Tag: Supreme Court Judgement

Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting

The Supreme Court held that a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct any person, including a witness, to provide a voice sample for investigation. Relying on the principle in Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ritesh Sinha, the Court ruled that such sampling does not constitute testimonial compulsion and does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of a 25-year-old married woman in February 2021, leading to allegations of harassment by her in-laws and counter-allegations of misappropriation of cash and jewellery by her parents. During the investigation, it was alleged that the 2nd respondent acted as an agent for the deceased's father and threatened a witness privy to an extortion demand. The Investi...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case
25Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, applies only to the preparation of a merit list and not to determining eligibility. The termination orders were quashed for violating principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice regarding the exclusion of vocational subject marks. Facts Of The Case: The State of Jharkhand advertised posts for Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2015. The appellants—Ravi Oraon, Premial Hembrom, and Surendra Munda—successfully applied, were selected, and commenced their duties in December 2015. In September 2016, they were issued show cause notices alleging they did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of 45% marks in their intermediate examination and questioning the validity ...
Read More
Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof in railway accident compensation claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged by affidavit and verified ticket records, shifting the onus to the Railways. Mere absence of a ticket or seizure memo does not defeat a legitimate claim, as the statutory regime is a welfare-oriented, no-fault liability system based on preponderance of probabilities. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik on 19 May 2017. He was allegedly travelling from Indore to Ujjain by the Ranthambore Express (Train No. 12465) when, due to overcrowding, he was pushed from the moving train near Ujjain, sustaining fatal head injuries. The police regi...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to Sta...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the in-laws. It held that general and vague allegations, without specific details of cruelty or unlawful demands, do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that proceedings without such foundational ingredients amount to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the complainant, sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the complainant and the appellants' son/brother took place ...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Says Mere Breach of Contract Isn’t Cheating

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, holding that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence absent proof of dishonest intent at the inception. The allegations disclosed only a civil dispute, and continuing criminal prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Arshad Neyaz Khan, entered into an agreement to sell his property to the complainant, Md. Mustafa, in February 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 43,00,000, out of which an advance of Rs. 20,00,000 was paid. Nearly eight years later, in January 2021, the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant had failed to either transfer the property or refund the advance amount, accusing him of cheating, crimin...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: No Service Tax Exemption for Handling Export Cargo at Airports
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Service Tax Exemption for Handling Export Cargo at Airports

The Supreme Court upheld the service tax levy on services provided by the Airports Authority of India for handling export cargo. It ruled that while such handling is excluded from the definition of "cargo handling service," it squarely falls under the broader, specific taxable service category of "Airport Services" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. Facts Of The Case: The Airports Authority of India (AAI), a statutory body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, was engaged in handling export cargo at various airports. This involved a range of activities such as unloading, carting, X-ray screening, and export packing from the point of accepting the cargo until it was loaded onto an aircraft. The tax authorities confirmed a service tax liability on these s...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an activity amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, only if it satisfies a two-fold test: it must bring about a transformation resulting in a distinct product with a new identity, character, or use, and this new product must be commercially marketable. The court emphasized that both prongs of this test must be cumulatively satisfied. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Quippo Energy Ltd., was engaged in the business of leasing "Power Packs," which were containerized gas generating sets (Gensets). It imported fully assembled Gensets, which were assessed by Customs as electric generating sets. To facilitate leasing and transportation between customer sites, the appellant placed these imported Gensets into steel containers. S...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Landmark Order: Sexual Harassment Judgement to be Part of Accused’s Permanent Record
2Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Order: Sexual Harassment Judgement to be Part of Accused’s Permanent Record

This Supreme Court ruling clarifies that under the POSH Act, a complaint must be filed within three months (extendable to six) of the last incident of sexual harassment. Subsequent administrative actions, unless directly linked to the original misconduct as a "continuing wrong," do not extend this limitation period. The Court distinguished between a "continuing wrong" and a "recurring wrong," holding that independent administrative decisions do not constitute a fresh act of sexual harassment. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Vice-Chancellor of NUJS, Kolkata, and Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik, a faculty member. The appellant, Ms. Patnaik, lodged a formal complaint of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor with the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) on Decem...
Read More