Tag: Justice Sanjay Karol

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
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...
Read More
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...
Read More
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...
Read More
Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes

The Supreme Court reiterated that bail grant requires a balanced assessment of the nature and gravity of the offence, the prima facie case, and the accused's potential to influence the trial or evade justice. It set aside the High Court's bail order for failing to consider these established parameters, particularly the accused's conduct and the crime's seriousness. Facts Of The Case: The case stems from an FIR registered concerning a violent incident on the intervening night of May 4-5, 2021. The accused, Sushil Kumar, and his associates were alleged to have abducted several individuals from different locations in Delhi and taken them to Chhatrasal Stadium. There, they were violently attacked with wooden sticks and lathis, and gunshots were allegedly fired. One of the abducted in...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles
14Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles

The Supreme Court held that a driver with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can operate a commercial vehicle (gross weight ≤7500 kg) without additional endorsement, affirming Mukund Dewangan. However, the Insurance Company was liable under the "Pay and Recover" principle despite the "Liability Only Policy" excluding gratuitous passengers, citing Baljit Kaur and Pranay Sethi. Compensation was enhanced by 10% under conventional heads. Facts Of The Case: On 27th November 2013, Gokul Prasad, a 32-year-old cloth seller, died in an accident involving a TATA 407 truck (registration No. M.P. 53G/0386) near Kurwaiha Ghati Road. The truck, driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 3, was returning from a weekly market. The deceased’s legal representatives (Appellants) filed a claim under S...
Read More
How a Missing Detail in a Will Led to Its Rejection by the Supreme Court
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

How a Missing Detail in a Will Led to Its Rejection by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that a Will omitting the testator’s wife without justification raises suspicious circumstances, vitiating its validity under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court emphasized that propounders must explain unnatural exclusions to prove the testator’s free will, failing which the Will becomes invalid. Suspicion arises from non-mention of a natural heir (wife) and lack of reasons for disinheritance, shifting the burden to the propounder to dispel doubts. Registration and signatures alone cannot override such irregularities if the disposition appears coerced or influenced. The judgment reaffirms judicial scrutiny of Wills to ensure genuine voluntary execution. Facts Of The Case: Maya Singh owned agricultural ...
Read More
DNA Evidence & Last Seen Theory : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty to Life in Child Rape-Murder Case
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

DNA Evidence & Last Seen Theory : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty to Life in Child Rape-Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 376, 377, 302 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act for the sexual assault and murder of a minor. However, it commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, ruling that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" standard due to insufficient consideration of mitigating circumstances and rehabilitation potential. The Court emphasized the necessity of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors before imposing capital punishment, following precedents like Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Gudda v. State of M.P., while affirming the reliability of DNA evidence and the last-seen theory in securing conviction. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the brutal sexual assault and murder of a 10-year-old girl in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. On 2...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Awards Pension to Temporary Railway Employee’s Family
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Awards Pension to Temporary Railway Employee’s Family

The Supreme Court ruled that temporary railway employees completing over one year of continuous service are entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, regardless of regularization. The Court emphasized that legislative intent protects dependents of deceased employees, rejecting the 10-year threshold argument and directing arrears payment with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia relief under Article 142. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Mala Devi, widow of Om Prakash Maharaj, a temporary railway employee who died in service after 9 years and 8 months of continuous work. Appointed as a "Summer Waterman" in 1986, he later cleared screening tests and was deputed as a Guard/Shuntman before his fatal accident in 1996. While Mala Devi received ex-gratia payment and compassio...
Read More
Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning his death sentence, due to glaring inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies (PW1, PW2) and lack of corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as recoveries were unreliable, forensic links were absent, and material contradictions undermined the case. The Court emphasized strict adherence to evidentiary standards in capital offenses. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the brutal murder of four family members—Seema Rani (the appellant’s wife), Reena Rani (sister-in-law), and two minor children, Sumani Kumari (3-4 years) and Harsh (1.5-2 years)—along with injuries to two others, Harry (5 years) and Om Prakash (18 years). The incident occurred on November 29, 2013, in the early morning at the...
Read More