Tag: Indian judiciary.

“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation of a custodial death case to the CBI, citing bias in the local police probe under "nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should judge their own cause). It emphasized witness protection for the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, and directed expedited arrests and trial, reinforcing accountability in custodial violence cases under constitutional safeguards. The judgment underscored fair investigation as a facet of Article 21. Facts Of The Case: The case stemmed from the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, a young man arrested by Madhya Pradesh police on 13th July 2024 during his wedding rituals in connection with a theft case (FIR No. 232/2024). Witnesses, including his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, alleged brutal torture—beatings, hanging upside down, and ch...
Read More
“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, requiring pre-institution mediation for commercial suits unless urgent interim relief is sought. However, it clarified that non-compliance before August 20, 2022 (the date of its earlier ruling in Patil Automation) does not warrant plaint rejection—instead, courts may refer parties to mediation while keeping suits in abeyance. The judgment harmonizes procedural rigor with practical enforcement, ensuring mediation’s role in reducing litigation backlog without unduly penalizing past filings. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a money suit filed by the Union of India against M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. in the Commercial Court, Alipore, seeking recovery of ₹8.73 crores as differential freight...
Read More
“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...
Read More
Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”

The Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot be compelled to provide non-monetary relief like prosthetic limbs or ongoing medical supervision to accident victims. Emphasizing indemnity principles, the Court held compensation must be monetary, calculating ₹12 lakh for future prosthetic/wheelchair needs. It overturned the High Court's directive for in-kind support, reaffirming insurers' liability is limited to pecuniary compensation under motor accident laws. The judgment clarifies that "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes imposing perpetual welfare obligations on insurers. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident on 21.12.2008, where respondent Suraj Kumar, a 22-year-old tempo cleaner, suffered severe injuries...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”

The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s compensation award for the family of a deceased truck driver, rejecting the High Court’s reduction of income from ₹10,000 to ₹4,076 per month. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance, it upheld ₹10,000 as justified wages for 2014. The Court also affirmed loss of consortium for children and parents under Somwati v. New India Assurance, stressing equitable apportionment. The judgment reinforces fair compensation principles in motor accident claims, emphasizing statutory and precedential rights of dependents. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a fatal motor accident where a truck driver, aged 28, was hit and killed by another negligently driven truck while he was boarding his parked vehicle. The deceased’s legal representatives—his wido...
Read More
“Supreme Court Rules on Food Adulteration Cases : Strict Punishment in Food Adulteration Cases
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Rules on Food Adulteration Cases : Strict Punishment in Food Adulteration Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA), 1954, bars probation for offenders convicted under the Act between 1976 and 2006, upholding strict sentencing to deter food adulteration. It also held that the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006’s repeal clause preserves penalties under PoFA, denying retrospective benefit of reduced sentences. However, citing discrepancies in evidence, the Court partially allowed the appeals by converting imprisonment into fines, balancing strict legal interpretation with equitable relief. The judgment reaffirms legislative intent to prioritize public health over reformative leniency in food safety violations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India, ari...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Chhattisgarh Murder Case : “Eyewitness Failures Lead to Acquittal”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Chhattisgarh Murder Case : “Eyewitness Failures Lead to Acquittal”

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a double murder case, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that eyewitnesses must identify accused in court and link them to specific roles, noting material omissions and contradictions in testimonies. It reinforced Section 162 CrPC standards for reliable evidence, overturning concurrent convictions due to fatal investigative lapses. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a violent incident on March 24, 2001, in Masturi, Chhattisgarh, where nine accused armed with swords, lathis, and poleaxes allegedly attacked a medical shop, killing Manrakhan Singh and Narayan Singh and injuring five others, including family members of the deceased. The prosecution claimed the attack stemmed from a pr...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privity of contract, ruling that Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) was solely liable for transmission bay costs under its agreement with HP Power Transmission Corporation (HPPTC), despite internal arrangements with third parties. The Court held that non-signatories (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) could not be bound by the contract, reversing APTEL’s order. The judgment reaffirmed that contractual obligations apply only to parties to the agreement, unless explicitly extended. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC) and M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) over the liability for construction and maintenance costs of a 66kV power transmission bay at Urni, Himachal Pradesh. BHP, along with two other power com...
Read More
“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts must limit their examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot decide arbitrability or exclude claims as "excepted matters" at the appointment stage. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance, it held that arbitral tribunals—not courts—must determine whether claims fall under non-arbitrable categories. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot bifurcate claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable during arbitrator appointments, ensuring minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) and IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent), ...
Read More