Tag: Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application. It holds that where the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of an intra-court appeal, the parties revert to the status under the original High Court Single Judge order. Consequently, contempt for its violation lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/s Khurana Brothers, initially challenged an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court by filing an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. While the Division Bench dismissed this appeal, it made certain observations that, according to the petitioner, worsened its legal position compared to the Single Judge's order. The petitioner then sought and was granted leave to appeal to t...
Read More
Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed that school admission registers are admissible evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act to prove a victim's minority in POCSO cases. It clarified that a witness cannot be declared hostile for minor inconsistencies, reiterating that such a step is an extraordinary measure requiring clear hostility or resiling from a material statement. The Court also held that under the amended SC/ST Act, mere knowledge of the victim's caste is sufficient to attract Section 3(2)(v), especially when a presumption of such awareness arises under Section 8(c) from prior acquaintance. Facts Of The Case: On the night of May 10, 2018, the minor victim left her home to deliver food to her grandfather. Near a Sendhwar tree, the appellant, Shivkumar, allegedly abducted her by force, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

The Supreme Court held that at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence. If the complaint and prima facie documents disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must proceed to trial. The merits of allegations, including forgery and cheating, are to be tested through evidence, not nipped in the bud. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rajendra Singh, who had always identified as a General Category 'Sikh', fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste ('Sansi') certificate just before the 2008 Guna Assembly elections. Using this certificate, he contested and won from a reserved constituency. The complaint accused Rajendra Singh, his father Amrik Singh, and others in...
Read More
Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, holding that in cases of unnatural death within a household, the burden to explain the circumstances lies with the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence complete, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around the death of Smt. Pushpa, who was married to Mahesh Singh. Her family alleged she faced persistent dowry harassment and cruelty from her husband and father-in-law, Janved Singh. On December 31, 1997, Janved Singh reported to police that Pushpa died from accidental electrocution while ironing clothes. However, the post-mortem revealed the cause was asphyxia due to strangula...
Read More
Just Compensation Explained: Supreme Court Raises MACT Award from Rs 30 Lakh to Rs 85 Lakh
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Just Compensation Explained: Supreme Court Raises MACT Award from Rs 30 Lakh to Rs 85 Lakh

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation by applying established principles under the Motor Vehicles Act. It awarded amounts under non-pecuniary heads like marriage prospects and pain & suffering, and granted attendant charges for two attendants, citing precedents to ensure just and equitable restitution for the claimant's 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: The claimant-appellant, Reshma, aged 24, suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on February 23, 2015, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation of ₹30,24,800, assessing her income at ₹10,000 per month and her disability at 100%. Dissatisfied, she appealed to the High Court, which enhanced the total ...
Read More
Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, emphasizing that the testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon as a "sterling witness." It held that even if medical evidence is not conclusive, it does not rule out the offence, and consent is immaterial when the victim is below 16 years of age. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2007 against the appellant, Varun Kumar, for offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years. The victim's testimony detailed that she was taken to Una and subsequently to a relative's house, where the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual and unnatural intercourse o...
Read More
Corporate vs. Cultivator: Supreme Court Rules Land Restoration Only for Disadvantaged Farmers
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Corporate vs. Cultivator: Supreme Court Rules Land Restoration Only for Disadvantaged Farmers

The Supreme Court held that the restoration remedy in Kedar Nath Yadav, grounded in protecting vulnerable agricultural communities, does not extend to industrial entities. A party that accepted compensation without challenge and failed to pursue statutory remedies cannot belatedly claim relief from a judgment secured by others through public interest litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the restoration of 28 Bighas of land in Singur, West Bengal, originally acquired in 2006 for the Tata Nano manufacturing project. The land was purchased and converted for industrial use by M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), which established a manufacturing unit thereon. The acquisition process, conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was subsequently...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting

The Supreme Court held that a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct any person, including a witness, to provide a voice sample for investigation. Relying on the principle in Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ritesh Sinha, the Court ruled that such sampling does not constitute testimonial compulsion and does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of a 25-year-old married woman in February 2021, leading to allegations of harassment by her in-laws and counter-allegations of misappropriation of cash and jewellery by her parents. During the investigation, it was alleged that the 2nd respondent acted as an agent for the deceased's father and threatened a witness privy to an extortion demand. The Investi...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...
Read More
Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused appellant, holding that no prima facie case was established under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court ruled that mere subsequent purchase of property from a co-accused, without allegation of inducement or involvement in the initial fraudulent transaction, does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha in October 2022 against Gunasekaran (Accused No. 1) for offences under Section 420 of the IPC. She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently represented himself as the owner of a vacant plot, inducing her into an unregistered sale agreement for ₹1.64 crore. She paid substantial sums totaling ₹92 lakhs ...
Read More