Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts

The Supreme Court modified judicial service rules, increasing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for District Judge promotions from 10% to 25%. It reduced the required experience for LDCE eligibility to 3 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and mandated 10% accelerated promotions for Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Court also reinstated a 3-year minimum Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, counting from provisional enrollment. Vacancies under LDCE will be filled via regular promotion if unfilled. States must amend rules within three months to comply. The judgment aims to incentivize merit while ensuring judicial efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a series of interlocutory applications (IAs) filed in t...
Read More
Tender Scam Verdict: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Forgery & Corruption in Govt Tenders
3Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tender Scam Verdict: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Forgery & Corruption in Govt Tenders

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 468 IPC (forgery for cheating) against the appellant, a PWD engineer, for allegedly manipulating tender documents. However, it quashed charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, holding no evidence of 'criminal misconduct' or pecuniary advantage. The Court clarified that discharge pleas require examining only prima facie evidence in the chargesheet, without assessing credibility at this stage. The ruling reaffirms the distinction between procedural irregularities and corrupt intent under anti-corruption laws Facts Of The Case: The case involved K.H. Kamaladini, an Executive Engineer in Goa's Public Works Department, accused of manipulating 19 short tender notices for 847...
Read More
No Double Benefits: Supreme Court Clarifies Double Deduction Rules Under Income Tax Act
3Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Double Benefits: Supreme Court Clarifies Double Deduction Rules Under Income Tax Act

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 80-IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bars double deductions on the same profits under both Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC. It held that while deductions can be computed separately under different provisions, the total deduction cannot exceed the eligible profits of the business. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation, clarifying that Section 80-IA(9) restricts the allowability—not computation—of deductions, ensuring taxpayers do not claim overlapping benefits under Chapter VI-A. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Shital Fibers Limited, which filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2002-03, declaring a taxable income of ₹46,99,293 and claiming deductions under Sections 80-HHC (export profits) and 80-IA (industrial undertaking...
Read More
Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that the appellant (a 1976 appointee) was validly redesignated from Junior Field Officer (Group B) to Carpet Training Officer (Group C) in 1978, and subsequent regularization in 2006 as CTO didn't entitle him to Handicrafts Promotion Officer status or its promotion channel. The Court ruled that cadre classification and scheme-specific redesignation were within the government's administrative discretion, and the appellant's acceptance of earlier CAT orders (without challenging the CTO designation) precluded belated claims for HPO benefits under Article 14 Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rampat Azad, was appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO - Group B) in 1976 at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, Varanasi, under the All-India Handicr...
Read More
Technical Flaws Sink Conviction: Supreme Court Rules Bank Fraud Trial Violated Accused Rights
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Technical Flaws Sink Conviction: Supreme Court Rules Bank Fraud Trial Violated Accused Rights

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that (1) Appellant No. 3's juvenility under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 invalidated his conviction, and (2) the trial court's failure to properly examine all appellants under Section 313 CrPC – by not putting material incriminating evidence to them – vitiated the trial, causing irreversible prejudice given the 40-year case delay. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a 1982-83 bank fraud where accused persons, including appellants Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and his two sons Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal, allegedly conspired with SBI branch manager Ajay Kumar Srivastava (since deceased) to fraudulently obtain ₹13.29 lakh using fake transport receipts from their non-existent firm 'Rohtas Carriers'. The CBI registere...
Read More
Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection

The Supreme Court ruled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a partition suit based on the Benami Act when plaint averments describe properties as joint family assets. Whether properties are benami or fall under exceptions (Section 2(9)(A)) requires evidence. Section 4’s bar applies only to proven benami transactions, not disputed claims requiring trial. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involved a family partition suit (Regular Suit No. 630A/2018) filed by Vidya Devi Gupta (mother) and Sudeep Gupta (younger son) against Sandeep Gupta (elder son), his wife Shaifali Gupta, and their children, along with subsequent property purchasers Deepak Lalchandani and Surya Prakash Mishra. The plaintiffs claimed that multiple properties acquired in individual family members’ names – in...
Read More
Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice
1Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice

The Supreme Court held that a partner's retirement from a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, requires strict compliance with Section 72—including public notice publication and Registrar of Firms updates—to absolve liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Non-compliance renders retirement legally ineffective. The High Court erred under Section 482 CrPC by deciding factual disputes (e.g., retirement date/liability) prematurely, as these require trial evidence. Signatory status is irrelevant for partner liability under Section 141 NI Act if involvement in firm affairs is alleged. Facts Of The Case: Shivappa Reddy (Appellant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against M/s AVS Constructions (Ac...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Unreliable Witness & Lack of Demand Proof Sink Prosecution: Govt Official Cleared
1Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Unreliable Witness & Lack of Demand Proof Sink Prosecution: Govt Official Cleared

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that proving the initial demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient; the prosecution failed to conclusively establish demand. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not apply when demand is not proven, requiring strict construction of penal provisions. Facts Of The Case: C B Nagaraj, the Respondent, served as an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayath office, Davanagere. The Complainant, E R Krishnamurthy, sought a Validity Certificate for a teaching post under Category-II A, requiring a spot inspection report from Nagaraj. On February 7,...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Uniform Rules for Court Managers: Mandates Better Pay & Service Conditions for Court Managers
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Uniform Rules for Court Managers: Mandates Better Pay & Service Conditions for Court Managers

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to frame uniform rules for Court Managers within 3 months, adopting Assam's 2018 Rules as a model. It mandated their regularization, Class-II Gazetted status, and career progression, while allowing states to modify rules as needed. The judgment emphasized judicial efficiency and upheld Article 229 & 309 (Constitution) for service conditions. Existing contractual Court Managers must pass a suitability test for regularization, with benefits from their initial appointment date but no arrears. The ruling ensures standardized administrative support to reduce judges' workload and enhance justice delivery. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from multiple Interlocutory Applications (IAs) and a Writ Petition concerning the service conditions of C...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...
Read More