Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years

The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership dispute between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under Karnataka Societies Act) and ISKCON Mumbai (Maharashtra Public Trust) over temple properties. It upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the rightful owner, citing documentary evidence (sale deeds, allotment records) and rejecting claims of fraudulent manipulation. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, emphasizing societies' independent legal status under state registration laws. The judgment clarified that funding sources (even from ISKCON Mumbai) don’t determine ownership, and dismissed ancillary appeals linked to the dispute. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a protracted legal battle between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registrati...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of temple receivers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that advocates should not routinely manage religious institutions due to potential conflicts of interest. It directed courts to appoint administrators with religious and administrative expertise while prioritizing expedited dispute resolution. The Court also permitted the state to utilize temple funds for land acquisition under strict conditions, ensuring ownership remains with the deity/trust. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in prolonged receiverships and aligns with Article 25(2) of the Constitution, allowing state intervention for public order and pilgrim welfare. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the management of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Ma...
Read More
Supreme Court Cuts Jail Time for Tiger Skin Smugglers :Punishment for Animal Parts Smugglers
24May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cuts Jail Time for Tiger Skin Smugglers :Punishment for Animal Parts Smugglers

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 49-B and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 for illegal possession of tiger skins and animal parts, affirming the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 57. While noting investigation lapses, the Court reduced the sentence from 6 to 3 years' imprisonment considering the accused's youth and lack of direct poaching evidence, but imposed a Rs. 25,000 fine to deter wildlife crimes. The judgment balanced strict enforcement of wildlife laws with proportional sentencing. Facts Of The Case: The case stemmed from a CBI operation in March 2001 at a Nagpur petrol pump, where appellants Rajesh and Makbool Ahmed were caught with tiger skins, bones, claws, and antler horns in their car. Acting on a tip-off about illegal wildlife trade, t...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Dowry Harassment Case : Confirms 10-Year Jail for Husband in Dowry Death Case
24May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Dowry Harassment Case : Confirms 10-Year Jail for Husband in Dowry Death Case

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death), affirming that the prosecution proved demand of dowry, cruelty, and unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The Court emphasized the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, shifting the burden to the accused, who failed to rebut it. It clarified that contradictory defenses (accidental fall vs. suicide) weaken the accused's case, and consistent witness testimonies established dowry harassment. The judgment reinforced strict scrutiny of dowry-related deaths and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the death of Punita (alias Gayatri), who married the accused-appellant Virender Pal on February 28, 2008. Within months ...
Read More
Supreme Court Says Depositors First, Banks Later in NSEL Scam Case: MPID Act Overrides SARFAESI
24May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says Depositors First, Banks Later in NSEL Scam Case: MPID Act Overrides SARFAESI

The Supreme Court ruled that the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors (MPID) Act 1999 prevails over the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts Act 1993, denying secured creditors priority over assets attached under MPID. It also held that properties attached under MPID remain outside IBC moratorium, ensuring depositor claims take precedence over insolvency proceedings. The judgment reaffirms state legislative competence under List-II (State List) and upholds federalism by preventing central laws from overriding state-enacted investor protection measures. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the 2013 National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam, where around 13,000 investors lost approximately ₹5,600 crores due to payment defaults by trading members. NSEL, a commodit...
Read More
POCSO Case Delays Addressed: Supreme Court Directs Faster Trials in Child Sexual Abuse Cases
24May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

POCSO Case Delays Addressed: Supreme Court Directs Faster Trials in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

The Supreme Court, in its suo moto jurisdiction, issued directives to expedite trials under the POCSO Act 2012, mandating exclusive special courts in districts with over 100 pending cases. It emphasized time-bound investigations, child-friendly infrastructure, and sensitized personnel. The Court also stressed forensic lab efficiency and victim compensation, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory timelines to curb delays in child sexual abuse cases Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court of India took suo moto cognizance in July 2019 of the alarming rise in child sexual abuse cases across the country, registering the matter as "In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents." This judicial intervention was prompted by numerous media reports highlighting the increasing...
Read More
Supreme Court Verdict on Ownership and Illegal Possession:Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Appeal in the Land Dispute Case
24May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict on Ownership and Illegal Possession:Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Appeal in the Land Dispute Case

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, ruling that the appellant unlawfully occupied land in Survey No. 9 despite holding a deed for Survey No. 10. The Court emphasized that land grabbing requires illegal possession with intent, distinct from mere trespass, and affirmed the Special Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes summarily. The appellant’s claim of adverse possession failed due to lack of hostile animus and proof of long-standing occupation. The judgment reinforced the strict interpretation of land grabbing under the Act, aligning with precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002). Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over 252 square yards of land in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar V...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...
Read More
“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”

The Supreme Court held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) can exercise regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to impose compensation for delays, even without specific regulations under Section 178. It clarified that CERC’s orders under Section 79 are appealable to APTEL under Section 111, not through writ petitions unless jurisdictional or constitutional issues arise. The Court emphasized that regulatory gaps can be addressed via Section 79, distinguishing it from legislative rule-making under Section 178. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative remedy existed. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) and Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company L...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...
Read More