Tag: K. Vinod Chandran

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...
Read More
Why a Poorly Drafted Plaint Can Derail Your Case: Lessons from a Recent Supreme Court Judgment
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Why a Poorly Drafted Plaint Can Derail Your Case: Lessons from a Recent Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court held that even if a Will is proved, a prayer for mere injunction without seeking declaration of title is unsustainable when the plaintiff admits the defendant is in possession. The Court clarified that injunction against alienation is maintainable, but injunction against interference with possession requires a declaration of title and a prayer for recovery. Facts Of The Case: The dispute centered on a property originally owned by Rangaswamy Naidu. His daughter, Rajammal (respondent-plaintiff), filed a suit against her brother, Munuswamy (original defendant), seeking an injunction to restrain him from alienating the property and from interfering with her peaceful possession. She claimed absolute title under a Will dated 30.09.1985, by which her father had allegedly beque...
Read More
Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below on the appellants' involvement in causing the deaths. However, it altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, finding that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to kill. The sentence already undergone was deemed sufficient. Facts Of The Case: On the morning of August 6, 1986, complainant Ram Gopal (PW-1) went with his father and two uncles to a river ghat to measure agricultural land for partition. There, they encountered the four accused appellants, including the owner of the adjacent land, Raghav Prashad. The accused, who were hiding, suddenly emerged and a dispute over the measurement ensued. This altercation quickly turned vi...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the in-laws. It held that general and vague allegations, without specific details of cruelty or unlawful demands, do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that proceedings without such foundational ingredients amount to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the complainant, sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the complainant and the appellants' son/brother took place ...
Read More
Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case

The Supreme Court partially restored the Tribunal's compensation award, upholding the adopted monthly income and modifying attendant charges. It clarified that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant, enhancement beyond the Tribunal's award or addition of future prospects cannot be claimed against the insurer's appeal. Facts Of The Case: On January 5, 2013, the appellant, Ramar, was standing by the side of the road when a rashly and negligently driven lorry hit him. The accident resulted in grievous injuries, leading to the amputation of his right leg from the thigh and a crush injury to his left leg, which paralyzed it. Medical evidence presented before the Tribunal, including the testimony of treating doctors and hospital records, proved the nature of the injuries and as...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that when departmental proceedings are quashed for being illegal and vitiated by delay, the employee must be restored to the position they would have occupied in the service's normal course. This entitles them to retrospective promotion from the date their immediate junior was promoted, with all attendant consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, was a Block Development Officer in Jharkhand. In 2007, an audit objection raised a suspicion of misappropriation, but a subsequent inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner cleared her, finding the expenditure was within the estimated cost. A decade later, in 2017, a charge-sheet was issued on the same allegation, culminating in a punishment of wi...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against concurrent orders of CERC and APTEL. It upheld that coal linkage for a power plant is allocated to the project as a whole, not to specific PPAs. Consequently, the additional cost from 'Change in Law' events must be apportioned pro-rata among all power procurers based on their energy drawal. Facts Of The Case: GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) set up a power plant and entered into long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with three utilities: Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar. The project was allocated coal from specific linkages and a captive block, intended for the entire plant. When changes in law and a coal supply shortfall increased GKEL's costs, it sought compensation. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) ruled GKEL w...
Read More
Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted

Supreme Court Judgment Based on the policy's "Limitation as to Use" clause, the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company cannot deny liability for a utility vehicle registered and permitted as a "contract carriage" to carry passengers. The clause applies only to goods carriages, and the insurer, having issued the policy with full knowledge of the vehicle's registration and permit, is bound to indemnify the owner for third-party claims. The "pay and recover" order was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a tragic accident involving a utility vehicle, which led to the filing of five separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) by the legal representatives of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle, Shyam Lal, was the appellant b...
Read More
Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty

In this judgment, the Supreme Court curtailed the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) powers, ruling that environmental compensation cannot be arbitrarily linked to a polluter's turnover, lacking a direct nexus to the actual damage. It also held that the NGT lacks jurisdiction to direct investigations by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, affirming that such actions require a scheduled offence to be registered. The Court emphasized that penalties must be determined based on established methodologies and legal principles, not rhetoric. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Adil Ansari before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2019 against M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. The allegations were that the company, an exporter of handicraft ite...
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...
Read More