Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

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
“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts must limit their examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot decide arbitrability or exclude claims as "excepted matters" at the appointment stage. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance, it held that arbitral tribunals—not courts—must determine whether claims fall under non-arbitrable categories. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot bifurcate claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable during arbitrator appointments, ensuring minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) and IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent), ...
Read More
“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

The Supreme Court ruled that bail parity cannot be mechanically applied when material distinctions exist between accused persons. It held that alleged conspirators/masterminds of a serious crime (Section 302 IPC) cannot claim bail parity with minor co-accused, especially when evidence suggests their active role in hiring a contract killer. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider the gravity of allegations, evidentiary role of each accused, and potential witness intimidation, rather than granting parity as a blanket rule. The judgment clarified that "parity" under Section 439 CrPC requires comparable roles, not mere similarity of charges. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a brutal shooting during a marriage procession in Rajasthan on November 28, 2023. The prosecution al...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC does not bar prosecution for tampering with court records after proceedings conclude, as such acts no longer affect "proceedings in court" under Section 195(1)(b). It held that fabricating documents in record rooms post-withdrawal constitutes standalone offences under IPC, not requiring court-sanctioned complaints. The judgment clarified that Section 195 applies only when offences directly impact live judicial proceedings or documents in active court custody, distinguishing between administrative record-keeping and judicial administration of justice. The Court affirmed that FIRs remain valid for post-proceeding forgeries. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2005 FIR lodged by the Registrar of Bharuch District Court against Parshotta...
Read More