Indian judiciary. - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

22Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

The Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction for a cheque dishonour case lies exclusively with the court where the payee's bank branch (for collection) is situated, not where the cheque was physically deposited for credit. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning four cheques issued by the respondent, Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat. These cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant, who maintained his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank's Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore, had presented the cheques for collection through the bank's Opera House Branch in Mumbai to be credited to his Mangalore account. The Jud...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It ruled that mere allegations of caste-based malice were insufficient without concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that prosecution under the Act requires proof of intent linked to the victim's caste, preventing misuse for personal vendettas. Legal infirmities in the complaint and lack of prima facie case justified the quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the appellant, Konde Nageshwar Rao, alleged that Respondent No. 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), manipulated the allotment of plots reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) beneficiaries to upper-caste ind...

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...

Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, overturning their conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies. The Court emphasized the need for cautious scrutiny of related witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and highlighted improbabilities in their accounts, including the unrealistic timeline of events. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The judgments of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside, underscoring the principle that doubts in prosecution cases must benefit the accused. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu, a habitual drunkard with a criminal record, including detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The prosecution alleged that on 14.04.20...

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court, holding that such relief is an "extraordinary remedy" and must not be granted routinely, especially in grave offences. The Court emphasized that concealing material facts (like a vacated injunction order) and witness intimidation vitiate bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary due to the accused's non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, violating bail conditions. The ruling reaffirmed strict judicial scrutiny under Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) to prevent miscarriage of justice[ Facts Of The Case: The case involves a property dispute between Nikita Jagganath Shetty (the appellant) and her estranged husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav (respondent No. 4), along with other co-accused. Nikit...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's cancellation of allotment due to the respondent's chronic default in payment over decades. The Court emphasized that public property must be managed transparently and in the public interest, rejecting the respondent's claims. It ruled that prolonged non-payment justified eviction, denying further indulgence and ordering possession to be surrendered within four months. The judgment reinforced that contractual obligations must be honored and that courts cannot indefinitely protect defaulters at the cost of public welfare. Facts Of The Case: In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board auctioned a prime commercial plot in Chennai, with S. Ganesan emerging as the highest bidder at ₹4,78,921. Despite the Board's acceptance of his bid, Gan...

Supreme Court Slams Bail Order: Shelter Home Superintendent Must Surrender in Sex Exploitation Case

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Bail Order: Shelter Home Superintendent Must Surrender in Sex Exploitation Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused-respondent, holding that the High Court's order was cryptic and violated Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act by not hearing the victim. The Court emphasized the gravity of the offences, the accused's influence, and the risk of witness tampering, underscoring the need for reasoned bail orders in serious crimes. The judgment reaffirmed the principles laid down in Shabeen Ahmad and Ajwar, highlighting that bail in heinous offences must consider societal impact and trial integrity. The accused was directed to surrender, with protections ensured for the victims. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by Victim ‘X’ against the order of the Patna High Court granting bail to Respondent No. 2, the former Superintendent of a women’s p...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Fair Trial in Corruption Cases

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning the High Court's conviction under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses in the trap proceedings. It emphasized the double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals and ruled that conjectures cannot substitute legal proof. The judgment reaffirmed that mere recovery of tainted money, without conclusive proof of demand, is insufficient for conviction under anti-corruption laws. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M. Sambasiva Rao, an Assistant Administrative Officer at United India Insu...