Justice Gavai - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

20Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...

Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim

The Supreme Court held that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value for caste claims and that the affinity test is not a litmus test. It cannot be the sole basis for rejection, especially given modernization and assimilation. The Court emphasized that such claims must be evaluated primarily on reliable documentary evidence. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, sought admission to a medical college based on a caste certificate claiming he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of Koli Mahadev. His claim was supported by historical documents, including the 1943 school record of his grandfather, which explicitly mentioned the caste as Koli Mahadev. Subsequent school records from 1975 and 1979 for his father and uncle, as well as his own school record...

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...