Justice Pardiwala - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...

Supreme Court Settles the Law: A Person Not Named in Police Report Can Still Be Summoned to Face Trial

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles the Law: A Person Not Named in Police Report Can Still Be Summoned to Face Trial

The Supreme Court held that under Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court is empowered to summon additional accused persons not named in the police report upon committal of a case, as cognizance is taken of the offence—not the offender—and such power is incidental to the court’s original jurisdiction post-committal. This does not amount to taking "fresh cognizance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Shivali, Kanpur Dehat, concerning the murder and rape of a woman. The initial investigation named one Ajay as the suspect. However, during the probe, the petitioner's name surfaced based on witness statements and an alleged extra-judicial confession. Despite this, the Crime Branch gave the petitioner a clean chit, and a chargesheet was filed solely agai...

Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice

8Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It mandated accessible prison infrastructure, reasonable accommodations, and healthcare for disabled inmates, while emphasizing state accountability under UNCRPD obligations. The Court also reinforced compensation for rights violations and directed systemic reforms, including training for prison staff and periodic audits to ensure compliance with disability-inclusive standards. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy (80% disability) and autism, was falsely implicated in a criminal case at the behest of his paternal uncle. Based on a fa...

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire

7Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which mandates lawyers to inform the court about a party's death, prevents the opposing side from claiming abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court emphasized that no party can benefit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria). It clarified that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration, highlighting the distinction between joint and indivisible decrees in abatement cases. The judgment reinforces the duty of pleaders to ensure fair litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed by the appellants (Binod Pathak & others) before the Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, ...