Tag: Indian judiciary.

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, applying the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, held that a self-employed person, even one working abroad, is entitled to an addition of 40% of their established income towards future prospects when computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and conventional heads as per the standardized formula mandated by the Constitution Bench. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on 31st August 2007 at approximately 3:00 a.m. at Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal. The deceased, Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national, was travelling in a car from Delhi to Hoshiarpur when it was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Swaraj Mazd...
Read More
Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the detailed procedure and timelines under Section 144C for eligible assessees operate within or in addition to the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153 for passing assessment orders. The divergence of opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench for final determination. Facts Of The Case: The case involved several foreign companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., engaged in oil exploration in India. For Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19, the companies filed returns declaring losses. Their cases were selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officers passed draft assessment orders ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
How Unexplained Injuries and a Family Dispute Led to an Acquittal by the Supreme Court
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

How Unexplained Injuries and a Family Dispute Led to an Acquittal by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt. The conviction was overturned due to material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained timeline of death, unrebutted defence evidence of family enmity, and a lack of medical corroboration for the alleged weapon and dying declaration. Facts Of The Case: Based on the altercation, the appellant and her husband were accused of fatally beating the deceased with sticks near a temple later that night. The prosecution's case, supported by eyewitnesses including the deceased's father (PW-7), was that the attack was retaliation for the afternoon dispute. The victim was allegedly carried home unconscious and died minutes later, with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged around 9:00 PM. How...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...
Read More
Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 'In-House Procedure' for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. It ruled that the mechanism, which can recommend a judge's removal, is a valid exercise of the CJI's authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and does not violate the constitutional scheme for impeachment. Facts Of The Case: In March 2025, a fire broke out in the store-room of a Delhi High Court judge's official bungalow while he was away. During efforts to douse the flames, officials discovered burnt currency notes on the premises. This discovery raised serious suspicions of misconduct, potentially violating the values outlined in the Restatement of Judicial Life. Consequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the ...
Read More
Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

The Supreme Court held that the electricity board was estopped from resiling from its contractual obligation to provide a concessional tariff after having sanctioned, agreed, and partially implemented it. The board's unilateral withdrawal of the concession after over two years was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an existing industrial unit with a Low Tension (LT) power connection, underwent significant expansion by installing a large induction furnace, which necessitated a High Tension (HT) or bulk power supply. It applied for this new connection in 1998. The respondent electricity board, after inspection, sanctioned the HT connection via a memo that explicitly stipulated the appellant’s eligibility for a 25% concessional tarif...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Big Ruling: Criminal History Matters in Bail for Heinous Crimes
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Big Ruling: Criminal History Matters in Bail for Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court overturned a bail order, ruling that the High Court failed to apply correct legal principles under Section 389 CrPC for suspending a sentence. It emphasized that post-conviction bail in heinous offences requires a palpable prima facie case for acquittal, not a re-appreciation of evidence or conjectural reasoning. Facts Of The Case: In a case originating from Rajasthan, the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl, testified that on June 13, 2023, Respondent No. 2 accosted her at gunpoint while she was defecating in a field. He covered her mouth, forcibly took her to a nearby abandoned house, and raped her. She immediately reported the incident to her family, and her father filed an FIR. The Trial Court convicted Respondent No. 2 under the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 20 years ...
Read More