Tag: Indian judiciary.

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the date of civil death is legally presumed to be after seven years from disappearance, not the date they went missing, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A court decree declaring death merely recognizes this presumption without fixing an earlier date. This legal presumption is central to claims dependent on establishing the date of death. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral ben...
Read More
Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the first appellate court's findings of fact, particularly regarding additional payment and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The Court reiterated that time is not ordinarily the essence in immovable property contracts and that acceptance of further payment post-deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to forfeit earnest money, making the suit for specific performance maintainable without a separate declaratory relief. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Annamalai, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 08.01.2010 with Saraswathi (D-1) and Dharmalingam (D-2) for two property items. The total consideration was Rs. 4,80,000, of which Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as a...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the legal principle regarding multiple dying declarations. The Supreme Court held that each declaration must be assessed independently for evidentiary value. It ruled that the first, corroborated dying declaration recorded by an independent witness (a doctor) was reliable, and minor discrepancies in subsequent versions did not invalidate it, justifying the High Court's reversal of the acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The prosecution's case was that the appellant, Jemaben, conspired with a co-accused to kill Leelaben and her son, Ganesh. On the intervening night of November 29-30, 2004, while the victims were sleeping in their hut, Jemaben poured kerosene on Leelaben and set her on fire. Leelaben suffered severe burns and succumbed to her injuries on...
Read More
“Mere Suspicion Not Proof”:Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Mere Suspicion Not Proof”:Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the stringent standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. It holds that the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, excluding every hypothesis of innocence. Where gaps exist or alternative possibilities emerge, the benefit of doubt must be accorded to the accused, leading to acquittal if guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: An 85-year-old woman, living alone in Coimbatore, was found murdered in her home on the morning of December 19, 2016. She had been strangled with a towel, sexually assaulted, and her two gold bangles were missing. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence against the appellant, Mohamed Sameer Khan. Key points included that the appellant w...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

In this Supreme Court judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 149 applies when a member of an unlawful assembly shares its common object, irrespective of direct commission of the fatal act. It upheld that active facilitation and participation in a coordinated attack establishes guilt. Facts Of The Case: On April 27, 1999, Ankush Gholap and others were returning from Bhor in a jeep when they were intercepted by six accused persons on two motorcycles. The accused, armed with weapons like knives and a sattur, stopped the jeep near Navi Ali. Accused no. 3 removed the jeep's keys and assaulted the driver, while the others dragged Ankush and two other occu...
Read More
Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms the application of the "pay and recover" principle where an insured vehicle deviates from its permitted route. While the insurer remains statutorily liable to compensate accident victims, it is entitled to subsequently recover the paid amount from the policyholder for breaching the contract's geographical terms. Facts Of The Case: On October 7, 2014, the deceased Srinivasa (alias Murthy) died on the spot after his motorcycle was hit by a rashly and negligently driven bus (KA-52-9099). His dependents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹18,86,000. Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the High Court for enhanced compensation, while the insurance company also appealed...
Read More
Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of counsel to respect the Court's expressed inclination and maintain decorum. While continuous insistence after the Court indicates its mind is improper, the Bench accepted an unconditional apology in this instance. Accordingly, it exercised its discretion to delete adverse remarks and the costs imposed in the original order. Facts Of The Case: The State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it to be contrary to statutory provisions. During the hearing on September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly communicated to the Commission's counsel that the matter did not warrant...
Read More
“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence. The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹9,000 from a labour contractor for renewing three licences. The prosecution alleged that a partial payment of ₹3,000 was made on 25.09.1997, with the balance demanded the next day. The complainant reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 26.09.1997. ...
Read More
Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

The Supreme Court held that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) represent an equity investment, not a financial debt under the IBC. Preference shareholders are not creditors, and redemption is contingent upon company profits under the Companies Act. Therefore, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption. Facts Of The Case: EPC Constructions India Limited (EPCC) held outstanding receivables from Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited for construction work. In 2015, to help Matix meet lender-mandated debt-equity ratios, the parties agreed to convert ₹400 crores of dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS). Matix subsequently allotted CRPS worth ₹250 crores to EPCC. When the shares matured after three years, M...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the procedural conflict regarding offences under Section 195A IPC (threatening to give false evidence). The Supreme Court holds that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Consequently, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154/156 CrPC, and the restrictive complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not applicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate sets of proceedings. In the first, from Kerala, an FIR was registered under Section 195A IPC after a de facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to give false evidence. The accused sought bail, arguing the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requi...
Read More