Tag: Judicial Precedent

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...
Read More
Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that pension and retiral dues are a statutory right, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld by the employer. The Court held that non-vacation of a government residence is not a valid justification for withholding such dues, as the right to pension is distinct from the right to occupation of service accommodation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, a state government employee since 1980, superannuated on 30th June 2013, but his pension and retiral dues were not sanctioned or paid. Subsequently, the appellant department passed an order quashing his earlier pay revision and refixing his salary to a lower scale. This refixation was challenged and later withdrawn by the department, but the retiral dues remained unpaid, ostensibly because the respondent had ...
Read More
False Promise of Marriage” or Vengeance? Supreme Court Weighs In on Key Legal Issue
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

False Promise of Marriage” or Vengeance? Supreme Court Weighs In on Key Legal Issue

The Supreme Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, quashed the FIR and chargesheet. It ruled that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and initiated with an ulterior motive for vengeance after prior complaints against the complainant constitute a clear abuse of the legal process. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellant, Surendra Khawse, and the complainant, who were colleagues at a municipal corporation. Their friendly relationship progressed into a consensual physical intimacy. The complainant, who was previously married and had a son, alleged that the appellant had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions between March 15 and April 10, 2023, based on a false promise of marriage. She claimed that when she later i...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects “Cryptic” Acquittal, Orders Fresh Hearing in 2002 Murder Case
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects “Cryptic” Acquittal, Orders Fresh Hearing in 2002 Murder Case

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment of acquittal for being cryptic and lacking reasoning. It reiterated that a first appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and provide a reasoned order, demonstrating application of mind. The case was remanded for a fresh hearing on merits, without expressing any opinion on the case's substance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Sessions Court judgment dated 04.06.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2003, which convicted the accused persons for offenses stemming from an incident in 2002. The Sessions Court sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2, Anil and Imran, to life imprisonment, while accused Nos. 3 and 4, Wasif and Pappu, were sentenced to one year of imprisonment along with a fine. The convicted accused appealed this dec...
Read More
Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith
6Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the extensive authority of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Karta to alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity. The Supreme Court clarified that expenses from a daughter's marriage, even if incurred years prior, can create a financial necessity justifying a subsequent sale. The alienee discharges their burden by establishing a nexus to such necessity, and is not required to prove how the sale consideration was distributed amongst coparceners, as that lies within their special knowledge. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a piece of ancestral land belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), with the father as its Karta. The plaintiff, one of the sons, sued his father and brothers after the Karta sold the suit land to the appell...
Read More
You Can’t Be Convicted Under a Law That Didn’t Exist: Supreme Court Corrects Legal Error in Decades-Old Case
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

You Can’t Be Convicted Under a Law That Didn’t Exist: Supreme Court Corrects Legal Error in Decades-Old Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 195-A IPC, holding it unconstitutional for being applied retroactively, violating Article 20(1). However, it upheld the conviction under Section 506-B IPC for criminal intimidation. The Court directed the State to reconsider the deceased appellant's termination and terminal benefits, considering only the surviving conviction. Facts Of The Case: In 1999, a minor girl, who was a witness in a molestation case, set herself ablaze and subsequently died. Before her death, she alleged in a dying declaration that Sheikh Akhtar, a court official (Naib Nazir), and three others had threatened to kill her and her father if she did not compromise her court testimony. Based on this, Akhtar was convicted in 2007 by a Se...
Read More
Supreme Court :You Can’t Escape a Murder Charge Just Because the Victim Lived for Months
4Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :You Can’t Escape a Murder Charge Just Because the Victim Lived for Months

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a time gap between the infliction of an injury and death does not automatically reduce the offence from murder to attempt to murder. If the original injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, subsequent complications like septicemia do not break the chain of causation. The offence remains punishable under Section 302 IPC, rendering Section 307 inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a violent incident on February 22, 2022, in which the appellant, Maniklal Sahu, along with three co-accused, trespassed into the house of Rekhchand Verma. They dragged the victim to the terrace of his house and flung him down. After the fall, the accused further assaulted the injured Rekhchand with sticks and fists. The v...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category

The Supreme Court held that reserved category candidates who avail age relaxation are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules expressly prohibit it. The Court distinguished earlier precedents, ruling that such an embargo does not violate equality, as the right to be considered for general category posts depends on the specific rules of the recruitment process in question. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive for Constable (GD) in various Central Armed Police Forces. The employment notification prescribed an age limit of 18-23 years, with a 3-year relaxation for OBC candidates. The respondents, OBC candidates, availed this age relaxation to participate in the selection process. However, they were not selected in the OBC c...
Read More
Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of a time-barred review petition. It affirmed the legal principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate"—they cannot accept a benefit under an order and later challenge it. A party who voluntarily accepts compensation with full knowledge is bound by their conduct and cannot subsequently resile from it. Facts Of The Case: In a motor accident claim case concerning the death of Priyank Chand, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of approximately Rs. 11.82 lakh to his legal heirs: his mother (Urmila Chand, the appellant), his wife (Sonu Chand), and his two minor children. Upon a joint application filed by all claimants, including Urmila, the Tribunal passed a disbursement order on 21.04.2015. As...
Read More
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...
Read More