Tag: Justice Sandeep Mehta

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence
14Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence

The Supreme Court held that a defective Section 313 CrPC statement, with only generic questions failing to put specific incriminating circumstances, causes grave prejudice and vitiates trial. Non-examination of a material Investigating Officer attracts adverse inference. Subsequent FIR superseding the original constitutes an embellished statement under Section 161 CrPC. Defence witnesses carry equal evidentiary value to prosecution witnesses. Facts Of The Case: On 11th May 1990, Gajendra Prasad Gupta was assaulted and fatally injured while returning from a village fair. His father, Rameshwar Sahu, initially gave a Fardbeyan on 12th May 1990 before ASI R. Paswan, which was treated as FIR. This statement described an altercation at the sweet stall and a subsequent attack by three uni...
Read More
Supreme Court Takes Charge: Major Order to Save Rajasthan’s Polluted Rivers
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Takes Charge: Major Order to Save Rajasthan’s Polluted Rivers

The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses a pollution-free environment. Criticizing prolonged state inaction, the Court modified an interim stay on NGT orders to allow enforcement of remedial measures. It constituted a High-Level Oversight Committee to ensure time-bound implementation, underscoring the constitutional duty to protect public health and ecology. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from severe and long-standing industrial and sewage pollution in the Jojari, Bandi, and Luni river system in Rajasthan, endangering the health and livelihoods of nearly two million people. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance in September 2025 based on a documentary highlighting the crisis. This matter was clubbed with several pending civil appeals aga...
Read More
A Landmark Ruling on Fair Trials: Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Video Conferencing and Witness Confrontation
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

A Landmark Ruling on Fair Trials: Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Video Conferencing and Witness Confrontation

The Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant, primarily on the ground that the dock identification of the accused by the sole injured eyewitness, recorded via video conferencing after an inordinate delay of over eight years, was deemed unsafe and unreliable. The Court found the testimony suffered from material improvements and inconsistencies, and the recoveries were not conclusively linked to the crime. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: In the intervening night of 2nd/3rd November 2008, five assailants broke into the Delhi residence of Madan Mohan Gulati and his wife, Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18). The intruders assaulted the elderly couple, resulting in Madan Mohan's death and serious injuries to Indra Prabha. The poli...
Read More
Supreme Court: Amicable Settlement Leads to Full Quashing of FIR, Including Dacoity Charge
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Amicable Settlement Leads to Full Quashing of FIR, Including Dacoity Charge

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for dacoity (BNS S. 310(2)/IPC S. 395) as the alleged acts lacked dishonest intention for theft/robbery—a prerequisite for dacoity. The Court held that subsequent full restitution and amicable settlement with the complainant negated the core criminal intent, rendering the entire prosecution unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, a school clerk, alleged that on October 4, 2024, six to seven unknown persons entered P.G. Public School in Nandurbar. They demanded specific Engineering and B.A.M.S. files, assaulted and intimidated staff, and forcibly took a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, cash (Rs. 1,50,000), and a computer. The accused were allegedly searching for institutional documents, and the taking of property was incidental. Subsequen...
Read More
Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...
Read More
From Legal Dead End to Fresh Hope: Supreme Court’s Blueprint for Stalled Housing Projects
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

From Legal Dead End to Fresh Hope: Supreme Court’s Blueprint for Stalled Housing Projects

The Supreme Court constituted a one-judge committee under a retired High Court Judge to investigate and resolve the complex issues surrounding the stalled housing project. The committee will verify genuine allottees, devise a mechanism for partial lease restoration with GNIDA, determine proportional dues, and formulate a comprehensive plan for the project's completion. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti (GCSAS) was allotted land in Greater Noida for a group housing project. The Samiti engaged a private developer, M/s Shiv Kala Developers, to build a luxury complex named "Shiv Kala Charms." Prospective homebuyers, including the petitioners, booked flats and availed bank loans, which were disbursed directly to the Samiti. However, the Samiti and develop...
Read More
Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review or recall its own order under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) once it has attained finality. Such power is barred by Section 362 CrPC, which only permits the correction of clerical errors. The Court quashed the impugned orders directing transfer of investigation to the CBI as they amounted to an impermissible review. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman, alleged criminal intimidation, theft, and criminal conspiracy by accused individuals, including a former Revenue Minister. Following his complaint, FIRs were registered. Dissatisfied with the local police investigation, which filed a negative report in one case, he approached the Rajasthan High Court seek...
Read More
Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...
Read More
Supreme Court Grants Virtual Visitation Rights in International Child Custody Case
7Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Grants Virtual Visitation Rights in International Child Custody Case

The Supreme Court, prioritizing the child's welfare as the paramount consideration, granted the appellant-father virtual visitation rights. The Court held that a child has a right to maintain a relationship with both parents, even internationally. It directed regulated video-conferencing sessions to ensure the father remains part of the child's life without disrupting the child's settled custody arrangement with the mother. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a protracted custody dispute between the appellant-father, Manoj Dhankar, and the respondent-mother, Neeharika, over their minor son. The parties separated in 2017, after which the mother left the matrimonial home with the child. Both parties initiated various legal proceedings, including petitions for divorce and custody. Th...
Read More