Tag: Indian judiciary.

Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms the application of the "pay and recover" principle where an insured vehicle deviates from its permitted route. While the insurer remains statutorily liable to compensate accident victims, it is entitled to subsequently recover the paid amount from the policyholder for breaching the contract's geographical terms. Facts Of The Case: On October 7, 2014, the deceased Srinivasa (alias Murthy) died on the spot after his motorcycle was hit by a rashly and negligently driven bus (KA-52-9099). His dependents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹18,86,000. Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the High Court for enhanced compensation, while the insurance company also appealed...
Read More
Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of counsel to respect the Court's expressed inclination and maintain decorum. While continuous insistence after the Court indicates its mind is improper, the Bench accepted an unconditional apology in this instance. Accordingly, it exercised its discretion to delete adverse remarks and the costs imposed in the original order. Facts Of The Case: The State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it to be contrary to statutory provisions. During the hearing on September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly communicated to the Commission's counsel that the matter did not warrant...
Read More
“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence. The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹9,000 from a labour contractor for renewing three licences. The prosecution alleged that a partial payment of ₹3,000 was made on 25.09.1997, with the balance demanded the next day. The complainant reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 26.09.1997. ...
Read More
Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

The Supreme Court held that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) represent an equity investment, not a financial debt under the IBC. Preference shareholders are not creditors, and redemption is contingent upon company profits under the Companies Act. Therefore, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption. Facts Of The Case: EPC Constructions India Limited (EPCC) held outstanding receivables from Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited for construction work. In 2015, to help Matix meet lender-mandated debt-equity ratios, the parties agreed to convert ₹400 crores of dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS). Matix subsequently allotted CRPS worth ₹250 crores to EPCC. When the shares matured after three years, M...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the procedural conflict regarding offences under Section 195A IPC (threatening to give false evidence). The Supreme Court holds that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Consequently, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154/156 CrPC, and the restrictive complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not applicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate sets of proceedings. In the first, from Kerala, an FIR was registered under Section 195A IPC after a de facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to give false evidence. The accused sought bail, arguing the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requi...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Overtake Court’s Power to Release Seized Vehicles
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Overtake Court’s Power to Release Seized Vehicles

The Supreme Court held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 do not oust the jurisdiction of Special Courts to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. The statutory power of courts under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, read with relevant CrPC/BNSS provisions for interim release, remains operative independently of the administrative disposal mechanism under the 2022 Rules. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Denash, is the owner of a lorry (TN 52 Q 0315) which was lawfully hired to transport iron sheets from Chhattisgarh to Tamil Nadu. On 14th July 2024, during transit, police intercepted the vehicle and recovered a total of 6 kilograms of Ganja. The contraband was found concealed benea...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forgin...
Read More
Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discov...
Read More
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...
Read More