Tag: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Injured Witness Testimony Crucial: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in 1988 Double Murder Case
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Injured Witness Testimony Crucial: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in 1988 Double Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' conviction under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, affirming the High Court's judgment. It ruled the case did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the assault with sharp weapons in furtherance of common intention established murder, not culpable homicide. The ocular and medical evidence was found reliable. Facts Of The Case: On May 19, 1988, an altercation arose between two groups of relatives over a land boundary dispute in a sugarcane field. The appellants, led by Molhar and Dharamvir, allegedly damaged a ridge (mendh) on the complainant's side. When the deceased Dile Ram objected, a fight ensued. The appellants, armed with lathis, spades, and phawadas, assaulted Dile Ram, Braham Singh, and Bangal Singh (PW-2). Both Dile Ram and Bra...
Read More
Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

The Supreme Court affirmed that an agreement to sell does not transfer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Property remains part of the deceased's matruka (estate) until a registered sale deed is executed. Inheritance under Muslim law applies to the entire estate, with the widow entitled to a one-fourth share as a sharer, absent descendants. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the inheritance of Chand Khan's property between his widow, Zoharbee (appellant), and his brother, Imam Khan (respondent). Chand Khan died issueless, leaving behind two plots of land. Zoharbee claimed the entire property as matruka (estate) and, under Muslim law, sought a three-fourths share as the surviving spouse. Imam Khan contended that one plot had been transferred v...
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
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...
Read More