Tag: Judicial Precedent

CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales

The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC bars judgment debtors from challenging an execution sale on grounds they could have raised before the sale proclamation was drawn up. Failure to object to the sale of an entire property, rather than a sufficient part, at the appropriate stage precludes a subsequent challenge under Order XXI Rule 90. Facts Of The Case: In 1995, decree-holder Rasheeda Yasin filed a suit for recovery of ₹3.75 lakhs against Komala Ammal and her son K.J. Prakash Kumar. An ex-parte decree was passed in 1997. Execution proceedings began in 1998 to attach and sell the judgment debtors' property—a house and site in Chennai. After multiple unsuccessful auctions due to high upset prices, the court, upon the decree-holder's applications, progressively reduced the ...
Read More
Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in appeals challenging eviction orders under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Appellate Authority is not required to mandatorily re-initiate the entire Section 12 procedure. The deposit of admitted arrears, as determined by the Rent Controller, is a precondition to contest the appeal, unless supervening events warrant a fresh application. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landlords who filed eviction petitions against the respondent-tenant for two shops in Kochi, alleging non-payment of rent since early 2020. The Rent Controller, relying on a prior money decree for arrears, passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, directing the tenant to pay substantial outstanding and future rents. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, e...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the suit, affirming that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a threshold scrutiny. Contentions regarding cause of action, limitation, and res judicata are mixed questions requiring a full trial, not adjudication at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No.26246 of 2023) filed by the respondents (Archbishop of Bangalore & Others) against the appellant, C.M. Meenakshi, and others. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of absolute ownership over a scheduled property in Bangalore, cancellation of two sale deeds from 2014 and 2020, and permanent injunctions to prevent any alteration or alienation of the property. During the suit's pendency, defendants 1 to 8 f...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains: How Legal Representatives Must Be Heard Before Estate Is Attached
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains: How Legal Representatives Must Be Heard Before Estate Is Attached

The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, limiting judicial interference. Letters Patent Appeals against execution orders under the Act are not maintainable. It mandated the issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the CPC to legal representatives as a jurisdictional prerequisite before proceeding against a deceased judgment debtor's estate. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from an arbitral award dated 12.07.2010, passed in favour of the appellant, Bharat Kantilal Dalal, against his late father concerning family assets. After the father's death, the appellant sought to execute the award against his uncle (the father's brother), who was the sole beneficiary and executor under the father's Will. The uncle, along with other respondents, res...
Read More
Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...
Read More
Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

The Supreme Court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution, as the standards of proof and purpose differ. However, it remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity of the prosecution sanction, emphasizing that sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, T. Manjunath, a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Bengaluru, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 through an intermediary. Following a trap by the Lokayukta, a criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Transport Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution, and a chargesheet was filed. The appellant sought dischar...
Read More
Clarity in Tender Documents is Key: Supreme Court Quashes Bid Rejection Over Ambiguous Term
16Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Clarity in Tender Documents is Key: Supreme Court Quashes Bid Rejection Over Ambiguous Term

The Supreme Court held that a tender condition must be explicitly stated. The rejection of a bid for not submitting a solvency certificate from a District Magistrate was invalid, as the tender notice did not specify this requirement. Authorities cannot reject a bid on grounds not stated in the tender documents. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a tender floated by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (Mandi Parishad) to lease a banquet hall and terrace lawn for ten years. The appellant, Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd., submitted its bid alongside other parties, including the fifth respondent, who emerged as the successful bidder. The Mandi Parishad rejected the appellant's technical bid on a specific ground: the 'haisiyat praman patra' (solvency certificate) it submitted was issued b...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the date of civil death is legally presumed to be after seven years from disappearance, not the date they went missing, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A court decree declaring death merely recognizes this presumption without fixing an earlier date. This legal presumption is central to claims dependent on establishing the date of death. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral ben...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the legal principle regarding multiple dying declarations. The Supreme Court held that each declaration must be assessed independently for evidentiary value. It ruled that the first, corroborated dying declaration recorded by an independent witness (a doctor) was reliable, and minor discrepancies in subsequent versions did not invalidate it, justifying the High Court's reversal of the acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The prosecution's case was that the appellant, Jemaben, conspired with a co-accused to kill Leelaben and her son, Ganesh. On the intervening night of November 29-30, 2004, while the victims were sleeping in their hut, Jemaben poured kerosene on Leelaben and set her on fire. Leelaben suffered severe burns and succumbed to her injuries on...
Read More