Tag: legal precedent

Supreme Court Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that misconduct, proven on the preponderance of probabilities and bringing disrepute to a disciplined force, warrants a commensurate penalty. It found no grounds for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Constable Amar Singh, was serving with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the Mallaram Camp. On August 27, 1995, he was granted a two-hour out-pass to visit a hospital. Instead of doing so, he went to a residential colony located approximately 12 kilometres from the camp to enquire about quarters allotted to another constable. His presence and actions there agitated the local ci...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 498-A IPC. It held that the conviction, based solely on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses, was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that cruelty under Section 498-A must be proven by continuous or persistent conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide, which was not established by the prosecution evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the death of Chandra Devi, who was found deceased in her matrimonial home on June 15, 2001. Her father, Dharmanand Joshi (PW-1), filed a complaint the next day, alleging that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging. He reported seeing wounds on her body and expressed suspicion about her death, stating that the deceased had previously told him her mother-in-l...
Read More
Supreme Court Relief for Companies: Tax Exemption for Vehicles Confined to Plant Premises
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Relief for Companies: Tax Exemption for Vehicles Confined to Plant Premises

The Supreme Court ruled that motor vehicle tax under the Andhra Pradesh Act is leviable only if a vehicle is used or kept for use in a "public place." It held that restricted industrial premises, inaccessible to the public, do not constitute a public place. Consequently, vehicles operating exclusively within such enclosed areas are not liable for the tax, and a rule creating a presumption of 'use' must be read in harmony with this charging section. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited, was awarded a contract to operate within the enclosed central dispatch yard of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL). Pursuant to this, it deployed 36 registered motor vehicles which, from April 1, 2021, were confined solely to operating inside this restricted premises,...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Govt Can’t Cancel Ongoing Job Recruitments Midway
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Govt Can’t Cancel Ongoing Job Recruitments Midway

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates that executive instructions, such as a New Recruitment Policy, cannot override or supplant statutory rules or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. A recruitment process, once commenced under specific statutory rules, cannot be altered midway by executive fiat, as doing so amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun and violates principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tripura initiated a recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles, conducted strictly under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and its corresponding Rules. The process, involving advertisements, physical tests, written exams, and interviews, had advanced significantly, with pr...
Read More
Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that its continuation after a conclusive settlement order granting immunity from penalty was an abuse of process. The Revenue's action was in blatant disregard of its own binding circulars which mandated prosecution only after penalty confirmation by the ITAT. Facts Of The Case: A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the appellant's residence on 24.04.2016, leading to the seizure of unaccounted cash. Based on this, the Revenue initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, alleging a wilful attempt to evade tax. The appellant's petition before the High Court to quash these proceedings was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an...
Read More
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
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Not Every Act Against a Child is “Abuse”
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Not Every Act Against a Child is “Abuse”

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, ruling that a single, incidental act of hitting a child with a school bag during a scuffle, absent evidence of deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment, does not meet the legal definition of "child abuse." The Court also set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC, finding no intent to provoke a breach of peace. However, convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC were upheld, with the appellant granted probation. Facts Of The Case: On February 1, 2013, an incident occurred on the premises of St. Ann’s School in Goa involving the appellant, Santosh Khajnekar. He was alleged to have hit a child with a school bag belonging to his own son during a sudden altercation. The Fi...
Read More
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Strict Timelines for Pronouncing Judgments
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Strict Timelines for Pronouncing Judgments

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the legal imperative for timely pronouncement of reserved judgments to uphold the right to speedy justice. The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to strictly adhere to the guidelines established in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, mandating a monitoring mechanism by the Registrar General and the Chief Justice to ensure judgments are delivered within three months of being reserved. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, the de-facto complainant in the case, challenged interim orders from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad concerning a long-pending criminal appeal filed by respondent no. 2 in 2008. The core grievance was the inordinate delay in the High Court's disposal of this criminal appeal. The appeal had initially been heard at length by a Div...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling : Businesses Take Note ,Email Exchanges Can Create a Binding Arbitration Agreement
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling : Businesses Take Note ,Email Exchanges Can Create a Binding Arbitration Agreement

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that a valid arbitration agreement can be constituted through conduct and correspondence, without a signed contract. The Supreme Court held that if parties have demonstrably acted upon the terms of an unsigned agreement, they are bound by its arbitration clause, and a referral court need only conduct a prima facie review of the agreement's existence. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a proposed contract for the sale of 6,000 metric tons of zinc metal between Glencore International AG (Appellant) and Shree Ganesh Metals (Respondent No.1). The terms were negotiated via email, and Glencore sent a formal contract (No. 061-16-12115-S) incorporating an arbitration clause, which it signed. The Respondent, however, never signed this document. Despite...
Read More