Tag: Indian judiciary.

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

The Supreme Court ruled that bail parity cannot be mechanically applied when material distinctions exist between accused persons. It held that alleged conspirators/masterminds of a serious crime (Section 302 IPC) cannot claim bail parity with minor co-accused, especially when evidence suggests their active role in hiring a contract killer. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider the gravity of allegations, evidentiary role of each accused, and potential witness intimidation, rather than granting parity as a blanket rule. The judgment clarified that "parity" under Section 439 CrPC requires comparable roles, not mere similarity of charges. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a brutal shooting during a marriage procession in Rajasthan on November 28, 2023. The prosecution al...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC does not bar prosecution for tampering with court records after proceedings conclude, as such acts no longer affect "proceedings in court" under Section 195(1)(b). It held that fabricating documents in record rooms post-withdrawal constitutes standalone offences under IPC, not requiring court-sanctioned complaints. The judgment clarified that Section 195 applies only when offences directly impact live judicial proceedings or documents in active court custody, distinguishing between administrative record-keeping and judicial administration of justice. The Court affirmed that FIRs remain valid for post-proceeding forgeries. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2005 FIR lodged by the Registrar of Bharuch District Court against Parshotta...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...
Read More
Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Disabled CRPF Officer in Accident Case : Future Prospects & Pension Rights
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Disabled CRPF Officer in Accident Case : Future Prospects & Pension Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that pension benefits cannot be deducted from salary when computing motor accident compensation, as they are statutory rights unrelated to the accident. It upheld 78% disability (overriding lower courts' 50-61.94% assessments) and mandated 30% future prospects for the 43-year-old victim. The Court enhanced compensation to ₹67.36 lakhs with 7% interest, applying multipliers consistently with Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi precedents, while clarifying that post-accident medical assessments must prevail over initial disability evaluations if unrebutted. Facts Of The Case: On May 10, 2010, Hanumantharaju B., a CRPF Sub-Inspector, met with a motor accident in Bengaluru when an Omni car collided with his motorcycle. He suffered grievous injuries, underwent multiple surg...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Dependency Rights in Accident Claims: Key Takeaways on Legal Heirs & Dependency
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Dependency Rights in Accident Claims: Key Takeaways on Legal Heirs & Dependency

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision denying enhanced compensation to the married daughter (Appellant No. 1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as she failed to prove financial dependency on the deceased. However, it reversed the dismissal of the mother’s (Appellant No. 2) claim, awarding her ₹19.22 lakhs, recognizing her dependency and applying principles from Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for just compensation. The ruling clarified that legal heirs must establish dependency for loss-of-income claims, except under Section 140’s no-fault liability. Facts Of The Case: On January 26, 2008, Smt. Paras Sharma died in a road accident when a Rajasthan Roadways bus, negligently taking a sudden right turn, crushed her two-wheeler. Her married daughter (Appellant No. 1) and elderly ...
Read More