Tag: Supreme Court Judgement 2025

“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC
19Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC

The Supreme Court upheld that municipal bylaws and the Master Plan permitting mixed land use are enabling, not compulsory. Property owners cannot be forced to convert residential use to commercial use. A deemed sanction for purely residential reconstruction plans is valid if the applicant chooses not to avail the option for commercial activity. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, owners of an 85-year-old dilapidated residential house in Delhi, applied for sanction to demolish and reconstruct it in 2010. The Municipal Corporation failed to decide, leading the owners to obtain a deemed sanction from the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation challenged this order successively before the Additional District Judge, the Delhi High Court (via writ and rev...
Read More
Commercial vs. Residential Use: Supreme Court Decides on Delhi Market Plot Dispute
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Commercial vs. Residential Use: Supreme Court Decides on Delhi Market Plot Dispute

In a significant order, the Supreme Court clarified the legal framework governing the use of upper floors in designated Local Shopping Centres (LSCs) in Delhi. The Court held that while the ground floor is permitted for commercial use, utilizing upper floors for commercial purposes requires payment of conversion charges and regularization of any unauthorized construction as per the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 and relevant building bylaws. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns an application for the de-sealing of a commercial premise at Plot No. 106 in New Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi. The applicant, M.C. Mehta, filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) in the long-standing Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985) concerning unauthorized constructions and land misu...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

In this Supreme Court judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 149 applies when a member of an unlawful assembly shares its common object, irrespective of direct commission of the fatal act. It upheld that active facilitation and participation in a coordinated attack establishes guilt. Facts Of The Case: On April 27, 1999, Ankush Gholap and others were returning from Bhor in a jeep when they were intercepted by six accused persons on two motorcycles. The accused, armed with weapons like knives and a sattur, stopped the jeep near Navi Ali. Accused no. 3 removed the jeep's keys and assaulted the driver, while the others dragged Ankush and two other occu...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Witness Intimidation: Victims Can Go Straight to Police

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the procedural conflict regarding offences under Section 195A IPC (threatening to give false evidence). The Supreme Court holds that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Consequently, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154/156 CrPC, and the restrictive complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not applicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate sets of proceedings. In the first, from Kerala, an FIR was registered under Section 195A IPC after a de facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to give false evidence. The accused sought bail, arguing the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requi...
Read More
Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008

The Supreme Court held that appointments made in excess of originally advertised vacancies are permissible under the rules if filled from a valid waiting list within a reasonable period, typically the recruitment year or the succeeding year. Terminations based solely on the "excess vacancy" ground were found unjustified when such appointments align with the recruitment rule's intent and the advertisement's stipulation that vacancy numbers were subject to change. Facts Of The Case: The case involved four appellants who were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 2001 against an advertisement that notified twelve vacancies but included a rider that the number of posts could increase or decrease. In 2008, their services were te...
Read More
Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed that school admission registers are admissible evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act to prove a victim's minority in POCSO cases. It clarified that a witness cannot be declared hostile for minor inconsistencies, reiterating that such a step is an extraordinary measure requiring clear hostility or resiling from a material statement. The Court also held that under the amended SC/ST Act, mere knowledge of the victim's caste is sufficient to attract Section 3(2)(v), especially when a presumption of such awareness arises under Section 8(c) from prior acquaintance. Facts Of The Case: On the night of May 10, 2018, the minor victim left her home to deliver food to her grandfather. Near a Sendhwar tree, the appellant, Shivkumar, allegedly abducted her by force, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power to Modify Military Conviction
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power to Modify Military Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s power under Section 15(6) of the AFT Act, 2007, to substitute a conviction. It held that where evidence establishes an act prejudicial to military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, the Tribunal can legally replace a more severe charge with this lesser offence and modify the sentence accordingly. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Colonel S.K. Jain, was the Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot in Udhampur. In September 2008, a contractor alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe for passing motorcycles during inspection. A trap was laid, and during a search of his office on September 27, 2008, a Board of Officers recovered an envelope containing ₹10,000 and, significantly, a quantity of old ammunition (7....
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance for Deal Breaching Construction Laws
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance for Deal Breaching Construction Laws

The Supreme Court held that an agreement mandating construction violating building laws is void and unenforceable. The illegality rendered specific performance impossible under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, as the unlawful object was essential to the contract. The Court affirmed that contracts contravening statutory provisions cannot be severed to remove their core illegal purpose. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Canara Bank, entered into an agreement with the respondent, K.L. Rajgarhia, on 27.12.1984 for the purchase of residential flats to be constructed on a plot in East of Kailash, Delhi. The total consideration was ₹32,07,500, of which approximately 90% (₹28,86,750) was paid upfront. The agreement stipulated the construction and delivery of eight flats and a basement with...
Read More
Supreme Court: Right to Cross-Examine Survives Even If Written Statement Is Not Filed
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Right to Cross-Examine Survives Even If Written Statement Is Not Filed

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit was extended by its COVID-19 limitation orders. Crucially, it ruled that even if a written statement is not filed, the defendant’s fundamental right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses is not forfeited, as procedural rules must serve substantive justice. Facts Of The Case: In 2019, M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. appointed M/s Aroush Motors as a dealer for CFMOTO motorcycles. The plaintiff invested significant sums in security deposits, showroom setup, and initial stock. The business was disrupted when a government ban on BS-IV vehicles took effect in April 2020, and the defendant failed to supply promised upgrade kits. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated the dealer...
Read More