Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice
8Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It mandated accessible prison infrastructure, reasonable accommodations, and healthcare for disabled inmates, while emphasizing state accountability under UNCRPD obligations. The Court also reinforced compensation for rights violations and directed systemic reforms, including training for prison staff and periodic audits to ensure compliance with disability-inclusive standards. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy (80% disability) and autism, was falsely implicated in a criminal case at the behest of his paternal uncle. Based on a fa...
Read More
Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms
8Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms

The Supreme Court ruled that the Punjab government's recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians violated constitutional and statutory norms. The Court held that the State failed to consult the Punjab Public Service Commission as mandated under Article 320(3)(a) and disregarded UGC Regulations 2010, which were binding. The retrospective amendment to exclude these posts from the Commission’s purview was deemed illegal. The selection process, based solely on a written test without interviews or academic evaluation, was found arbitrary under Article 14. The Court quashed the appointments, directing fresh recruitment in compliance with UGC Regulations 2018. Facts Of The Case: In January 2021, the Punjab government sent requisitions to the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to fil...
Read More
Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-1) and documentary evidence (FIR, charge sheet) while relying on an unproven police statement (Ex-D1). It reinstated the MACT's compensation award, ruling that the insurer failed to disprove negligence by the offending vehicle's driver under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Court emphasized that non-examination of additional witnesses or delayed reporting was not fatal to the claim. Compensation of ₹12.43 lakhs was upheld, with 85% apportioned to the deceased's wife. Facts Of The Case: On September 24, 2021, Nathuram Ahirwar was riding a motorcycle with his wife (PW-1) as a pillion rider when their vehicle was allegedly hit from behind by a mini-truck (APE pickup) bearing registration MP 04...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Electricity Regulators in Franchisee Disputes
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Electricity Regulators in Franchisee Disputes

The Supreme Court ruled that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) lack jurisdiction to entertain petitions solely based on public interest under the Electricity Act, 2003. It held that franchisees, as agents of distribution licensees, are not directly regulated by ERCs, and investigations under Section 128 must target licensees, not franchisees. The Court emphasized that ERCs cannot micromanage franchisee agreements, as their regulatory oversight is limited to licensees. The judgment clarified that contractual disputes between licensees and franchisees fall outside ERCs' adjudicatory scope under Section 86(1)(f). The appeal was allowed, setting aside APTEL's order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Torrent Power Limited (appellant) and the Uttar Pradesh Elec...
Read More
Teachers’ Gratuity Rights Clarified: Supreme Court Decides Between State Rules and Payment of Gratuity Act
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Teachers’ Gratuity Rights Clarified: Supreme Court Decides Between State Rules and Payment of Gratuity Act

The Supreme Court ruled that aided school teachers in Maharashtra are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (under Article 309) for gratuity, not the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that since their pay and service conditions are state-regulated, they fall under the more beneficial state scheme, which includes pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG). Legal heirs need not produce a heirship certificate if nominated, but must submit an indemnity undertaking. Interest at 7% was mandated for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Vikram Ghongade, is the son of a deceased teacher employed at an aided school in Maharashtra. His mother passed away while in service, and he sought gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. How...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims

The Supreme Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proof of negligence is not required for claiming compensation, as the provision operates on a structured formula basis. The Court emphasized that compensation must be computed as per the Second Schedule of the Act, excluding non-scheduled heads like loss of love and affection. It ruled that the deceased, being a third party to the offending vehicle, entitled the claimants to compensation, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The judgment clarified that Section 163A has an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act, ensuring expedited compensation without fault liability adjudication. Facts Of The Case: On the night of November 15, 2006, Surender Singh was driving a tr...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules for Loss of Dependency in Fatal Accident
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules for Loss of Dependency in Fatal Accident

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of ₹76.63 lakhs with 9% interest. It rejected the insurer’s plea to reduce the multiplier, holding that remarriage of the widow did not negate dependency claims of minor children. The Court also clarified that future prospects and interest apply from the claim filing date, emphasizing timely compensation. Delay in adjudication was not solely attributable to claimants, justifying the interest rate. The judgment reinforces precedent-based compensation principles in fatal accident cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a fatal motor accident that occurred on 18 November 1995, when a car collided with a truck due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The dece...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Settlement : Order Caps Pending Debt at ₹15 Lakhs in Mortgage Case
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Settlement : Order Caps Pending Debt at ₹15 Lakhs in Mortgage Case

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's order by reducing the appellant's liability to ₹15 lakhs as full and final settlement of the decree. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, considering prolonged litigation, and clarified that the order was fact-specific and not a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a money recovery suit filed by the respondent, V. Sudarsanan, against the original defendants for ₹79,69,544/- with 9% interest on a principal loan of ₹58,50,000/- secured by a mortgage. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant, Umedraj Jain, purchased the mortgaged property from the defendants and attempted to implead himself in the proceedings, but his application was dismiss...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partnership firm need not be separately arraigned as an accused if its partners are prosecuted. The notice to partners constitutes notice to the firm, as partners are jointly and severally liable. The Court clarified that unlike companies, partnership firms lack a separate legal identity, making partners directly liable. The judgment distinguishes between vicarious liability (for companies) and joint liability (for firms), upholding the complaint’s validity despite the firm’s omission. The High Court’s order quashing the complaint was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Dhansingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of ₹21 lakh to the respondents, Chandrasekar and another, who were partners of the fi...
Read More
Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation : Oustees Must Follow 2016 Policy, Not 1992 Rates for Plot Allotments
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation : Oustees Must Follow 2016 Policy, Not 1992 Rates for Plot Allotments

The Supreme Court held that oustees (landowners whose land was acquired) cannot claim plots under HUDA’s 1992 policy rates but must comply with the revised 2016 policy. The Court clarified that suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act for mandatory injunction require a proven legal obligation, which was absent here due to non-compliance with application formalities. It emphasized that rehabilitation schemes are discretionary, not a statutory right, and upheld the State’s authority to modify policies prospectively. The judgment also reinforced that Article 21 (right to livelihood) does not mandate plot allotments in land acquisition cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and landowners (oustees) whose land was ...
Read More