Tag: Justice Augustine George Masih

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It ruled that mere allegations of caste-based malice were insufficient without concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that prosecution under the Act requires proof of intent linked to the victim's caste, preventing misuse for personal vendettas. Legal infirmities in the complaint and lack of prima facie case justified the quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the appellant, Konde Nageshwar Rao, alleged that Respondent No. 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), manipulated the allotment of plots reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) beneficiaries to upper-caste ind...
Read More
Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...
Read More
Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...
Read More
Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging demand notices for depositing 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). The Court held that Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14. The State Government is empowered under Section 15A to fix the amount payable to the DMF for minor minerals. The Court found the demand consistent with statutory provisions and the 2017 Rules Facts Of The Case: Chandra Bhan Singh, a successful bidder for mining minor minerals (sand), was allotted a tender. In line with the Policy decision dated April 22, 2017, the Appellant was required to deposit an amount of ₹54,12,960/-, representing 10% of the total bid amount of ₹5,41,29,600/-, to the Dis...
Read More
Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months. Facts Of The Case: This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1955 for "Verumpattom Rights" over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for "Jenmam ...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 mandates mandatory consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle. The Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s first-stage advice rendered the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, warranting quashing of the charge sheet. The Court clarified that once the Bank acknowledges a vigilance angle and seeks CVC input, it cannot unilaterally proceed without considering the advice, upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. No back wages were granted, but retiral benefits were ordered to be released. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, a Deputy General Manager at Unio...
Read More
Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice
1Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice

The Supreme Court held that a partner's retirement from a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, requires strict compliance with Section 72—including public notice publication and Registrar of Firms updates—to absolve liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Non-compliance renders retirement legally ineffective. The High Court erred under Section 482 CrPC by deciding factual disputes (e.g., retirement date/liability) prematurely, as these require trial evidence. Signatory status is irrelevant for partner liability under Section 141 NI Act if involvement in firm affairs is alleged. Facts Of The Case: Shivappa Reddy (Appellant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against M/s AVS Constructions (Ac...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years

The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership dispute between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under Karnataka Societies Act) and ISKCON Mumbai (Maharashtra Public Trust) over temple properties. It upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the rightful owner, citing documentary evidence (sale deeds, allotment records) and rejecting claims of fraudulent manipulation. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, emphasizing societies' independent legal status under state registration laws. The judgment clarified that funding sources (even from ISKCON Mumbai) don’t determine ownership, and dismissed ancillary appeals linked to the dispute. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a protracted legal battle between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registrati...
Read More
“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...
Read More