Tag: Indian judiciary.

Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged

The Supreme Court held that while there is no absolute rule for parity in interest rates between builders and buyers, the principle of equity and fairness may warrant it in cases of one-sided agreements and egregious conduct. The Court modified the awarded interest from 9% to 18% p.a., aligning the builder's liability for delay with the rate it charged the buyer, to serve the ends of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant booked a plot in the respondent's project in 2006, paying a significant advance. A Plot Buyer Agreement was executed in 2007, stipulating possession within 24 months of sanction of service plans and allowing the respondent to charge 18% p.a. interest on delayed payments by the appellant. By 2011, the appellant had paid over ₹28 lakhs. That year, the respondent invoke...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the rescission of land grants for breach of mandatory cultivation conditions under the Portuguese-era Organic Structure. It ruled that the conditions, rooted in public policy, could not be waived or condoned by mere state inaction. The Court further held that new legal grounds cannot be raised at the appellate stage, confining its analysis to the original pleadings and the specific provisions of the agrarian law. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns land in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, originally granted by the Portuguese government between 1923 and 1930 under contracts known as ‘Alvaras’. These grants, based on the legal principle of ‘emphyteusis’, gave the holders inheritable and transferable rights subject to the mandatory condition of bringing the land und...
Read More
“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner

The Supreme Court applied the "pay and recover" principle, directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award despite a policy breach due to an invalid driving licence. The insurer was absolved from liability but was ordered to pay the claimant and was permitted to subsequently recover the amount from the insured vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a fatal vehicular accident on 13th October 2011, in which Nand Kumar, a conductor, died. The accident involved a truck driven by respondent No. 1. The deceased's mother, Rama Bai, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs, payable by the driver and the truck owner (respondent Nos. 1 & 2), after finding that the driver did not po...
Read More
Allegations Must Be Specific: Supreme Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Dowry Law
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Allegations Must Be Specific: Supreme Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Dowry Law

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 498A IPC and the Dowry Act against a brother-in-law, emphasizing that vague and omnibus allegations without specific instances of cruelty or harassment do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated the legal principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, cautioning against the misuse of criminal provisions in matrimonial disputes and underscoring the necessity for concrete allegations to initiate prosecution. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by Smt. Jyoti Garg (Respondent No. 2) against her husband, mother-in-law, and her brother-in-law, Shobhit Kumar Mittal (the Appellant). The complainant alleged that within days of her marriage in 2014, she was harassed fo...
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
Supreme Court Reins In High Court’s Review Power in Judicial Recruitment Case
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In High Court’s Review Power in Judicial Recruitment Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-adjudicating matters already decided in the original writ petition. The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal and cannot be invoked to re-examine a contention merely because a different view is possible. The scope of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Facts Of The Case: The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an advertisement for recruiting Civil Judges (Entry Level) under amended rules that prescribed new eligibility criteria. The respondents, Jyotsna Dohalia and another, participated in the preliminary examination but failed to secure the cut-off marks of 113. Their writ petition challenging the result was dismissed by the High Court on May 7, 2024, which held ...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: No Service Tax Exemption for Handling Export Cargo at Airports
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Service Tax Exemption for Handling Export Cargo at Airports

The Supreme Court upheld the service tax levy on services provided by the Airports Authority of India for handling export cargo. It ruled that while such handling is excluded from the definition of "cargo handling service," it squarely falls under the broader, specific taxable service category of "Airport Services" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. Facts Of The Case: The Airports Authority of India (AAI), a statutory body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, was engaged in handling export cargo at various airports. This involved a range of activities such as unloading, carting, X-ray screening, and export packing from the point of accepting the cargo until it was loaded onto an aircraft. The tax authorities confirmed a service tax liability on these s...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that when departmental proceedings are quashed for being illegal and vitiated by delay, the employee must be restored to the position they would have occupied in the service's normal course. This entitles them to retrospective promotion from the date their immediate junior was promoted, with all attendant consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, was a Block Development Officer in Jharkhand. In 2007, an audit objection raised a suspicion of misappropriation, but a subsequent inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner cleared her, finding the expenditure was within the estimated cost. A decade later, in 2017, a charge-sheet was issued on the same allegation, culminating in a punishment of wi...
Read More
Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that pension and retiral dues are a statutory right, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld by the employer. The Court held that non-vacation of a government residence is not a valid justification for withholding such dues, as the right to pension is distinct from the right to occupation of service accommodation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, a state government employee since 1980, superannuated on 30th June 2013, but his pension and retiral dues were not sanctioned or paid. Subsequently, the appellant department passed an order quashing his earlier pay revision and refixing his salary to a lower scale. This refixation was challenged and later withdrawn by the department, but the retiral dues remained unpaid, ostensibly because the respondent had ...
Read More
Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case

In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt. The Court found the evidence—including motive, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confessions made in a police station—to be unreliable, insufficient, and lacking credible corroboration to sustain a conviction. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the brutal murder of a police driver on the night of 10th-11th March 2006. The prosecution alleged that the murder was instigated by a fellow policeman, A1, due to his inability to repay a loan of ₹1 lakh to the deceased. The deceased was lured to the house of A1 and A2 (A1's wife) on the false pretext of repaying the debt. ...
Read More