Tag: Judicial Discretion

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC

The Supreme Court held that entries in a company’s balance sheet, when read in the context of surrounding circumstances and previous financial statements, can constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The Court clarified that the exclusion period under its COVID-19 limitation order applied from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the application timely. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., extended a term loan of ₹30 crores to the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., on 27.02.2015, secured by a pledge of shares. The respondent's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.03.2018. The appellant fi...
Read More
Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court, holding that such relief is an "extraordinary remedy" and must not be granted routinely, especially in grave offences. The Court emphasized that concealing material facts (like a vacated injunction order) and witness intimidation vitiate bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary due to the accused's non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, violating bail conditions. The ruling reaffirmed strict judicial scrutiny under Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) to prevent miscarriage of justice[ Facts Of The Case: The case involves a property dispute between Nikita Jagganath Shetty (the appellant) and her estranged husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav (respondent No. 4), along with other co-accused. Nikit...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's cancellation of allotment due to the respondent's chronic default in payment over decades. The Court emphasized that public property must be managed transparently and in the public interest, rejecting the respondent's claims. It ruled that prolonged non-payment justified eviction, denying further indulgence and ordering possession to be surrendered within four months. The judgment reinforced that contractual obligations must be honored and that courts cannot indefinitely protect defaulters at the cost of public welfare. Facts Of The Case: In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board auctioned a prime commercial plot in Chennai, with S. Ganesan emerging as the highest bidder at ₹4,78,921. Despite the Board's acceptance of his bid, Gan...
Read More
Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, ruling that courts are not restricted to the factors listed in clauses (a) to (f) for imposing sentences higher than the minimum. The judgment affirmed that judicial discretion allows consideration of additional relevant factors, such as the quantity of contraband, to justify enhanced punishment. It overturned the High Court’s erroneous view that special reasons under Section 32-B were mandatory for exceeding the minimum sentence. The decision reinforces that sentencing flexibility under the NDPS Act remains broad, subject only to reasonableness and relevance of the factors considered. Facts Of The Case: In September 2018, the police in Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, received information that Narayan Das and anothe...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court clarified the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it can be invoked based on evidence collected during trial, even if the person was not charge-sheeted. The Court held that the standard for summoning an additional accused is stricter than a prima facie case but does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must show strong complicity, and the power should be exercised sparingly to ensure fairness. The Court restored the Trial Court's summoning order, underscoring that the High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at this stage. The judgment reaffirmed that the provision aims to prevent the guilty from escaping justice. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 29th November 2017, w...
Read More
Motive vs. Reform : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Despite ‘Beastly’ Murders
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Motive vs. Reform : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Despite ‘Beastly’ Murders

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the brutal murder of five family members, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. While acknowledging the crime's heinous nature, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, citing mitigating factors such as the appellant's potential for reformation, lack of criminal antecedents, and satisfactory prison conduct. The judgment emphasized adherence to the "rarest of rare" doctrine and the necessity of comprehensive sentencing considerations, including psychological and social background reports, as outlined in Bachan Singh and Manoj v. State of M.P.. The Court balanced the gravity of the offense with the principle of reformative justice. Facts Of The Case: The ...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 for Unhappy Couple
11Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 for Unhappy Couple

The Supreme Court granted divorce under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, citing 16 years of separation and failed reconciliation. It upheld the husband’s acquittal in a false cruelty case (IPC 498A) and enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000/month for the wife and child, prioritizing dignity over a defunct marital bond. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between Pradeep Bhardwaj (appellant-husband) and Priya (respondent-wife) was solemnized on 7 May 2008 in Delhi under Hindu rites. A son was born in 2009, who remained in the wife’s custody. The couple separated in October 2009, just over a year after marriage, and had been living apart for 16 years by the time of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The husband filed for divorce in 2010 under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?

The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings—including a non-compoundable offense under Section 376 IPC—based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court emphasized that while such offenses are grave, exceptional circumstances (victim’s unequivocal settlement, societal harmony, and futility of trial) justified judicial intervention to prevent abuse of process. The ruling reaffirms that ends of justice override rigid legal constraints in unique cases. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from two FIRs registered in November 2023 at Mehunbare Police Station, Jalgaon. The first FIR (No. 302/2023) was filed against Madhukar and others under Sections 324, 143, 147, 452, and others of the IPC, alleging they assaulted a woman a...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Oriss...
Read More