Tag: legal precedent

Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case

In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt. The Court found the evidence—including motive, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confessions made in a police station—to be unreliable, insufficient, and lacking credible corroboration to sustain a conviction. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the brutal murder of a police driver on the night of 10th-11th March 2006. The prosecution alleged that the murder was instigated by a fellow policeman, A1, due to his inability to repay a loan of ₹1 lakh to the deceased. The deceased was lured to the house of A1 and A2 (A1's wife) on the false pretext of repaying the debt. ...
Read More
No Redemption After Auction Notice: Supreme Court Major Ruling on Bank Loan Recovery
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Redemption After Auction Notice: Supreme Court Major Ruling on Bank Loan Recovery

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the right of redemption of a mortgagor under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the publication of the notice of sale, as per the 2016 amendment. The Court held that this amended provision is retrospective in operation and overrides the general right of redemption under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The ruling emphasizes that only a single composite notice of sale is required under the SARFAESI Rules, irrespective of the mode of transfer adopted by the secured creditor. Facts Of The Case: The borrowers, M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors, availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank in January 2016, creating an equitable mortgage over various properties. After the loan account was classif...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an activity amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, only if it satisfies a two-fold test: it must bring about a transformation resulting in a distinct product with a new identity, character, or use, and this new product must be commercially marketable. The court emphasized that both prongs of this test must be cumulatively satisfied. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Quippo Energy Ltd., was engaged in the business of leasing "Power Packs," which were containerized gas generating sets (Gensets). It imported fully assembled Gensets, which were assessed by Customs as electric generating sets. To facilitate leasing and transportation between customer sites, the appellant placed these imported Gensets into steel containers. S...
Read More
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 ...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence and Hostile Witnesses
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt based on circumstantial evidence. Key eyewitnesses turned hostile and their testimonies did not establish kidnapping or the 'last seen' theory. The Court emphasized that the foundational principles for convicting on circumstantial evidence were not satisfied, rendering the conviction unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the kidnapping and murder of Bhoominadhan, an auto-rickshaw driver from Nellore. The prosecution's case was that on the evening of 26th March 2016, the appellant-accused, Thammineni Bhaskar (A-1), along with his associates, forcibly dragged the deceased from his auto-rickshaw near a banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony and kidnapped him. The incident was allegedly witness...
Read More
Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction

Based on the principle of parity, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that when a co-accused, prosecuted on identical evidence in a joint trial, is acquitted and the State does not challenge it, sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused would be unjust and inequitable. Facts Of The Case: On January 1, 2002, the State Task Force officials near Dayamani Restaurant, Kathipudi, noticed two women, the appellant Vaddi Ratnam (Accused No.2) and Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi (Accused No.1). Upon seeing the officials, the co-accused handed a yellow handbag to the appellant, after which both attempted to flee but were apprehended. A search of the bag revealed six packets containing a total of 5.5 kilograms of opium. The accused confessed to being involved in the opium trade...
Read More
State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat
6Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

The Supreme Court upheld that lands contributed by proprietors during consolidation proceedings, but not specifically reserved or utilized for common purposes (known as bachat land), do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and Constitution Bench precedents, the Court affirmed that such land continues to belong to the original proprietors, dismissing the State's appeal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a challenge by landowners (respondents) to an amendment made by the State of Haryana in 1992 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This amendment, via Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, expanded the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation ...
Read More
SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment

The Supreme Court held that a borrower's failure to comply with the mandatory upfront payment requirement under a One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme renders the application incomplete and not entitled to processing. The Court further ruled that, in judicial review, an administrative order of rejection can be upheld on an alternative legal ground apparent from the record, provided the affected party is granted a fair opportunity to respond. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Tanya Energy Enterprises, availed credit facilities from the State Bank of India (SBI) by mortgaging seven properties but subsequently defaulted on its repayment obligations. After its account was classified as a non-performing asset, SBI initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. A prior One-Time Settlement...
Read More