Tag: Indian judiciary.

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Oriss...
Read More
Supreme Court : Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation Even After Victim’s Death
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation Even After Victim’s Death

The Supreme Court upheld that legal heirs of a deceased accident victim can pursue compensation for losses incurred during the victim’s lifetime, treating it as part of the victim’s estate. Relying on Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jasmail Singh Kahlon, the Court affirmed that compensation for disability, pain, and future treatment survives the victim’s death. It enhanced the awarded amount, applying a 110% multiplier to income loss and granting additional sums for medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages, ensuring the heirs receive the rightful estate. The judgment reinforces the principle that motor accident claims extend beyond the victim’s lifetime if the cause of action accrued while alive. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Meena, a 50-year-old woman, suffered 100% disability in a bus accide...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Settlement : Order Caps Pending Debt at ₹15 Lakhs in Mortgage Case
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Settlement : Order Caps Pending Debt at ₹15 Lakhs in Mortgage Case

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's order by reducing the appellant's liability to ₹15 lakhs as full and final settlement of the decree. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, considering prolonged litigation, and clarified that the order was fact-specific and not a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a money recovery suit filed by the respondent, V. Sudarsanan, against the original defendants for ₹79,69,544/- with 9% interest on a principal loan of ₹58,50,000/- secured by a mortgage. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant, Umedraj Jain, purchased the mortgaged property from the defendants and attempted to implead himself in the proceedings, but his application was dismiss...
Read More
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...
Read More
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 ...
Read More
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...
Read More
Forced Marriage to Murder: The Shocking Case of Kum. Shubha & the Tragic Crime
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Forced Marriage to Murder: The Shocking Case of Kum. Shubha & the Tragic Crime

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for conspiring to murder the deceased, relying on circumstantial evidence, including Call Detail Records (CDRs) and motive established through witness testimonies. The Court clarified the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and emphasized that constitutional powers under Article 161 (pardoning power of the Governor) remain exercisable despite statutory remission rules. The judgment reaffirmed the principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda for circumstantial evidence while dismissing appeals but allowed the convicts to seek pardon. Facts Of The Case: In December 2003, Kum. Shubha (A-4), a 20-year-old law student, was engaged to B.V. Girish (deceased),...
Read More
Death of a Partner Doesn’t End Business: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Reconstituted Firm
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Death of a Partner Doesn’t End Business: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Reconstituted Firm

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision, ruling that a partnership firm does not automatically dissolve upon a partner’s death if the partnership deed permits continuation with surviving partners. The Court held that Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) could not arbitrarily stop kerosene supply without terminating the dealership agreement. It clarified that reconstitution of the firm does not require all legal heirs to join, emphasizing IOCL’s obligation to act fairly as a state instrumentality. The judgment reinforced that contractual terms and partnership deeds override rigid policy guidelines in commercial disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal, a partnership firm operating as a ...
Read More
Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and misappropriation of a gold chain (Section 404 IPC), and under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25 and 27). The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the deceased's gunshot injury. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder and other offenses. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, which placed the appellant with the deceased before the crime. Key evidence included the recovery of articles, such as the weapon used in the crime, and forensic findings that linked the appellant to the...
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