Tag: Supreme Court of India

Property Dispute & Unreliable Witnesses: Why Supreme Court Threw Out a Murder Conviction
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Property Dispute & Unreliable Witnesses: Why Supreme Court Threw Out a Murder Conviction

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the stringent standards for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, as established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to conclusively prove homicide, motive, or the appellant's exclusive residence with the deceased. The recovery evidence was discredited, and the medical testimony created reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the death of Sunanda (also known as Nanda Gitte) in Talani village. On July 22, 2010, police received information about a doubtful death and found Sunanda's body about to be cremated in an open field. The police intervention halted the rites, and upon inspection, they found a strangulation mark on her neck and an injury on the back of her s...
Read More
Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Oral Gifts: Why Possession is Key in Muslim Law (Hiba)

The Supreme Court clarified that a valid Hiba (gift under Muslim Law) requires conclusive proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Mere oral claims or a memorandum are insufficient without contemporaneous evidence of the donee acting upon the gift. The Court also emphasized that declaratory suits must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues, and long delays can render a suit barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: Khadijabee was the original owner of an agricultural land. She allegedly made an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres to her daughter, Syeda Arifa Parveen (the Plaintiff), in 1988, followed by a memorandum of gift in 1989. After Khadijabee's death in 1990, her husband, Abdul Basit, mutated the entire property in his name. In 1995, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Shields Minors’ Property Rights Against Unauthorized Guardian Sales
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Minors’ Property Rights Against Unauthorized Guardian Sales

The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a minor's property by a natural guardian without court permission is voidable. The minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate this transaction not only by filing a suit but also through unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed, within the prescribed period of limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around Plot No. 57, originally owned by three minor sons of Rudrappa. In 1971, their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa, sold this plot to Krishnoji Rao through a registered sale deed without obtaining prior permission from the court. Later, in 1993, Krishnoji Rao sold the same plot to Smt. K. Neelamma. Meanwhile, after the minors attained majority, they, along with their mother, sold the very same Plot No. 57 to K.S. Shivap...
Read More
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance

Based on the proceedings, the Supreme Court has issued a series of substantive directions in a long-pending writ petition. The legal focus is on monitoring compliance with these judicial mandates, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction. The matter is scheduled for a future hearing specifically to review the implementation of its orders and assess further progress. Facts Of The Case: Based on the provided court proceeding document, which is a record of the pronouncement of an order and not the full case file, the specific facts and history of the case are not detailed. However, the document header identifies it as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, filed by S. Rajaseekaran against the Union of India and Others.The case is categorized under "PIL-W", indicating it was filed as...
Read More
Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Stresses Need for Concrete Proof of Identity
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Stresses Need for Concrete Proof of Identity

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their identity as the perpetrators. The sole eyewitness could not identify them, and the testimonies of other witnesses were unreliable. Recovery of weapons was inadmissible as proof of their use in the crime under Sections 25-27 of the Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: On June 3, 2000, an altercation occurred between appellants Rajendra Singh, his son Bhupender Singh, and Diler Singh after the appellants began digging Diler Singh's field. Later that day, at around 1:30 PM, Diler Singh's son, Pushpendra Singh (the deceased), was sitting at Jogither diversion. The three appellants arrived on a motorcycle, armed with swords and a 'kanta'. Upon seeing them, the deceased fled towards northern fields...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years

The Supreme Court allowed a life convict's appeal for premature release, interpreting the 2010 remission guidelines. The Court held the offence, motivated by perceived family prestige, fell under Category 3(b) requiring 22 years of incarceration, not Category 4(d) requiring 24 years, and ordered the appellant's immediate release. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Anilkumar, along with a co-accused, was convicted for the premeditated murder of a man and the attempted murder of his friend. The prosecution's case was that the attack was motivated by the fact that the deceased was in a romantic relationship with the appellant's sister. The appellant perceived this relationship as spoiling his sister's life and tarnishing the family's prestige. Following his conviction, the appellant wa...
Read More
Public Trust Doctrine Extended: Supreme Court Says Man-Made Lakes Must Also Be Protected for Public Good
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public Trust Doctrine Extended: Supreme Court Says Man-Made Lakes Must Also Be Protected for Public Good

The Supreme Court ruled that a man-made lake constructed for irrigation is not a statutory "wetland" under the 2017 Rules, exempting it from a complete ban on permanent construction. However, the Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine, extending its protection to such artificial water bodies and prohibiting permanent structures to ensure ecological balance and public use. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Swacch Association, an environmental organization, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court challenging various construction and recreational projects in and around the Futala Lake in Nagpur. The association argued that the lake was a protected 'wetland,' and that the construction of a Viewer's Gallery on its bank, the installation of a Musical Fountain and an ar...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to Sta...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to several other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to state gov...
Read More