Tag: Justice Sanjay Karol

Nomination vs. Succession: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Gets GPF Funds After Death
3Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Nomination vs. Succession: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Gets GPF Funds After Death

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a nomination under the General Provident Fund Rules only authorizes receipt of funds and does not confer absolute title. When a nomination becomes invalid due to the subscriber acquiring a family, the amount must be distributed equally among all eligible family members, regardless of any unmodified nomination. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from the death of Bolla Mohan, a government employee who died in service on July 4, 2021. Upon joining service in 2000, the deceased had nominated his mother, B. Suguna (respondent No. 1), as the recipient of his General Provident Fund (GPF), Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEIS), and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). However, on June 20, 2003, he married Bolla Malathi (the app...
Read More
Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of Dowry Case, Reiterates Limits of High Court’s Power
21Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of Dowry Case, Reiterates Limits of High Court’s Power

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a "mini-trial" on the credibility of allegations. The power to quash an FIR is to be exercised sparingly and only when allegations, taken at face value, disclose no cognizable offence. The existence of prima facie allegations necessitates permitting the investigation to proceed. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Muskan, married respondent No. 1, Ishaan Khan, on 20.11.2020. After five to six months of marriage, she alleged that her husband and his family (respondents 1 to 5) began harassing and taunting her for insufficient dowry. Specific incidents included being slapped by her brother-in-law on 22.07.2021 and, on 27.11.2022, her husband demanding Rs. 50 lakhs from h...
Read More
Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts
20Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts

The Supreme Court held that the application of a "split multiplier" in motor accident compensation cases is impermissible. Relying on the structured formula from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court ruled that compensation must be calculated using a single multiplier based solely on the victim's age, as superannuation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a deviation from this settled method. Facts Of The Case: On 3rd August 2012, T.I. Krishnan, aged 51, died in a road accident on the Pala-Thodupuzha Road when his car was hit by a rashly driven bus. His surviving family—his wife and children—filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pala, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, in April 2014, awarded approximately ₹44 lakhs, determining...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forgin...
Read More
Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused appellant, holding that no prima facie case was established under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court ruled that mere subsequent purchase of property from a co-accused, without allegation of inducement or involvement in the initial fraudulent transaction, does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha in October 2022 against Gunasekaran (Accused No. 1) for offences under Section 420 of the IPC. She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently represented himself as the owner of a vacant plot, inducing her into an unregistered sale agreement for ₹1.64 crore. She paid substantial sums totaling ₹92 lakhs ...
Read More
Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the use of "artificial means" for electricity theft under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is necessary to invoke the statutory presumption against the consumer. The evidence was deemed insufficient, speculative, and not beyond reasonable doubt to establish offences under Sections 39 or 44. Facts Of The Case: Officials from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) detected a 36.6% discrepancy between supplied units and meter readings at M/s. Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. in March 1993. An inspection revealed three holes in the company's meter box. The prosecution alleged that unauthorized wires were inserted through these holes to slow the meter and steal electricity, ca...
Read More
False Promise of Marriage” or Vengeance? Supreme Court Weighs In on Key Legal Issue
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

False Promise of Marriage” or Vengeance? Supreme Court Weighs In on Key Legal Issue

The Supreme Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, quashed the FIR and chargesheet. It ruled that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and initiated with an ulterior motive for vengeance after prior complaints against the complainant constitute a clear abuse of the legal process. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellant, Surendra Khawse, and the complainant, who were colleagues at a municipal corporation. Their friendly relationship progressed into a consensual physical intimacy. The complainant, who was previously married and had a son, alleged that the appellant had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions between March 15 and April 10, 2023, based on a false promise of marriage. She claimed that when she later i...
Read More
International Child Custody Battle Leads to Supreme Court Quashing Dowry Harassment FIR
9Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

International Child Custody Battle Leads to Supreme Court Quashing Dowry Harassment FIR

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, invoking its powers under Article 136 and endorsing the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It ruled that a criminal complaint, if found to be a malicious and retaliatory measure to settle scores, constitutes an abuse of the legal process. The Court applied the principles from the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to halt proceedings that were initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Nitin Ahluwalia, an Australian citizen, and the respondent, Tina Khanna, an Austrian citizen, were married in India in November 2010 and began their matrimonial life in Australia. In June 2013, the respondent unilaterally left the matrimonial home and took their ...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal defamation proceedings against the bank officials. It held that for offences under the Indian Penal Code, there is no concept of vicarious liability. Prosecuting officers without arraigning the company as an accused and without specific allegations of their culpable role is impermissible and an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a loan default by Phoenix India, which had secured credit facilities from the Bank of Baroda. After the firm's account was classified as a non-performing asset, the Bank initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act. A critical error occurred when the Bank issued a symbolic possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, which inadvertently quoted the outstanding dues as approximately Rs. 56.15 cro...
Read More