Tag: Remand

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference
7Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinct legal roles of bail cancellation and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme is a curative measure to protect witnesses, while bail cancellation is a judicial remedy for violations of bail conditions. The existence of the Scheme cannot be a ground to deny cancellation of bail when an accused intimidates witnesses, as these are separate legal avenues serving different purposes. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No. 137 of 2022) lodged by the appellant, Phireram, for offences including murder and conspiracy under the IPC. The accused were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the High Court, subject to specific conditions prohibiting them from threatening witnesses or tampering with...
Read More
Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the priority of charges between the EPFO, under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and secured creditors, including Axis Bank, under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The core legal issue for fresh adjudication is the conflict between the statutory first charge of EPFO dues and the primacy claimed by secured creditors. Facts Of The Case: M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulted on its Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) dues from July 2013. The EPFO determined a liability and, upon learning the company's properties were to be auctioned by various banks, invoked its priority under the EPF Act. The EPFO specifically asserted a first charge over the 'Attibele property' being auctioned by Axis B...
Read More
A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines

This Supreme Court judgment holds that its extraordinary power under Article 32 of the Constitution can be invoked to reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases that have attained finality. This is permissible to remedy a clear breach of the procedural safeguards for individualized sentencing mandated in Manoj v. State of M.P., which are integral to the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The Court clarified that such judicial declarations operate retrospectively. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the petitioner, Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2008 kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old girl in Nagpur. His conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court in 2012 and ultimately upheld by the Supr...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Legal Heir Can Continue Criminal Appeal if Original Victim Dies
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Legal Heir Can Continue Criminal Appeal if Original Victim Dies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the legal right of a victim to prefer an appeal under Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. The Supreme Court held that upon the death of the original victim-appellant, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal, ensuring the victim's statutory right is not extinguished. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred stemming from previous enmity. The accused persons, armed with guns, sharp weapons, and bricks, assaulted informant Tara Chand (PW-1), his brother Virendra Singh, and his son Khem Singh (PW-3). As a result, Virendra Singh died, while Tara Chand and Khem Singh sustained injuries. The specific roles attributed were that accused Ashok fired at Virendra Singh, accused Pramod fi...
Read More
Supreme Court: Civil Courts Can Hear Cases If Land is Declared Non-Agricultural During Trial
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Civil Courts Can Hear Cases If Land is Declared Non-Agricultural During Trial

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the land at the time of adjudication, not filing. A subsequent declaration of land as non-agricultural under the UPZALR Act during pending proceedings validates a civil court's jurisdiction, and appeals are a continuation of the original suit. Facts Of The Case: In 1970, the appellant-landlord and the predecessor of respondents 1-3 entered a registered tenancy agreement for a piece of land to establish an Indian Oil petrol pump at a monthly rent of ₹150. The tenant defaulted on rent payments from July 1972, prompting the landlord to file a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in 1974 in the Civil Court. The tenants contested the Civil Court's jurisdiction, claiming the land was agricultural and thus only the Revenue...
Read More
Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice

The Supreme Court ruled that violating mandatory procedural safeguards in disciplinary inquiries, like failing to question an employee on adverse evidence, inherently constitutes prejudice. Relying on undisclosed material, such as a vigilance report, to enhance punishment also violates natural justice. No independent proof of prejudice is required for such fundamental breaches. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, K. Prabhakar Hegde, was a senior officer and Zonal Head of Vijaya Bank (which later merged with Bank of Baroda). In 1999, he was served with notices alleging irregularities in sanctioning temporary overdrafts to various parties. Formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2001. An inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report holding the charges proved. N...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators
14Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators

The Supreme Court held that tariff fixation for port facilities is a technical and expert-driven function, best adjudicated by specialized bodies like TAMP. It emphasized that contractual agreements cannot override statutory tariff-setting mechanisms under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021. The Court remanded the matter to TAMP for fresh determination, underscoring the need for expert appraisal of tariff revisions and compliance with natural justice. Facts Of The Case: A bilateral agreement was executed in 1985 between Paradip Port Trust (now Authority) and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (PPL), then a public sector unit, for the exclusive use of a captive fertilizer berth. The agreement stipulated a tariff schedule, with a clause for future mutual enhancement. In 1993, the Port unilaterally...
Read More
Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...
Read More
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that appellate courts should liberally suspend sentences of fixed short-term imprisonment during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the appeal itself from becoming infructuous. It held that denial requires recording exceptional, compelling reasons why release would be against public interest. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in Meerut for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC (Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, 504), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sentences, which included terms of four years of rigorous imprisonment for the major charges, were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High...
Read More
Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC

The Supreme Court held that entries in a company’s balance sheet, when read in the context of surrounding circumstances and previous financial statements, can constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The Court clarified that the exclusion period under its COVID-19 limitation order applied from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the application timely. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., extended a term loan of ₹30 crores to the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., on 27.02.2015, secured by a pledge of shares. The respondent's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.03.2018. The appellant fi...
Read More