Tag: Judgment Summary

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that claims of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction. The Court held that a juvenile offender cannot be detained beyond the statutory maximum period prescribed under the Act, and such excess detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, born on 10th June 1969, was convicted for a murder allegedly committed on 2nd November 1981, when he was approximately 12 years and 5 months old. The trial court, in its 1984 order, recognized his juvenility under the Children Act, 1960 and directed his placement in a children's home instead of prison. Following a reversal of his acquittal by the Supreme Court in 2009, the petitioner absconded and was subsequently arrested...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022

The Supreme Court held that the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, do not apply retrospectively. Intending couples who had commenced the surrogacy process—specifically by creating and freezing embryos—before the Act's enforcement retain their vested right to continue the procedure, irrespective of subsequently exceeding the statutory age limits. Facts Of The Case: The case consolidates three petitions concerning age restrictions for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. In the first, a couple married in 2019 began IVF treatment in 2020 but were advised to use surrogacy due to the wife’s medical history. Their embryos were frozen in January 2021, but the process was stalled by the pandemic before the Act, with its a...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years

The Supreme Court allowed a life convict's appeal for premature release, interpreting the 2010 remission guidelines. The Court held the offence, motivated by perceived family prestige, fell under Category 3(b) requiring 22 years of incarceration, not Category 4(d) requiring 24 years, and ordered the appellant's immediate release. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Anilkumar, along with a co-accused, was convicted for the premeditated murder of a man and the attempted murder of his friend. The prosecution's case was that the attack was motivated by the fact that the deceased was in a romantic relationship with the appellant's sister. The appellant perceived this relationship as spoiling his sister's life and tarnishing the family's prestige. Following his conviction, the appellant wa...
Read More
Supreme Court: Long Judgment Isn’t a Flaw If Quashing is Justified, Dismisses Telangana’s Plea
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Long Judgment Isn’t a Flaw If Quashing is Justified, Dismisses Telangana’s Plea

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the FIR and complaint failed to disclose a cognizable offense against the accused. The Court found the allegations vague, unsubstantiated, and lacking any material to connect the accused to the crime, making the case unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a written complaint dated May 28, 2015, by a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Hyderabad. He alleged that the fourth accused (A4), Jerusalem Mathai, had offered him Rs. 2 crores and a ticket to leave the country to abstain from voting in the upcoming Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections. A subsequent paragraph in the same complaint mentioned a higher offer of Rs. 5 crores fr...
Read More
Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. While keeping all legal questions open, it granted a one-time exception, directing the High Court to declare results and appoint the qualified appellants without treating the order as a precedent, thereby resolving the immediate recruitment impasse. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment process for District Judges in Telangana. The appellants, advocates, had applied in April 2023 under the then-existing rules. However, in June 2023, the state introduced new rules, the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. A key provision, Rule 5(5.1)(a), restricted eligibility to advocates who had been practicing specifically in the High Court of T...
Read More
Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...
Read More
Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...
Read More
Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction

Based on the principle of parity, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that when a co-accused, prosecuted on identical evidence in a joint trial, is acquitted and the State does not challenge it, sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused would be unjust and inequitable. Facts Of The Case: On January 1, 2002, the State Task Force officials near Dayamani Restaurant, Kathipudi, noticed two women, the appellant Vaddi Ratnam (Accused No.2) and Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi (Accused No.1). Upon seeing the officials, the co-accused handed a yellow handbag to the appellant, after which both attempted to flee but were apprehended. A search of the bag revealed six packets containing a total of 5.5 kilograms of opium. The accused confessed to being involved in the opium trade...
Read More
Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings, ruling that a title deed is primary evidence of ownership. Mere presence of waste or manure on a property does not establish possession for the defendant. A declaratory suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable when the defendant fails to prove their own possession. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff, Suresh Tukaram Nerkar, filed a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession, and for a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants. His claim was based on a sale deed (Ext. 81) purportedly covering 150 square metres of land, which included a residential building on one portion ('ABCD') and an adjacent open plot ('PCDF'). The suit was triggered by the defendants, parti...
Read More