Tag: Inherent Jurisdiction

Errors Do Not Change Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses Konkan Railway’s Review Plea in Resignation Dispute
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Errors Do Not Change Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses Konkan Railway’s Review Plea in Resignation Dispute

The Supreme Court held that apparent errors in factual findings do not warrant review unless they materially alter the decision. Justice and equity may override strict contractual principles where long, unblemished service exists. Settled “no work, no pay” rule is not absolute; back-wages can be reduced proportionately without disturbing reinstatement. No review lies for re-argument. Facts Of The Case: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. approached the Supreme Court by way of a review petition against the judgment dated 13th September, 2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10567 of 2024. In the original appeal, the respondent-employee, S.D. Manohara, had challenged the decision of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which had held that he could not withdraw his resignation. The employe...
Read More
From Death Row to Freedom: The Supreme Court’s Historic Curative Verdict in the Nithari Case
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

From Death Row to Freedom: The Supreme Court’s Historic Curative Verdict in the Nithari Case

Supreme Court Says this curative petition was allowed due to irreconcilable outcomes on an identical evidentiary foundation, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court found the Section 164 CrPC confession involuntary and Section 27 recoveries inadmissible, structural infirmities fatal to the conviction. The earlier judgment was set aside to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. Facts Of The Case: The case involves petitioner Surendra Koli, who was employed as a domestic help in Noida's Nithari area. Between 2005 and 2006, multiple women and children were reported missing. On December 29, 2006, human remains were discovered in the open area behind the house where Koli worked, leading to his arrest. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2009 for the murder...
Read More
Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and chargesheet, holding that while the complaint was within the limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC (relevant date for limitation being filing of complaint, not cognizance date), the allegations lacked specific incidents of cruelty and appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions. Facts Of The Case: The present appeal challenges a High Court order dated April 1, 2024, which set aside a Sessions Court order from October 4, 2008. The Sessions Court had discharged the Appellant from charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 1098/2002. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Complainant wife (Respondent no. 2) on July 3, 2002, leading to the FIR being registered on December 19, 2002, at PS Malviya Nagar...
Read More