Justice Aravind Kumar - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that allowances forming part of a deceased's salary, if used for family support, must be included in income computation for motor accident compensation. It applies established principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi to include future prospects and awards consortium as per Magma General Insurance, ensuring just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Facts Of The Case: On February 16, 2009, Lokender Kumar died in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Santro car on the Sohna-Gurgaon Road. His widow and two minor children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Gurgaon, seeking Rs. 25 lakhs in compensation. The Tribunal, considering his basic salary of Rs. 3,665 per month and applying a multip...

Betrayal of Trust is Demonic: Supreme Court’s Powerful Stand on Incest & POCSO Act Upholds Life Term for Father Who Raped Minor Daughter

29Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Betrayal of Trust is Demonic: Supreme Court’s Powerful Stand on Incest & POCSO Act Upholds Life Term for Father Who Raped Minor Daughter

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under POCSO Act Section 6 and IPC Section 506, affirming the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29. It emphasized that a child victim's credible testimony requires no corroboration and denied bail, highlighting the severity of familial sexual abuse and the imperative for stringent punishment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellant, Bhanei Prasad @ Raju, who was convicted for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his own minor daughter. The victim was approximately ten years old at the time of the incidents, which were not isolated but constituted sustained assaults within the family home. The prosecution case was built primarily on the unwavering and credible oral testimony of the victim (PW-3), ...

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence: Daughter’s Testimony Convicts Father in Wife’s Murder

26Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence: Daughter’s Testimony Convicts Father in Wife’s Murder

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming the reliability of a child witness. It ruled that the accused's mere denial under Section 313 CrPC was insufficient to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances of his wife's death within their home. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the murder of Smt. Ranjana by her husband, the accused-appellant Manohar Keshavora Khandate, within their home in Amravati. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of their nine-year-old daughter (PW-3). She testified that on the night of the incident, she was sleeping beside her mother when she was awakened by a commotion. She found her father sitting nearby her mother, whose body was covered with a chaddar. The...

Can’t Reopen Closed Cases Without New Proof: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling for Sportspersons

23Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can’t Reopen Closed Cases Without New Proof: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling for Sportspersons

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling the allegations of forgery and cheating did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 468, or 471 IPC. It held that continuing the prosecution, after prior exoneration by competent authorities without new evidence, constituted a clear abuse of the legal process. Facts Of The Case: In 2022, a private complaint was filed by Nagaraja M.G. alleging that badminton players Chirag Sen and Lakshya Sen, their parents, and their coach, Vimal Kumar, had conspired to falsify the players’ dates of birth to gain illegal entry into age-restricted tournaments. The complaint was based primarily on an alleged 1996 GPF nomination form. Following a magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Bengaluru Police registered an FIR for offences ...

Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case

7Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-1) and documentary evidence (FIR, charge sheet) while relying on an unproven police statement (Ex-D1). It reinstated the MACT's compensation award, ruling that the insurer failed to disprove negligence by the offending vehicle's driver under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Court emphasized that non-examination of additional witnesses or delayed reporting was not fatal to the claim. Compensation of ₹12.43 lakhs was upheld, with 85% apportioned to the deceased's wife. Facts Of The Case: On September 24, 2021, Nathuram Ahirwar was riding a motorcycle with his wife (PW-1) as a pillion rider when their vehicle was allegedly hit from behind by a mini-truck (APE pickup) bearing registration MP 04...

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims

5Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims

The Supreme Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proof of negligence is not required for claiming compensation, as the provision operates on a structured formula basis. The Court emphasized that compensation must be computed as per the Second Schedule of the Act, excluding non-scheduled heads like loss of love and affection. It ruled that the deceased, being a third party to the offending vehicle, entitled the claimants to compensation, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The judgment clarified that Section 163A has an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act, ensuring expedited compensation without fault liability adjudication. Facts Of The Case: On the night of November 15, 2006, Surender Singh was driving a tr...