Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Skilled Worker Gets Higher Disability Compensation
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Skilled Worker Gets Higher Disability Compensation

The Supreme Court upheld the claimant's appeal, enhancing compensation for permanent disability from 25% to 35% based on medical evidence, rejecting the Tribunal's unsupported reduction. It affirmed Rs. 6,000/month income for the skilled mason, applying future prospects and multiplier method. The Court emphasized expert medical opinion's primacy in disability assessment and awarded Rs. 7.19 lakh with interest, reinforcing just compensation principles under motor accident claims. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Suresh Jatav, a skilled mason, suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 12.08.2002 when a rashly driven bus collided with his auto-rickshaw. He sustained a compound fracture in his right fibula, requiring surgical intervention and hospitalization for six days, as w...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhanyam v. State of Kerala & Ors., set aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing that such extraordinary power must be used sparingly and only in situations affecting "public order," not merely "law and order". The Court reiterated that if a detenu is on bail and allegedly violating conditions, the State should seek bail cancellation rather than resorting to preventive detention. Facts Of The Case: The appeal originated from a High Court of Kerala judgment dated September 4, 2024, which affirmed a preventive detention order issued on June 20, 2024, by the District Magistrate, Palakkad. The detenu, Rajesh, the appellant's husband, runs a registered lending firm named 'Rithika Finance'. The detention order, issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala ...
Read More
Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and chargesheet, holding that while the complaint was within the limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC (relevant date for limitation being filing of complaint, not cognizance date), the allegations lacked specific incidents of cruelty and appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions. Facts Of The Case: The present appeal challenges a High Court order dated April 1, 2024, which set aside a Sessions Court order from October 4, 2008. The Sessions Court had discharged the Appellant from charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 1098/2002. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Complainant wife (Respondent no. 2) on July 3, 2002, leading to the FIR being registered on December 19, 2002, at PS Malviya Nagar...
Read More
Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and misappropriation of a gold chain (Section 404 IPC), and under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25 and 27). The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the deceased's gunshot injury. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder and other offenses. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, which placed the appellant with the deceased before the crime. Key evidence included the recovery of articles, such as the weapon used in the crime, and forensic findings that linked the appellant to the...
Read More
Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...
Read More
Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case

The Supreme Court held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for wilfully disobeying its 1996 order prohibiting tree felling in the Delhi Ridge and for concealing this action from the court. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines the Rule of Law, necessitating remedial measures to purge the contempt. Facts Of The Case: This contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India stems from the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) alleged wilful disobedience of the Court's 1996 order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which mandated the preservation of the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge. The DDA sought approval for constructing approach roads to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), entailin...
Read More
SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...
Read More
Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months. Facts Of The Case: This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1955 for "Verumpattom Rights" over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for "Jenmam ...
Read More
Legal Heir or Tenant? : Supreme Court Decides on Protracted Property Battle in Kerala
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Legal Heir or Tenant? : Supreme Court Decides on Protracted Property Battle in Kerala

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the impleadment of a party in execution proceedings, holding that the application for deletion was barred by res judicata as objections were not raised earlier. It ruled that a decree for specific performance implicitly includes possession unless contested by a third party. The Court rejected claims of tenancy rights under the Kerala Rent Control Act due to lack of evidence and upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that frivolous pleas cannot delay execution. Costs of ₹25,000 were imposed for protracting litigation. The Executing Court was directed to ensure possession is handed over within two months Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1996 agreement to sell between the original plaintiff (Prakasan) and defendant (Jame...
Read More