Tag: Indian judiciary.

Supreme Court Directs Uniform Rules for Court Managers: Mandates Better Pay & Service Conditions for Court Managers
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Uniform Rules for Court Managers: Mandates Better Pay & Service Conditions for Court Managers

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to frame uniform rules for Court Managers within 3 months, adopting Assam's 2018 Rules as a model. It mandated their regularization, Class-II Gazetted status, and career progression, while allowing states to modify rules as needed. The judgment emphasized judicial efficiency and upheld Article 229 & 309 (Constitution) for service conditions. Existing contractual Court Managers must pass a suitability test for regularization, with benefits from their initial appointment date but no arrears. The ruling ensures standardized administrative support to reduce judges' workload and enhance justice delivery. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from multiple Interlocutory Applications (IAs) and a Writ Petition concerning the service conditions of C...
Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years

The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership dispute between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under Karnataka Societies Act) and ISKCON Mumbai (Maharashtra Public Trust) over temple properties. It upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the rightful owner, citing documentary evidence (sale deeds, allotment records) and rejecting claims of fraudulent manipulation. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, emphasizing societies' independent legal status under state registration laws. The judgment clarified that funding sources (even from ISKCON Mumbai) don’t determine ownership, and dismissed ancillary appeals linked to the dispute. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a protracted legal battle between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registrati...
Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of temple receivers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that advocates should not routinely manage religious institutions due to potential conflicts of interest. It directed courts to appoint administrators with religious and administrative expertise while prioritizing expedited dispute resolution. The Court also permitted the state to utilize temple funds for land acquisition under strict conditions, ensuring ownership remains with the deity/trust. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in prolonged receiverships and aligns with Article 25(2) of the Constitution, allowing state intervention for public order and pilgrim welfare. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the management of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Ma...
Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father
Supreme Court

Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father

The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a non-custodial parent to file repeated applications for visitation rights imposes undue procedural burdens. It held that interim custody arrangements must balance a child's welfare with both parents' rights, emphasizing structured access schedules over case-by-case approvals. The judgment establishes that meaningful parent-child contact shouldn't be hindered by procedural formalities when consistent involvement is demonstrated, particularly in transnational custody cases. The Court directed family courts to implement standing visitation orders pending final custody determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a custody dispute between Eby Cherian (appellant), an engineer working rotational overseas postings, and Jerema John (respondent), a ...
Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruled that arbitral tribunals have the power to award compound interest (interest on interest) under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It clarified that the "sum awarded" includes both principal and pre-award interest, and post-award interest can be calculated on this total amount. The judgment overruled earlier contrary interpretations, affirming arbitrators' discretion in interest calculations unless expressly barred by contract. The Court emphasized this aligns with the compensatory purpose of arbitration awards for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Interstate Construction (appellant) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (respondent) regarding construction work for Ramagundam Super Therma...
No Relaxation in OBC Certificate Requirements: Supreme Court Rules Against Candidates for Wrong OBC Certificate Format
Supreme Court

No Relaxation in OBC Certificate Requirements: Supreme Court Rules Against Candidates for Wrong OBC Certificate Format

The Supreme Court upheld the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment Board's decision to reject OBC certificates not submitted in the prescribed state format, ruling that compliance with recruitment notification terms is mandatory. The Court emphasized that candidates must adhere to specified requirements and cannot claim relaxation if they fail to meet procedural conditions. Non-compliance disqualifies them from reservation benefits, as the state's format ensures verification of creamy layer exclusion. The judgment reinforced that recruitment rules must be strictly followed, and courts should not interfere unless constitutional violations are established. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals arising from separate writ petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment...
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Dowry Harassment Case : Confirms 10-Year Jail for Husband in Dowry Death Case
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Dowry Harassment Case : Confirms 10-Year Jail for Husband in Dowry Death Case

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death), affirming that the prosecution proved demand of dowry, cruelty, and unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The Court emphasized the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, shifting the burden to the accused, who failed to rebut it. It clarified that contradictory defenses (accidental fall vs. suicide) weaken the accused's case, and consistent witness testimonies established dowry harassment. The judgment reinforced strict scrutiny of dowry-related deaths and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the death of Punita (alias Gayatri), who married the accused-appellant Virender Pal on February 28, 2008. Within months ...
POCSO Case Delays Addressed: Supreme Court Directs Faster Trials in Child Sexual Abuse Cases
Supreme Court

POCSO Case Delays Addressed: Supreme Court Directs Faster Trials in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

The Supreme Court, in its suo moto jurisdiction, issued directives to expedite trials under the POCSO Act 2012, mandating exclusive special courts in districts with over 100 pending cases. It emphasized time-bound investigations, child-friendly infrastructure, and sensitized personnel. The Court also stressed forensic lab efficiency and victim compensation, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory timelines to curb delays in child sexual abuse cases Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court of India took suo moto cognizance in July 2019 of the alarming rise in child sexual abuse cases across the country, registering the matter as "In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents." This judicial intervention was prompted by numerous media reports highlighting the increasing...
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...