Tag: Leave Granted

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...
Read More
Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

The Supreme Court held that under the AFC’s Staff Regulations, the gratuity ceiling for employees is linked to notifications issued by the State Government. Consequently, AFC employees are entitled to the enhanced gratuity limit prescribed by the Government of Assam, as the regulations incorporate such external ceilings for employee benefit. Facts Of The Case: The Assam Financial Corporation Limited (AFC) appealed against a High Court judgment favouring its retired employees. The employees, who retired between 2018–2019, had been paid gratuity under AFC’s internal regulations, which had a ceiling of Rs. 7 lakhs as per a 2012 office order. They contended that they were entitled to a higher gratuity ceiling as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was aligned with the enhanced...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years

The Supreme Court allowed a life convict's appeal for premature release, interpreting the 2010 remission guidelines. The Court held the offence, motivated by perceived family prestige, fell under Category 3(b) requiring 22 years of incarceration, not Category 4(d) requiring 24 years, and ordered the appellant's immediate release. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Anilkumar, along with a co-accused, was convicted for the premeditated murder of a man and the attempted murder of his friend. The prosecution's case was that the attack was motivated by the fact that the deceased was in a romantic relationship with the appellant's sister. The appellant perceived this relationship as spoiling his sister's life and tarnishing the family's prestige. Following his conviction, the appellant wa...
Read More
Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that pension and retiral dues are a statutory right, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld by the employer. The Court held that non-vacation of a government residence is not a valid justification for withholding such dues, as the right to pension is distinct from the right to occupation of service accommodation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, a state government employee since 1980, superannuated on 30th June 2013, but his pension and retiral dues were not sanctioned or paid. Subsequently, the appellant department passed an order quashing his earlier pay revision and refixing his salary to a lower scale. This refixation was challenged and later withdrawn by the department, but the retiral dues remained unpaid, ostensibly because the respondent had ...
Read More
Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by Abhishek Singh, holding that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR filed by him. The High Court erred by considering extraneous documents and evaluating the merits of the case at the quashing stage, rather than determining if a prima facie offense was made out. The proceedings from the FIR are revived, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents is to be established at trial. Facts Of The Case: Abhishek Singh, the appellant, a businessman, secured a loan of ₹7,70,000 from the Bank of India on July 22, 2020, by pledging 254 grams of 22-carat gold ornaments. According to Singh, he repaid the loan, including interest, by March 31, 2023, after receiving a notice from the bank on October 7, 2022, to pay ₹8,01,383.59. However, unbeknownst ...
Read More
Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case

The Supreme Court of India granted leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dated April 26, 2024, which affirmed the conviction of appellants under various sections of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, including imprisonment for life. While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, reducing the sentence from life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment based on Section 6 of the POCSO Act and considering the appellants' age and incarceration period. Facts Of The Case: Pintu Thakur @ Ravi and other appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 36/2020. This conviction was subse...
Read More