Tag: Judgement Analysis

“Mere Suspicion Not Proof”:Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Mere Suspicion Not Proof”:Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the stringent standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. It holds that the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, excluding every hypothesis of innocence. Where gaps exist or alternative possibilities emerge, the benefit of doubt must be accorded to the accused, leading to acquittal if guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: An 85-year-old woman, living alone in Coimbatore, was found murdered in her home on the morning of December 19, 2016. She had been strangled with a towel, sexually assaulted, and her two gold bangles were missing. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence against the appellant, Mohamed Sameer Khan. Key points included that the appellant w...
Read More
Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery

The Supreme Court held that merely proving a driver’s licence is fake does not absolve the insurer unless it is established that the vehicle owner knowingly breached the duty of due diligence in employing the driver. Absent proof of such breach, the insurer remains liable to third parties and cannot recover from the owner under a “pay and recover” order. Facts Of The Case: The accident occurred on January 26, 1993, at 2:00 AM at an intersection, involving a collision between a truck and a Matador van. The Matador van was carrying ten passengers, including the driver. Tragically, nine persons lost their lives in the accident, while two sustained injuries. Claims were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased passengers, as wel...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes

The Supreme Court affirmed that the electricity tariff and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are not purely private contracts. Under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, they must be reviewed and approved by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. A generating company and distribution licensee cannot unilaterally set or modify tariffs without the regulatory commission's mandatory approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the tariff payable for electricity supplied by M/s. KKK Hydro Power Limited. The company initially established a 3 MW hydro plant under a 2000 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a fixed tariff of ₹2.50/kWh. In 2007, it augmented the project's capacity to 4.90 MW. A new PPA was executed in 2008 for the revised capacity, but it ret...
Read More
Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs

The Supreme Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹15 to ₹50 lakhs, balancing the husband's capacity to pay against the wife's qualifications and potential to earn. The ruling underscores that alimony is not merely sustenance but must provide financial security commensurate with the marital standard of living. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the wife, M.V. Leelavathi, against a Karnataka High Court order that upheld the dissolution of her marriage to Dr. C.R. Swamy on grounds of cruelty and confirmed a permanent alimony award of ₹15,00,000. The couple married in February 2009 and the marriage remained childless. The husband, a doctor, filed for divorce in 2011 alleging mental cruelty. The wife contested the petition and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal r...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence apportionment to 20% on the claimant, 50% on the car driver, and 30% on the bus driver. It enhanced compensation by revising the notional income calculation for an engineering student and reinstated attendant charges, emphasizing just compensation for 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: On January 7, 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a friend on the pillion. A car ahead, driven by respondent no. 2, suddenly applied its brakes on the highway because the driver's pregnant wife felt a vomiting sensation. This caused the appellant to collide with the rear of the car and fall onto the road. Subsequently, a bus, insured by respondent no. 1, which was coming from behind, ran over the appell...
Read More
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...
Read More