Tag: Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that compensation for wrongful diversion of electricity under a Power Purchase Agreement is distinct from the reimbursement of fixed charges. The Court held that the beneficiary is entitled to both remedies concurrently, reinforcing the 'proportionate principle' and preventing unjust enrichment by the power generator. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a 1996 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB, later GUVNL) and Essar Power Limited (EPL). EPL's plant had a total capacity of 515 MW, with 300 MW allocated to GEB and 215 MW to its sister concern, Essar Steel Limited (ESL). The core issue arose when EPL began supplying more power to ESL from GUVNL's allocated 58% share, violating the ag...
Read More
Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”

The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders, emphasizing that the grant of bail must consider the totality of circumstances, including the accused's conduct and antecedents. The Court held that lower courts erred by ignoring relevant factors and precedents, and by granting bail mechanically without proper application of mind to the material on record. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint alleging that the accused respondents, a husband and wife, had cheated them of ₹1.9 crores by promising to transfer a piece of land that was already mortgaged and sold to a third party. An FIR was subsequently registered. The accused sought anticipatory bail, and the High Court granted them interim protection for nearly four years, during which media...
Read More
Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...
Read More
Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: How a Tax Exemption for Local Manufacturers Failed the Constitutional Test

This Supreme Court judgment struck down a Rajasthan VAT exemption notification for violating Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that granting a tax exemption exclusively to locally manufactured asbestos goods, without a valid justification discernible from the notification itself, constituted discriminatory protectionism against imported goods and was not a permissible differentiation. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, manufacturers of asbestos cement products with manufacturing units outside Rajasthan but sales depots within the state, challenged a Rajasthan Government notification dated 09.03.2007. This notification granted an exemption from Value Added Tax on the sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks manufactured within Rajasthan, provided they contained 25% or mo...
Read More
Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an arbitral award granting a composite interest rate from the cause of action until the date of repayment, based on a contract between the parties, excludes the default application of separate post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Party autonomy governs, and a decree-holder cannot claim compound interest at the execution stage if it was not stipulated in the contract or awarded by the tribunal, as this would amount to impermissibly modifying the award. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.04.2014 between HLV Limited and PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of land in Hyderabad. PBSAMP paid an advance of Rs. 15.5 crores to HLV. After...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged

The Supreme Court held that while there is no absolute rule for parity in interest rates between builders and buyers, the principle of equity and fairness may warrant it in cases of one-sided agreements and egregious conduct. The Court modified the awarded interest from 9% to 18% p.a., aligning the builder's liability for delay with the rate it charged the buyer, to serve the ends of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant booked a plot in the respondent's project in 2006, paying a significant advance. A Plot Buyer Agreement was executed in 2007, stipulating possession within 24 months of sanction of service plans and allowing the respondent to charge 18% p.a. interest on delayed payments by the appellant. By 2011, the appellant had paid over ₹28 lakhs. That year, the respondent invoke...
Read More
Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Case, Vacates Status Quo After Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the rescission of land grants for breach of mandatory cultivation conditions under the Portuguese-era Organic Structure. It ruled that the conditions, rooted in public policy, could not be waived or condoned by mere state inaction. The Court further held that new legal grounds cannot be raised at the appellate stage, confining its analysis to the original pleadings and the specific provisions of the agrarian law. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns land in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, originally granted by the Portuguese government between 1923 and 1930 under contracts known as ‘Alvaras’. These grants, based on the legal principle of ‘emphyteusis’, gave the holders inheritable and transferable rights subject to the mandatory condition of bringing the land und...
Read More
“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Pay and Recover” Doctrine Upheld: Supreme Court Directs Insurance to Compensate, Then Claim from Owner

The Supreme Court applied the "pay and recover" principle, directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award despite a policy breach due to an invalid driving licence. The insurer was absolved from liability but was ordered to pay the claimant and was permitted to subsequently recover the amount from the insured vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a fatal vehicular accident on 13th October 2011, in which Nand Kumar, a conductor, died. The accident involved a truck driven by respondent No. 1. The deceased's mother, Rama Bai, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs, payable by the driver and the truck owner (respondent Nos. 1 & 2), after finding that the driver did not po...
Read More
Allegations Must Be Specific: Supreme Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Dowry Law
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Allegations Must Be Specific: Supreme Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Dowry Law

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 498A IPC and the Dowry Act against a brother-in-law, emphasizing that vague and omnibus allegations without specific instances of cruelty or harassment do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated the legal principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, cautioning against the misuse of criminal provisions in matrimonial disputes and underscoring the necessity for concrete allegations to initiate prosecution. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by Smt. Jyoti Garg (Respondent No. 2) against her husband, mother-in-law, and her brother-in-law, Shobhit Kumar Mittal (the Appellant). The complainant alleged that within days of her marriage in 2014, she was harassed fo...
Read More