Supreme Court Judgment - The Legal Chamber

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...

Supreme Court Verdict on Cross-Border Taxation: Hyatt’s India Operations Fall Under PE, Income Taxable

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict on Cross-Border Taxation: Hyatt’s India Operations Fall Under PE, Income Taxable

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Delhi High Court's ruling that Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Court emphasized that a fixed place of business PE exists if the enterprise has a right to use and control a physical location for its business activities, regardless of exclusive possession. The appellant's extensive control over hotel operations under the Strategic Oversight Services Agreement (SOSA) satisfied the "disposal test" and established a PE. Consequently, the income derived from these activities was deemed taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the tax liability. Facts Of The Case: Hyatt Internation...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It ruled that mere allegations of caste-based malice were insufficient without concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that prosecution under the Act requires proof of intent linked to the victim's caste, preventing misuse for personal vendettas. Legal infirmities in the complaint and lack of prima facie case justified the quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the appellant, Konde Nageshwar Rao, alleged that Respondent No. 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), manipulated the allotment of plots reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) beneficiaries to upper-caste ind...

Supreme Court Slams Fraudulent Litigation, Nullifies Compensation Order in Land Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Fraudulent Litigation, Nullifies Compensation Order in Land Dispute

The Supreme Court held that judicial orders obtained through fraud are null and void, as "fraud unravels everything." It emphasized that suppression of material facts vitiates proceedings, regardless of the court's hierarchy. The doctrine of merger does not apply to fraudulent judgments. The Court recalled its earlier order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication, affirming that fraud is an exception to finality in litigation. Procedural technicalities cannot shield fraudulent litigants from judicial scrutiny. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute over land ownership and compensation between Vishnu Vardhan, Reddy Veeranna, and T. Sudhakar. The trio jointly purchased land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 1997, which was later acquired by NOIDA in 200...

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...

Supreme Court Exposes Cover-Up, Mandates CBI Investigation for Custodial Violence

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Exposes Cover-Up, Mandates CBI Investigation for Custodial Violence

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not mandating the registration of anCfor custodial torture, as per Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., which mandates immediate FIR registration for cognizable offences. The Court directed a CBI investigation to ensure impartiality, citing institutional bias and conflict of interest. It quashed the counter FIR under Section 309 IPC as mala fide and awarded ₹50 lakhs compensation for the egregious violation of Article 21. The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional duty to protect citizens from state excesses and uphold human dignity. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, a police constable in Jammu & Kashmir, was summoned for an inquiry related to a narcotics case on February 17, 2023. He reported to the Joint Interro...

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court, holding that such relief is an "extraordinary remedy" and must not be granted routinely, especially in grave offences. The Court emphasized that concealing material facts (like a vacated injunction order) and witness intimidation vitiate bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary due to the accused's non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, violating bail conditions. The ruling reaffirmed strict judicial scrutiny under Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) to prevent miscarriage of justice[ Facts Of The Case: The case involves a property dispute between Nikita Jagganath Shetty (the appellant) and her estranged husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav (respondent No. 4), along with other co-accused. Nikit...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute : Civil Dispute or Criminal Case?

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute : Civil Dispute or Criminal Case?

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, ruling that the dispute was purely civil in nature and lacked criminal intent. The Court condemned the misuse of criminal proceedings to pressure the appellants in a land deal, imposing ₹10 lakh costs on the complainant for abuse of legal process. It emphasized that contractual breaches must be resolved through civil remedies, not criminal prosecution, unless fraudulent intent is clearly established. The judgment reaffirmed the need for courts to prevent harassment via frivolous FIRs in commercial disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved appellants Mala Choudhary (a 70-year-old widow of an Army officer) and her daughter, who owned a 500-square-yard plot in Telangana. In 2020, they orally agreed to sell the land to a c...

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly rejected the applications for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant. The Court ruled that the second appeal abated entirely as the decree was joint and indivisible, and non-substitution of the deceased appellant's legal representatives would lead to inconsistent decrees. The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC does not override the abatement principles under Order XXII, especially when the appeal was jointly filed by all appellants. The judgment emphasized that abatement is inevitable if the decree is based on common grounds and its reversal would create conflicting outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from Civil Suit No. 13 of 1983 (r...