Tag: Indian judiciary.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that a unilateral arbitration clause granting one party the sole power to appoint an arbitrator is invalid. Following the Constitution Bench in CORE, the Court held that an ineligible person (such as a Managing Director) cannot nominate a sole arbitrator, as it raises justifiable doubts regarding impartiality under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed petitions before the Delhi High Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to terminate the mandate of a sole arbitrator. This arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to Clause 9.03...
Read More
Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs

The Supreme Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹15 to ₹50 lakhs, balancing the husband's capacity to pay against the wife's qualifications and potential to earn. The ruling underscores that alimony is not merely sustenance but must provide financial security commensurate with the marital standard of living. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the wife, M.V. Leelavathi, against a Karnataka High Court order that upheld the dissolution of her marriage to Dr. C.R. Swamy on grounds of cruelty and confirmed a permanent alimony award of ₹15,00,000. The couple married in February 2009 and the marriage remained childless. The husband, a doctor, filed for divorce in 2011 alleging mental cruelty. The wife contested the petition and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal r...
Read More
Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The decree was granted subject to the husband paying a one-time permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crores to the wife, ensuring a complete settlement. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the appellant-husband, A. Ranjithkumar, and the respondent-wife, E. Kavitha, was solemnized on February 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the couple relocated to the United States of America, where the husband was employed. A son was born from the union on April 7, 2010. However, the marital relationship soured, leading the husband to file a divorce petition on September 26, 2012, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Th...
Read More
Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More
Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Cen...
Read More
Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...
Read More
Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

The Supreme Court ruled that a "life imprisonment" sentence specifying a fixed term of "actual imprisonment without remission" is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to "life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission." This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual inc...
Read More
Complete Justice: Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to End Family Dispute, Quashes FIR After Settlement
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Complete Justice: Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to End Family Dispute, Quashes FIR After Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the criminal proceedings. It held that continuing prosecution after a mutual divorce and full settlement serves no legitimate purpose and amounts to an abuse of the process of law, especially in the absence of specific allegations. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No.67 of 2019) registered by the second respondent against her husband (appellant No.1) and in-laws (appellant Nos. 2 & 3) under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC, alleging cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. The marriage, solemnized in March 2018, lasted approximately ten months before the wife left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in November 2019. However...
Read More
No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...
Read More