Tag: Justice Abhay Oka

Supreme Court Orders Digital Portal & Patrol Teams to Curb Illegal Occupations on National Highways
5Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Digital Portal & Patrol Teams to Curb Illegal Occupations on National Highways

The Supreme Court issued directives under Article 32 to strengthen implementation of the Control of National Highways Act, 2002, emphasizing statutory obligations to prevent highway encroachments. It mandated grievance redressal mechanisms (portal/toll-free number), regular inspections, and surveillance teams while underscoring the Highway Administration's duty to enforce Section 26 (removal of unauthorized occupation). The judgment established procedural safeguards for encroachment removal and ordered Standard Operating Procedures for transparency, affirming judicial oversight through continuing mandamus to ensure compliance with road safety norms. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition was filed by Gyan Prakash under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighting alarming road fatalities (...
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle
5Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle

The Supreme Court partially allowed the civil appeal, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision but directing reconsideration of the appellant's 'Z' grading in the 2001 promotion board. The Court affirmed the Chief of Army Staff's discretionary authority under Defence Services Regulations to modify Selection Board recommendations, while emphasizing fair reconsideration of the appellant's case within three months. The judgment clarified that promotions in the Territorial Army remain subject to the Army's hierarchical decision-making process, balancing institutional autonomy with individual rights to equitable evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.), who challenged his non-promotion to Colonel rank despite 22 years of service in the Territorial Army. ...
Read More
Tender Scam Verdict: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Forgery & Corruption in Govt Tenders
3Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tender Scam Verdict: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Forgery & Corruption in Govt Tenders

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 468 IPC (forgery for cheating) against the appellant, a PWD engineer, for allegedly manipulating tender documents. However, it quashed charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, holding no evidence of 'criminal misconduct' or pecuniary advantage. The Court clarified that discharge pleas require examining only prima facie evidence in the chargesheet, without assessing credibility at this stage. The ruling reaffirms the distinction between procedural irregularities and corrupt intent under anti-corruption laws Facts Of The Case: The case involved K.H. Kamaladini, an Executive Engineer in Goa's Public Works Department, accused of manipulating 19 short tender notices for 847...
Read More
No Double Benefits: Supreme Court Clarifies Double Deduction Rules Under Income Tax Act
3Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Double Benefits: Supreme Court Clarifies Double Deduction Rules Under Income Tax Act

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 80-IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bars double deductions on the same profits under both Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC. It held that while deductions can be computed separately under different provisions, the total deduction cannot exceed the eligible profits of the business. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation, clarifying that Section 80-IA(9) restricts the allowability—not computation—of deductions, ensuring taxpayers do not claim overlapping benefits under Chapter VI-A. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Shital Fibers Limited, which filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2002-03, declaring a taxable income of ₹46,99,293 and claiming deductions under Sections 80-HHC (export profits) and 80-IA (industrial undertaking...
Read More
Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that the appellant (a 1976 appointee) was validly redesignated from Junior Field Officer (Group B) to Carpet Training Officer (Group C) in 1978, and subsequent regularization in 2006 as CTO didn't entitle him to Handicrafts Promotion Officer status or its promotion channel. The Court ruled that cadre classification and scheme-specific redesignation were within the government's administrative discretion, and the appellant's acceptance of earlier CAT orders (without challenging the CTO designation) precluded belated claims for HPO benefits under Article 14 Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rampat Azad, was appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO - Group B) in 1976 at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, Varanasi, under the All-India Handicr...
Read More
Technical Flaws Sink Conviction: Supreme Court Rules Bank Fraud Trial Violated Accused Rights
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Technical Flaws Sink Conviction: Supreme Court Rules Bank Fraud Trial Violated Accused Rights

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that (1) Appellant No. 3's juvenility under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 invalidated his conviction, and (2) the trial court's failure to properly examine all appellants under Section 313 CrPC – by not putting material incriminating evidence to them – vitiated the trial, causing irreversible prejudice given the 40-year case delay. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a 1982-83 bank fraud where accused persons, including appellants Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and his two sons Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal, allegedly conspired with SBI branch manager Ajay Kumar Srivastava (since deceased) to fraudulently obtain ₹13.29 lakh using fake transport receipts from their non-existent firm 'Rohtas Carriers'. The CBI registere...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruled that arbitral tribunals have the power to award compound interest (interest on interest) under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It clarified that the "sum awarded" includes both principal and pre-award interest, and post-award interest can be calculated on this total amount. The judgment overruled earlier contrary interpretations, affirming arbitrators' discretion in interest calculations unless expressly barred by contract. The Court emphasized this aligns with the compensatory purpose of arbitration awards for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Interstate Construction (appellant) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (respondent) regarding construction work for Ramagundam Super Therma...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Chhattisgarh Murder Case : “Eyewitness Failures Lead to Acquittal”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Chhattisgarh Murder Case : “Eyewitness Failures Lead to Acquittal”

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a double murder case, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that eyewitnesses must identify accused in court and link them to specific roles, noting material omissions and contradictions in testimonies. It reinforced Section 162 CrPC standards for reliable evidence, overturning concurrent convictions due to fatal investigative lapses. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a violent incident on March 24, 2001, in Masturi, Chhattisgarh, where nine accused armed with swords, lathis, and poleaxes allegedly attacked a medical shop, killing Manrakhan Singh and Narayan Singh and injuring five others, including family members of the deceased. The prosecution claimed the attack stemmed from a pr...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privity of contract, ruling that Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) was solely liable for transmission bay costs under its agreement with HP Power Transmission Corporation (HPPTC), despite internal arrangements with third parties. The Court held that non-signatories (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) could not be bound by the contract, reversing APTEL’s order. The judgment reaffirmed that contractual obligations apply only to parties to the agreement, unless explicitly extended. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC) and M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) over the liability for construction and maintenance costs of a 66kV power transmission bay at Urni, Himachal Pradesh. BHP, along with two other power com...
Read More