Tag: Justice Manoj Misra

Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity

The Supreme Court held that a company purchasing software to automate and streamline its core, profit-generating business operations does so for a "commercial purpose" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, it does not qualify as a "consumer" and cannot maintain a complaint before a consumer forum for alleged deficiency in such services. Facts Of The Case: M/s Poly Medicure Ltd., the appellant, is a company engaged in the import and export of medical devices. To implement an export/import documentation system at its plant, it purchased a product license for the "Brillio Opti Suite" software from M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. After making the requisite payment, the appellant alleged the software was defective and non-functional. Cla...
Read More
Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Claim Can’t Be Denied Based on Age of Equipment

The Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim merely by invoking an exclusion clause for wear and tear. The burden lies on the insurer to prove material non-disclosure, fraud, or that the loss was definitively caused by an excluded peril. A valid statutory fitness certificate creates a strong presumption of the equipment's insurable condition, shifting the evidentiary onus onto the insurer. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a sugar mill, held an insurance policy from National Insurance Co. Ltd. covering its boiler. During the policy period in May 2005, an incident occurred causing two boiler tubes to detach. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing Exclusion Clause 5, which excludes losses from wear, corrosion, and gradual deterioration. It relied on a surveyor's ...
Read More
Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, emphasizing that the testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon as a "sterling witness." It held that even if medical evidence is not conclusive, it does not rule out the offence, and consent is immaterial when the victim is below 16 years of age. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2007 against the appellant, Varun Kumar, for offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years. The victim's testimony detailed that she was taken to Una and subsequently to a relative's house, where the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual and unnatural intercourse o...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty

This Supreme Court judgement clarifies that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not mandated to issue a second, separate show-cause notice specifically proposing the penalty. A single notice, which forwards the investigation report alleging contravention and invites a reply, constitutes sufficient compliance with natural justice. The legal scheme envisages a consolidated hearing on both liability and penalty, with the appellate body serving as a check against disproportionate penalties. Facts Of The Case: An information was filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by M/s Crown Theatre against the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) and its office-bearers. The complaint alleged that KFEF, along with its President and General Secretary, engaged in anti-compe...
Read More
Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an arbitral award granting a composite interest rate from the cause of action until the date of repayment, based on a contract between the parties, excludes the default application of separate post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Party autonomy governs, and a decree-holder cannot claim compound interest at the execution stage if it was not stipulated in the contract or awarded by the tribunal, as this would amount to impermissibly modifying the award. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.04.2014 between HLV Limited and PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of land in Hyderabad. PBSAMP paid an advance of Rs. 15.5 crores to HLV. After...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that a unilateral arbitration clause granting one party the sole power to appoint an arbitrator is invalid. Following the Constitution Bench in CORE, the Court held that an ineligible person (such as a Managing Director) cannot nominate a sole arbitrator, as it raises justifiable doubts regarding impartiality under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed petitions before the Delhi High Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to terminate the mandate of a sole arbitrator. This arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to Clause 9.03...
Read More
Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Cen...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, a court's role is prima facie confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. All other contentious issues, including allegations of serious fraud and non-arbitrability, are jurisdictional matters that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, entered into agreements with various rice millers for the custom milling of paddy procured from farmers. The agreements contained an arbitration clause. When the millers allegedly failed to deliver the stipulated quantity of rice, the Corporation initiated recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The millers challe...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds National Fraternity: Teaching Experience Across India Counts
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds National Fraternity: Teaching Experience Across India Counts

The Supreme Court held that a government notification extending the retirement age must be interpreted purposively, and a condition requiring "10 years of teaching experience in any State-aided university" includes experience from universities outside the state. Excluding such experience was found to be an arbitrary and discriminatory classification violating the right to equality under Article 14. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was initially appointed as a teacher in a government college in Assam in 1991, where he served for 16 years. In 2007, he was selected for a non-teaching post at Burdwan University, West Bengal, based on his qualifications and experience, and was later promoted in 2012. In 2021, the State of West Bengal issued a notification increasing the retirement age from 60...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...
Read More