Judicial Discretion - The Legal Chamber

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...

No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a contractual clause merely barring interest on delayed or disputed payments does not, by itself, expressly or by necessary implication prohibit an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest. The power to award such interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is only denuded if the agreement contains a clear and comprehensive bar. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 21.11.2004, which directed the appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), to pay a total sum of USD 6,56,272.34 to the respondent, M/s G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd., for outstanding invoices and other claims. The arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's preliminary objection to the ma...

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

7Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinct legal roles of bail cancellation and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme is a curative measure to protect witnesses, while bail cancellation is a judicial remedy for violations of bail conditions. The existence of the Scheme cannot be a ground to deny cancellation of bail when an accused intimidates witnesses, as these are separate legal avenues serving different purposes. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No. 137 of 2022) lodged by the appellant, Phireram, for offences including murder and conspiracy under the IPC. The accused were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the High Court, subject to specific conditions prohibiting them from threatening witnesses or tampering with...

Supreme Court Rules :Procedural Lapses Can’t Be A Safe Haven For Rapists

6Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :Procedural Lapses Can’t Be A Safe Haven For Rapists

The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities, such as defective charge framing or improper joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, do not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless a failure of justice is proven. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies and procedural lapses should not be elevated to the level of reasonable doubt to acquit an accused, especially in heinous offences, if the core prosecution evidence remains credible and consistent. The conviction was restored as no prejudice was established. Facts Of The Case: In 2016, a few months after the Holi festival, the appellant's minor daughter began experiencing health issues. Her deteriorating condition led her mother to take her to a hospital in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, for treatment. On July 1, 2016, a medic...

Supreme Court Rules: High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail if FIR Discloses SC/ST Act Offence

6Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail if FIR Discloses SC/ST Act Offence

The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail when a prima facie case under the Act is made out from the FIR. The court's role at this stage is limited to verifying the FIR's averments and cannot extend to a mini-trial or appreciation of evidence. The High Court erred in disregarding this bar. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, belonging to the "Mang" Scheduled Caste community, lodged an FIR alleging that on 25.11.2024, the accused, Rajkumar Jain and others, confronted him outside his home. The accused were angered because the complainant had not voted for their candidate in the recent assembly elections. They verbally abused the complainant using the casteist slur "Mangtyano," beat him with an iron rod, and threatened...

A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines

29Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines

This Supreme Court judgment holds that its extraordinary power under Article 32 of the Constitution can be invoked to reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases that have attained finality. This is permissible to remedy a clear breach of the procedural safeguards for individualized sentencing mandated in Manoj v. State of M.P., which are integral to the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The Court clarified that such judicial declarations operate retrospectively. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the petitioner, Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2008 kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old girl in Nagpur. His conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court in 2012 and ultimately upheld by the Supr...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant's house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform thei...

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges

The Supreme Court, while dismissing appeals against bail grant and refusal under the UAPA, emphasized the prima facie test for bail under the stringent Act. It declined to interfere with the High Court's reasoned analysis of the chargesheet evidence, distinguishing the roles of the accused. The Court underscored the right to a speedy trial, directing the conclusion of proceedings within two years due to the accused's prolonged incarceration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in January 2020 against 17 individuals, including Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), for alleged conspiracy under the IPC and various offences under the UAPA and Arms Act. The allegations involved connections with terrorist activities and organisations. The inves...

Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge

19Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge

The Supreme Court reiterated that to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a proximate act of instigation by the accused, which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without positive action intended to push the victim toward suicide, are insufficient to sustain the charge. The absence of a live link between the alleged acts and the suicide warranted quashing of the FIR. Facts Of The Case: A seven-term independent Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22 February 2021, leaving behind a suicide note. In the note, he named several officials from the administration and police of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, accusing them of conspiring to defame, degrade, and demean him to end his political caree...

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

18Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...