Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

“CBI Investigation Guidelines: Supreme Court Quashes Transfer in Vinay Aggarwal Fraud Case”

“CBI Investigation Guidelines: Supreme Court Quashes Transfer in Vinay Aggarwal Fraud Case”

The Supreme Court held that directing a CBI investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, not routinely or based on vague allegations. The Court set aside the High Court's order transferring the investigation to the CBI, emphasizing that such transfers require prima facie material justifying the need for CBI involvement. The decision reaffirmed the principles laid down in *State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights* (2010) 3 SCC 571, underscoring that allegations alone, without substantiation, are insufficient to warrant CBI intervention. The Court also disposed of a related contempt petition after accepting an unconditional apology from CBI officials for inadvertently registering an FIR despite a stay order. Fac...
“Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Modifies Sentence, Imposes 32 Lakh Fine Instead of Jail”

“Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Modifies Sentence, Imposes 32 Lakh Fine Instead of Jail”

The Supreme Court held that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, favors the complainant once the cheque's authenticity and signature are admitted. The accused must rebut this presumption with credible evidence, not mere denials. The High Court erred in requiring the complainant to prove financial capacity upfront. The Court reinstated the Trial Court's conviction but modified the sentence to a reduced fine, emphasizing the statutory presumption of liability for the cheque signatory. The judgment reaffirms the legal enforceability of cheques as discharge of debt under Section 138. Facts of The Case: The appellant, Ashok Singh, advanced a loan of ₹22 lakhs to respondent no. 2, Ravindra Pratap Singh, who issued a cheque for the same a...
“Difference Between 1940 & 1996 Arbitration Acts: How Supreme Court Decided Ferro Concrete’s Pendente Lite Interest Dispute”

“Difference Between 1940 & 1996 Arbitration Acts: How Supreme Court Decided Ferro Concrete’s Pendente Lite Interest Dispute”

The Supreme Court ruled on the arbitrator's power to award pendente lite interest under the Arbitration Act, 1940, emphasizing that a contractual clause must expressly bar such interest to restrict the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the interpretative approach under the 1940 Act, which requires a clear and specific exclusion, from the 1996 Act, which sanctifies party autonomy. The judgment clarified that a general clause barring interest on payments or arrears does not suffice to oust the arbitrator's authority to award pendente lite interest. The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's award of interest was restored, albeit at a reduced rate of 9%. Facts of The Case: The case involved a dispute between M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. (app...

“Supreme Court Judgment on AICTE’s Ph.D. Requirement for Associate Professor Redesignation

The Supreme Court held that teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 without a Ph.D. or failing to acquire it within seven years, as mandated by AICTE notifications, are not entitled to higher pay scales or redesignation as Associate Professors under the 6th Pay Commission. The Court emphasized that AICTE's qualifications are binding and non-arbitrary, and judicial interference in academic standards is limited. Only pre-2000 appointees and those obtaining Ph.D. later were granted benefits. The 2016 clarificatory notification was deemed non-statutory and merely reiterative of existing norms. Facts of The Case: The case involved a dispute between the All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) and its teachers over entitlement to revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commi...