Special Leave Petition - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

22Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

The Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction for a cheque dishonour case lies exclusively with the court where the payee's bank branch (for collection) is situated, not where the cheque was physically deposited for credit. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning four cheques issued by the respondent, Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat. These cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant, who maintained his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank's Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore, had presented the cheques for collection through the bank's Opera House Branch in Mumbai to be credited to his Mangalore account. The Jud...

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family

5Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family

The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court's decision, ruling that the delay in FIR registration and minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony did not disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing that the insurer failed to examine the investigating officer to challenge the evidence. The judgment reinforced the principle that technicalities should not override substantive justice in motor accident claims. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a motor accident where the deceased, a school peon, died after his motorcycle collided with a speeding vehicle. His wife and three minor children filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded them compensation of ₹46,29,15...

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

5Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Oriss...

Supreme Court : Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation Even After Victim’s Death

4Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation Even After Victim’s Death

The Supreme Court upheld that legal heirs of a deceased accident victim can pursue compensation for losses incurred during the victim’s lifetime, treating it as part of the victim’s estate. Relying on Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jasmail Singh Kahlon, the Court affirmed that compensation for disability, pain, and future treatment survives the victim’s death. It enhanced the awarded amount, applying a 110% multiplier to income loss and granting additional sums for medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages, ensuring the heirs receive the rightful estate. The judgment reinforces the principle that motor accident claims extend beyond the victim’s lifetime if the cause of action accrued while alive. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Meena, a 50-year-old woman, suffered 100% disability in a bus accide...

Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty

4Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty

The Supreme Court held that the liberty granted by the High Court to file a fresh suit does not revive a time-barred cause of action or override the principles of res judicata. The Court affirmed that limitation under the Limitation Act and Order 23 Rule 2 CPC applies strictly, and a fresh suit cannot re-agitate issues already decided in prior proceedings. The judgment reinforces that judicial liberty cannot circumvent statutory bars or reopen conclusively adjudicated matters. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property transaction where the original plaintiff (predecessor of the petitioners) had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant, a cooperative housing society. A Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favor of the society’s secretary (second defen...

Supreme Court Exposes False Allegations, Quashes FIR in Sexual Assault Case

13Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Exposes False Allegations, Quashes FIR in Sexual Assault Case

The Supreme Court of India quashed FIRs No. 103 of 2022 and 751 of 2021, and all consequent proceedings, finding no prima facie material to substantiate allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage. The Court noted inherent contradictions in the complaints and found the complainant's allegations to be fabricated and malicious, indicating manipulative and vindictive tendencies. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag, the appellant, challenging an order from the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which rejected his petition to quash FIR No. 103 of 2022. This FIR, registered at Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, alleges offenses under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v)...

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

13Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...

Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case

12Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case

The Supreme Court of India granted leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dated April 26, 2024, which affirmed the conviction of appellants under various sections of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, including imprisonment for life. While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, reducing the sentence from life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment based on Section 6 of the POCSO Act and considering the appellants' age and incarceration period. Facts Of The Case: Pintu Thakur @ Ravi and other appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 36/2020. This conviction was subse...

Supreme Court Stops Misuse of Rape Laws : No Rape If Relationship Was Consensual

12Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Stops Misuse of Rape Laws : No Rape If Relationship Was Consensual

The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against the Appellant, finding that the alleged sexual assault and unnatural sex charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC were not established. The Court held that the relationship was consensual, not based on a false promise to marry, and the complaint was likely motivated by a "disgruntled state of mind". The case fell under categories for quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law. Facts Of The Case: This appeal arises from the dismissal of Amol Bhagwan Nehul's petition to quash Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023, registered on July 31, 2023, for alleged offenses under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 IPC. The Complainant, Respondent No. 2, alleged that the Appellant forci...