Tag: Judicial Modification

Supreme Court Modifies Order: Pre-1996 Encroachments on Forest Land Spared from Eviction
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Modifies Order: Pre-1996 Encroachments on Forest Land Spared from Eviction

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order concerning forest land regularization. It declined to exempt small fragmented land parcels from being declared as protected forest but clarified the state could utilize them for purposes under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, following due procedure. The Court also allowed a one-time exemption for pre-December 1996 encroachments on specified categories of land, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from the landmark Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case (W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995), which deals extensively with forest conservation across India. Within this ongoing litigation, an Interim Application (I.A. No.12465/2019) was filed concerning the classification and treatme...
Read More
Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

This Supreme Court order modifies its earlier directions on stray dog management, balancing fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) with the statutory Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The Court clarified that sterilized and immunized dogs must be released back to their localities as per Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, while allowing permanent impounding only for rabid or aggressively dangerous dogs. It issued supplementary directives, including creating designated feeding zones, and expanded the case's scope to all states and union territories for a uniform national policy. Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court's intervention was triggered by a suo motu cognizance of a news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” detailing the death of a six-year-o...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise

The Supreme Court held that self-employed claimants are entitled to future prospects, affirming the principles in Santosh Devi and Pranay Sethi. It further ruled that uncontroverted medical evidence on disability must be accepted in its entirety, and the percentage of disability assessed by the treating doctor cannot be arbitrarily reduced by the Tribunal or High Court without reasoning. Facts Of The Case: On November 19, 2016, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the appellant, Lokesh B, a 38-year-old tailor, was driving his Omni car on the Peenya flyover in Bengaluru. His vehicle collided with a stationary lorry that was allegedly parked in the middle of the flyover without any indicators or reflective warnings. As a result of the collision, Lokesh sustained grievous injuries, including skull f...
Read More
Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties
23Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...
Read More