Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Backs Creditors & JSW, Shuts Door on Promoter Interference
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Backs Creditors & JSW, Shuts Door on Promoter Interference

This Supreme Court judgment reinforces the finality and binding nature of an approved resolution plan under the IBC. It held that claims not part of the Request for Resolution Plan (RfRP) or the final plan are extinguished, preventing "hydra-headed" post-approval claims. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving the plan is paramount and not open to judicial review on merits. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL), initiated in 2017. JSW Steel Limited was selected as the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), and its resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and later by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in September 2019. However,...
Read More
Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. While keeping all legal questions open, it granted a one-time exception, directing the High Court to declare results and appoint the qualified appellants without treating the order as a precedent, thereby resolving the immediate recruitment impasse. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment process for District Judges in Telangana. The appellants, advocates, had applied in April 2023 under the then-existing rules. However, in June 2023, the state introduced new rules, the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. A key provision, Rule 5(5.1)(a), restricted eligibility to advocates who had been practicing specifically in the High Court of T...
Read More
Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Slams High Court’s Interference
21Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Slams High Court’s Interference

This Supreme Court judgment reinforces the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which arise upon admission of a cheque's execution. It clarifies that these presumptions are rebuttable, but the initial onus is on the accused. The ruling also establishes that a violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not render a debt legally unenforceable for proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the appellant, Sanjabij Tari, concerning a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000 issued by the respondent, Kishore S. Borcar. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant contended that the amoun...
Read More
No Redemption After Auction Notice: Supreme Court Major Ruling on Bank Loan Recovery
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Redemption After Auction Notice: Supreme Court Major Ruling on Bank Loan Recovery

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the right of redemption of a mortgagor under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the publication of the notice of sale, as per the 2016 amendment. The Court held that this amended provision is retrospective in operation and overrides the general right of redemption under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The ruling emphasizes that only a single composite notice of sale is required under the SARFAESI Rules, irrespective of the mode of transfer adopted by the secured creditor. Facts Of The Case: The borrowers, M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors, availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank in January 2016, creating an equitable mortgage over various properties. After the loan account was classif...
Read More
Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses
2Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses

The Supreme Court held that inspection, search, and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, must comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of the Cr.P.C., including recording "reasons to believe" and the presence of independent witnesses under Section 100(4). Non-compliance with these statutory procedures vitiates the entire action, rendering it illegal and unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, ITC Limited, maintained a warehouse for its 'Classmate' brand stationery. On July 2, 2020, Legal Metrology officers inspected these premises without a warrant and seized 7600 packages of exercise books for an alleged violation of Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The appellant challenged this action before the Karnataka High Cour...
Read More
Supreme Court Overturns 11-Year Delay Condonation, Sets New Precedent on Limitation Law
1Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns 11-Year Delay Condonation, Sets New Precedent on Limitation Law

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the expression "within such period" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a party to explain the delay for the entire period from when the limitation period commenced until the actual filing date, not just the period after the limitation expired. It overrules the narrower interpretation in Rewa Coalfields and aligns with the view that "sufficient cause" must be shown for the full duration of the delay, emphasizing that the State is not entitled to preferential treatment in condonation matters. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from a dispute over a parcel of land. The appellant, Shivamma, became the absolute owner of the land, including a 4-acre portion, through a compromise decree in 1989. However, the Karnataka Housing Board (...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower courts. The ruling signifies that the appellants' legal challenge against the insurance company's position was not tenable in law. The court found no merit to interfere, allowing the impugned judgment and the terms of the insurance policy to stand. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by Vanita and others, likely the legal heirs of a deceased, seeking compensation under a motor accident claim. The accident presumably involved a vehicle insured with M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially ruled in the case, and its decision was subsequently challenged in a High Court. It appears that the claimants' appeal was unsuccessful in the Hig...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed
24Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed

The Supreme Court ruled that the term "State Forest Service" under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, refers to the service as a whole, not individual posts. The Court held that once a state service is approved, its substantively appointed gazetted officers, including Forest Range Officers, are eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, was appointed as a Forest Range Officer (FRO) in 2006. In 2021, he petitioned the authorities, arguing that FROs should be considered part of the "State Forest Service" and thus be eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) when sufficient numbers of senior officers like Deputy Conservators of Forests (DCFs) and Assistant Conserv...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim

The Supreme Court held that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value for caste claims and that the affinity test is not a litmus test. It cannot be the sole basis for rejection, especially given modernization and assimilation. The Court emphasized that such claims must be evaluated primarily on reliable documentary evidence. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, sought admission to a medical college based on a caste certificate claiming he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of Koli Mahadev. His claim was supported by historical documents, including the 1943 school record of his grandfather, which explicitly mentioned the caste as Koli Mahadev. Subsequent school records from 1975 and 1979 for his father and uncle, as well as his own school record...
Read More
Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...
Read More