Interim Order - The Legal Chamber

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...

Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors

2Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether MBBS (allopathic) and AYUSH (indigenous system) doctors can be treated equally for service conditions like retirement age and pay. The Court noted divergent precedents on whether classification based on educational qualification and differing job functions violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of Special Leave Petitions concerning the service conditions of doctors, specifically whether practitioners of allopathy (MBBS doctors) and those of indigenous systems like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, and Unani (AYUSH doctors) can be treated equally, particularly regarding retirement age. The legal dispute stems from varying retirement ages set by different states for the...

Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case

28Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case

In the Special Leave Petitions concerning the Karur stampede, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 32. It ordered the transfer of investigation to the CBI, citing the necessity to ensure credibility, impartiality, and public confidence in the probe, which involves serious allegations and impacts fundamental rights. Facts Of The Case: This case stems from a tragic stampede on September 27, 2025, during a political rally organized by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Karur, Tamil Nadu, resulting in 41 deaths and over 100 injuries. Multiple writ petitions were subsequently filed before the Madras High Court, primarily at its Madurai Bench, seeking a CBI investigation, compensation for victims, and the formulation of safety guidelines ...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage

4Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage

In a suit for eviction under a lapsed license agreement, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot grant liquidated damages as an interim measure under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, it upheld the application of Order XV-A CPC (Bombay Amendment), directing the licensee to pay ascertained arrears and ongoing license fees with annual increments, failing which the defense can be struck off. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Leave and License Agreement executed on 08.10.2013 between the appellant licensors and the respondent licensee for 36 months, from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2016, with a 7% annual increase in license fee. Clause 19 stipulated liquidated damages of Rs. 10,000 per day if the licensee failed to vacate upon expiry. After the license period lapsed, ...

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to "interim orders" only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read "any order" in place of "interim order," thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The Distr...

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...