Justice Masih - 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: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies

18Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies

The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a plea of estoppel against law after its own conduct induced the other party to alter its position to its detriment. The doctrine of election and estoppel by conduct precludes a party from approbating and reprobating, thereby preventing it from challenging the validity of a compromise decree it had previously accepted. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, claiming the appellants had been removed as trustees, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain them from entering a school run by Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit was barred by Section 92 CPC. During the pendency of the respondents' appeal against this order, the parties mutually appointed a sol...

Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned

26Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned

The Supreme Court held that an investigation is not automatically vitiated solely because the informant and investigator are the same. This procedural irregularity must be examined on a case-specific basis for bias. The Court overruled the contrary precedent in Mohan Lal and restored the matter for a merits-based hearing. Facts Of The Case: Based on the secret information received on September 20, 2009, police intercepted a truck. The respondent, Gurnam @ Gama, was found sitting on a stack of bags in the cargo area, while the other respondent, Jaswinder Singh, was driving the vehicle. Upon search, the authorities recovered a significant quantity of 750 kilograms of poppy husk along with two motorcycles. Consequently, FIR No. 221 of 2009 was registered under the relevant sections of the N...

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...

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...