

Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty

12Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning his death sentence, due to glaring inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies (PW1, PW2) and lack of corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as recoveries were unreliable, forensic links were absent, and material contradictions undermined the case. The Court emphasized strict adherence to evidentiary standards in capital offenses. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the brutal murder of four family members—Seema Rani (the appellant’s wife), Reena Rani (sister-in-law), and two minor children, Sumani Kumari (3-4 years) and Harsh (1.5-2 years)—along with injuries to two others, Harry (5 years) and Om Prakash (18 years). The incident occurred on November 29, 2013, in the early morning at the...

Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty

4Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty

The Supreme Court held that the liberty granted by the High Court to file a fresh suit does not revive a time-barred cause of action or override the principles of res judicata. The Court affirmed that limitation under the Limitation Act and Order 23 Rule 2 CPC applies strictly, and a fresh suit cannot re-agitate issues already decided in prior proceedings. The judgment reinforces that judicial liberty cannot circumvent statutory bars or reopen conclusively adjudicated matters. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property transaction where the original plaintiff (predecessor of the petitioners) had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant, a cooperative housing society. A Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favor of the society’s secretary (second defen...

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

4Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as it requires an in-depth examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a plaint rejection application. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and defenses or external documents cannot be relied upon. The judgment clarified that issues like fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in a prior decree must be examined during trial, not at the preliminary stage. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored for expeditious disposal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a disputed property from Hussain Babu in 1998, who had earlier acquired ...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

4Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partnership firm need not be separately arraigned as an accused if its partners are prosecuted. The notice to partners constitutes notice to the firm, as partners are jointly and severally liable. The Court clarified that unlike companies, partnership firms lack a separate legal identity, making partners directly liable. The judgment distinguishes between vicarious liability (for companies) and joint liability (for firms), upholding the complaint’s validity despite the firm’s omission. The High Court’s order quashing the complaint was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Dhansingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of ₹21 lakh to the respondents, Chandrasekar and another, who were partners of the fi...