Supreme Court India - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant's house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform thei...

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

19Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

18Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court, holding that the order was perverse and suffered from non-application of mind to material facts, including the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence. The Court reiterated that bail in serious offences like murder requires careful consideration of the allegations, evidence, and risk of witness tampering, and cannot be granted mechanically. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the brutal murder of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, whose body was discovered near an apartment in Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a result of a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by actor Darshan (A2) and his partner, Pavithra Gowda (A1), after the deceased had sent obscene messages to A1's Insta...

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer is liable to indemnify claims for the owner of goods or his authorized representative traveling in a goods vehicle. Furthermore, the registered owner remains liable for compensation until a transfer is formally reported to the Registering Authority under Section 50, and the insurer cannot avoid its liability based on unsubstantiated assertions. Facts Of The Case: A motor accident involving a goods vehicle resulted in several claims for death and injury. The injured and deceased were petty hawkers, such as a fish monger and a vegetable vendor, who were accompanying their goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company contested its liability on two primary gro...

Supreme Court: Criminal Cases Against In-Laws Can Be Dropped After Amicable Settlement

28Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Criminal Cases Against In-Laws Can Be Dropped After Amicable Settlement

This Supreme Court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed all criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord, including charges under Section 494 and 498A IPC. Relying on precedents, it held that continuing prosecution after a full and final settlement and divorce constitutes an abuse of the legal process and serves no legitimate purpose. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the respondent-wife and the appellant's brother was solemnized in 2001. The couple moved to the USA, but their relationship soured, leading to a mutual divorce decree from a California court in 2007. After returning to India, the wife initiated multiple legal proceedings against her husband and his family (the appellants). These included a complaint case alleging cruelty, a case under the Domest...

Supreme Court Late Payment Surcharge Valid: Coal India’s Levy Ruled as ‘Change in Law’

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Late Payment Surcharge Valid: Coal India’s Levy Ruled as ‘Change in Law’

The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) ruling that a Coal India Limited (CIL) notification imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) constitutes a "change in law" event under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The judgment affirmed that the power generator is entitled to compensation from the notification date with carrying cost at Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) rates on a compounding basis, based on restitutionary principles. The Court clarified that only a substantial question of law is appealable, and the supplementary bill is required only after due adjudication. Facts Of The Case: A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was signed on January 28, 2010, between Rajasthan Discoms and Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. for 1200 MW. On December 19, 2017, Coal India ...

Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods: Bank Guarantee Encashment ≠ Duty Payment

30May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods: Bank Guarantee Encashment ≠ Duty Payment

The Supreme Court held that encashment of bank guarantees furnished as interim security for disputed customs duty does not constitute "payment of duty" under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable to refund claims arising from such encashment. The Revenue must refund such amounts with interest when the underlying duty demand is invalidated by court order, without insisting on compliance with Section 27. Facts Of The Case: M/s M.P. Glychem Industries Ltd. (later merged into Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., now Patanjali Foods Ltd.) imported crude degummed soyabean oil at Jamnagar in 2002. The Customs Department demanded higher duty based on a tariff value fixed under a notification issued under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962...

Supreme Court Overturns Contributory Negligence in Fatal Bike Crash, Awards Full Compensation

29May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Contributory Negligence in Fatal Bike Crash, Awards Full Compensation

The Supreme Court quashed the contributory negligence finding, holding the car driver solely liable for the 2009 accident. It ruled that the High Court erred by ignoring eyewitness testimony (PW-4) and a crucial site plan proving the motorcyclist was on his correct side. Full compensation was restored as deductions under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were invalid. The Court emphasized beneficial interpretation in accident claims and permitted late evidence admission given the summary nature of proceedings. Facts Of The Case: On July 26, 2009, Gautam (22 years, bachelor) drove a new motorcycle (insured by Bajaj Allianz) with Harpal Singh (30 years, pillion rider) near Kaithal, Haryana. An Alto car (insured by New India Assurance), driven by Gulzar Singh, collided head-on wi...

Homeowner Wins 7-Year Battle: Supreme Court Orders Insurer to Pay for Rain-Flooded Basement

29May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Homeowner Wins 7-Year Battle: Supreme Court Orders Insurer to Pay for Rain-Flooded Basement

The Supreme Court held that heavy rainfall causing sudden basement flooding constitutes a covered "flood/inundation" peril under standard insurance policies, rejecting the insurer’s "seepage" exclusion. It ruled that insurers cannot arbitrarily disregard initial survey reports confirming flood damage in favor of belated contradictory assessments. The Court remanded the matter to NCDRC solely for compensation quantification under the policy terms, emphasizing objective claim evaluation aligned with contractual obligations. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Gopal Dikshit, owned a property at 50, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, insured under a ₹1.5 crore House Holder Policy (No. 2219042615P115431073) by United India Insurance for the period March 13, 2016, to March 12, 20...