Landmark Judgment - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Dowry Harassment Case : Confirms 10-Year Jail for Husband in Dowry Death Case

24May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Dowry Harassment Case : Confirms 10-Year Jail for Husband in Dowry Death Case

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death), affirming that the prosecution proved demand of dowry, cruelty, and unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The Court emphasized the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, shifting the burden to the accused, who failed to rebut it. It clarified that contradictory defenses (accidental fall vs. suicide) weaken the accused's case, and consistent witness testimonies established dowry harassment. The judgment reinforced strict scrutiny of dowry-related deaths and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the death of Punita (alias Gayatri), who married the accused-appellant Virender Pal on February 28, 2008. Within months ...

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

21May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts must limit their examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot decide arbitrability or exclude claims as "excepted matters" at the appointment stage. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance, it held that arbitral tribunals—not courts—must determine whether claims fall under non-arbitrable categories. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot bifurcate claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable during arbitrator appointments, ensuring minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) and IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent), ...

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

The Supreme Court ruled that bail parity cannot be mechanically applied when material distinctions exist between accused persons. It held that alleged conspirators/masterminds of a serious crime (Section 302 IPC) cannot claim bail parity with minor co-accused, especially when evidence suggests their active role in hiring a contract killer. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider the gravity of allegations, evidentiary role of each accused, and potential witness intimidation, rather than granting parity as a blanket rule. The judgment clarified that "parity" under Section 439 CrPC requires comparable roles, not mere similarity of charges. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a brutal shooting during a marriage procession in Rajasthan on November 28, 2023. The prosecution al...

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC does not bar prosecution for tampering with court records after proceedings conclude, as such acts no longer affect "proceedings in court" under Section 195(1)(b). It held that fabricating documents in record rooms post-withdrawal constitutes standalone offences under IPC, not requiring court-sanctioned complaints. The judgment clarified that Section 195 applies only when offences directly impact live judicial proceedings or documents in active court custody, distinguishing between administrative record-keeping and judicial administration of justice. The Court affirmed that FIRs remain valid for post-proceeding forgeries. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2005 FIR lodged by the Registrar of Bharuch District Court against Parshotta...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...