Justice Sanjay Karol - The Legal Chamber

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...

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...

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 ...

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...

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...

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 ...

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...

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Frees Men, Citing Gaps in Circumstantial Case

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Frees Men, Citing Gaps in Circumstantial Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. Key scientific evidence, including DNA reports, was deemed inadmissible due to an unproven chain of custody and procedural flaws. The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: On the evening of September 4, 2012, a 12-year-old girl left her home to answer the call of nature and did not return. Her parents initiated a search throughout the night. The next morning, her denuded body was discovered in a paddy field belonging to Harikrishna Sharma. Her personal belongings, including her slippers, water canister, and underwear, were found scattered in an adjacent field cultivated by the ac...

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the priority of charges between the EPFO, under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and secured creditors, including Axis Bank, under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The core legal issue for fresh adjudication is the conflict between the statutory first charge of EPFO dues and the primacy claimed by secured creditors. Facts Of The Case: M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulted on its Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) dues from July 2013. The EPFO determined a liability and, upon learning the company's properties were to be auctioned by various banks, invoked its priority under the EPF Act. The EPFO specifically asserted a first charge over the 'Attibele property' being auctioned by Axis B...

Supreme Court Says Long-Term Cohabitation Can Prove Valid Marriage for Inheritance Claims: Landmark Ruling

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says Long-Term Cohabitation Can Prove Valid Marriage for Inheritance Claims: Landmark Ruling

This Supreme Court judgment reinforces that under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of a person with special means of knowledge is relevant to prove a familial relationship. It upholds the legal presumption of a valid marriage from long-term cohabitation. The Court also affirmed that a party's failure to enter the witness box, when facts are within their exclusive knowledge, warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g). Revenue records do not confer title but only have fiscal value. Facts Of The Case: The dispute centered on the inheritance rights to the properties of Dasabovi, who had died intestate. The plaintiffs, Venkatappa and Siddamma, claimed to be his legitimate children from his first wife, Bheemakka. They alleged that after their father married a second w...