Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation of a custodial death case to the CBI, citing bias in the local police probe under "nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should judge their own cause). It emphasized witness protection for the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, and directed expedited arrests and trial, reinforcing accountability in custodial violence cases under constitutional safeguards. The judgment underscored fair investigation as a facet of Article 21. Facts Of The Case: The case stemmed from the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, a young man arrested by Madhya Pradesh police on 13th July 2024 during his wedding rituals in connection with a theft case (FIR No. 232/2024). Witnesses, including his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, alleged brutal torture—beatings, hanging upside down, and ch...
Read More
“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, requiring pre-institution mediation for commercial suits unless urgent interim relief is sought. However, it clarified that non-compliance before August 20, 2022 (the date of its earlier ruling in Patil Automation) does not warrant plaint rejection—instead, courts may refer parties to mediation while keeping suits in abeyance. The judgment harmonizes procedural rigor with practical enforcement, ensuring mediation’s role in reducing litigation backlog without unduly penalizing past filings. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a money suit filed by the Union of India against M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. in the Commercial Court, Alipore, seeking recovery of ₹8.73 crores as differential freight...
Read More
“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...
Read More
Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”

The Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot be compelled to provide non-monetary relief like prosthetic limbs or ongoing medical supervision to accident victims. Emphasizing indemnity principles, the Court held compensation must be monetary, calculating ₹12 lakh for future prosthetic/wheelchair needs. It overturned the High Court's directive for in-kind support, reaffirming insurers' liability is limited to pecuniary compensation under motor accident laws. The judgment clarifies that "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes imposing perpetual welfare obligations on insurers. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident on 21.12.2008, where respondent Suraj Kumar, a 22-year-old tempo cleaner, suffered severe injuries...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”

The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s compensation award for the family of a deceased truck driver, rejecting the High Court’s reduction of income from ₹10,000 to ₹4,076 per month. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance, it upheld ₹10,000 as justified wages for 2014. The Court also affirmed loss of consortium for children and parents under Somwati v. New India Assurance, stressing equitable apportionment. The judgment reinforces fair compensation principles in motor accident claims, emphasizing statutory and precedential rights of dependents. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a fatal motor accident where a truck driver, aged 28, was hit and killed by another negligently driven truck while he was boarding his parked vehicle. The deceased’s legal representatives—his wido...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Key Tax Exemption Case: Customs Duty Exemption Upheld for Soybean Oil Imports
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Key Tax Exemption Case: Customs Duty Exemption Upheld for Soybean Oil Imports

The Supreme Court ruled that crude degummed soybean oil is not an agricultural product but a distinct manufactured commodity, entitling the appellant to duty exemption under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. The Court held that a circular (No. 10/2004) cannot expand statutory exclusions beyond the notification’s scope. It clarified that manufacturing processes creating new marketable products alter the original commodity’s identity, and exemptions must align with statutory intent, not administrative clarifications. The judgment reinforces the primacy of statutory notifications over executive circulars. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Noble Resources and Trading India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Andagro Services Pvt. Ltd.), a recognized export house, imported crude degummed soybean oil under the Du...
Read More
“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Vijaya Bank's employment bond clause requiring a minimum 3-year service period or payment of Rs. 2 lakhs for premature resignation. The Court ruled this condition does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (restraint of trade) as it applies during employment, nor is it opposed to public policy under Section 23. The judgment clarified that while standard form contracts reflect unequal bargaining power, such terms remain enforceable unless proven unconscionable or unreasonable. The Court recognized the bank's legitimate interest in maintaining workforce stability through such reasonable restrictions. This decision reinforces the distinction between restraints during employment versus post-employment and sets parameters for evaluating liqui...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...
Read More
Govt Can Impose Conditions on Land Allotments to Charitable Trusts : Supreme Court on Land Allotment vs. Sale
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Govt Can Impose Conditions on Land Allotments to Charitable Trusts : Supreme Court on Land Allotment vs. Sale

The Supreme Court ruled that government land allotments to charitable trusts under statutory schemes are not absolute sales, allowing the State to impose usage conditions. It held that Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act (restricting alienation conditions) does not apply to such allotments, as public interest overrides private contractual principles. The Court emphasized that violation of allotment terms (e.g., unauthorized commercial use) justifies land resumption without compensation, branding such breaches as "fraud on statute". The judgment reaffirmed the State’s authority to enforce conditional grants for charitable purposes under revenue laws. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over 3.01 acres of government land in Telangana allotted to Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Han...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privity of contract, ruling that Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) was solely liable for transmission bay costs under its agreement with HP Power Transmission Corporation (HPPTC), despite internal arrangements with third parties. The Court held that non-signatories (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) could not be bound by the contract, reversing APTEL’s order. The judgment reaffirmed that contractual obligations apply only to parties to the agreement, unless explicitly extended. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC) and M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) over the liability for construction and maintenance costs of a 66kV power transmission bay at Urni, Himachal Pradesh. BHP, along with two other power com...
Read More