Tag: legal precedent

“Supreme Court Rules on Food Adulteration Cases : Strict Punishment in Food Adulteration Cases
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Rules on Food Adulteration Cases : Strict Punishment in Food Adulteration Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA), 1954, bars probation for offenders convicted under the Act between 1976 and 2006, upholding strict sentencing to deter food adulteration. It also held that the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006’s repeal clause preserves penalties under PoFA, denying retrospective benefit of reduced sentences. However, citing discrepancies in evidence, the Court partially allowed the appeals by converting imprisonment into fines, balancing strict legal interpretation with equitable relief. The judgment reaffirms legislative intent to prioritize public health over reformative leniency in food safety violations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India, ari...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Chhattisgarh Murder Case : “Eyewitness Failures Lead to Acquittal”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Chhattisgarh Murder Case : “Eyewitness Failures Lead to Acquittal”

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a double murder case, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that eyewitnesses must identify accused in court and link them to specific roles, noting material omissions and contradictions in testimonies. It reinforced Section 162 CrPC standards for reliable evidence, overturning concurrent convictions due to fatal investigative lapses. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a violent incident on March 24, 2001, in Masturi, Chhattisgarh, where nine accused armed with swords, lathis, and poleaxes allegedly attacked a medical shop, killing Manrakhan Singh and Narayan Singh and injuring five others, including family members of the deceased. The prosecution claimed the attack stemmed from a pr...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privity of contract, ruling that Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) was solely liable for transmission bay costs under its agreement with HP Power Transmission Corporation (HPPTC), despite internal arrangements with third parties. The Court held that non-signatories (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) could not be bound by the contract, reversing APTEL’s order. The judgment reaffirmed that contractual obligations apply only to parties to the agreement, unless explicitly extended. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC) and M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) over the liability for construction and maintenance costs of a 66kV power transmission bay at Urni, Himachal Pradesh. BHP, along with two other power com...
Read More
“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), ...
Read More
“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...
Read More
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...
Read More
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...
Read More
Public Servant’s Spouse Can Be Convicted for Aiding Corruption: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Corruption Case: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
16May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public Servant’s Spouse Can Be Convicted for Aiding Corruption: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Corruption Case: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ruling that a non-public servant (appellant) can abet the offence of possessing disproportionate assets by aiding a public servant (her husband). Relying on P. Nallammal (1999), the Court held that concealing illicit assets in the appellant’s name constituted intentional aid under Section 107 IPC, irrespective of marital status. The 2018 amendment to Section 12 of the PC Act (explicitly punishing abetment) was noted, though the offence was abettable even prior. The judgment reaffirms that abetment charges apply when a person facilitates the concealment of disproportionate wealth. Facts Of The Case: The case involves P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, an As...
Read More