Tag: Supreme Court of India

Death of a Partner Doesn’t End Business: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Reconstituted Firm
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Death of a Partner Doesn’t End Business: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Reconstituted Firm

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision, ruling that a partnership firm does not automatically dissolve upon a partner’s death if the partnership deed permits continuation with surviving partners. The Court held that Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) could not arbitrarily stop kerosene supply without terminating the dealership agreement. It clarified that reconstitution of the firm does not require all legal heirs to join, emphasizing IOCL’s obligation to act fairly as a state instrumentality. The judgment reinforced that contractual terms and partnership deeds override rigid policy guidelines in commercial disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal, a partnership firm operating as a ...
Read More
No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 415, and 420 IPC against respondents for allegedly fabricating a partition deed and family tree to exclude daughters from property compensation. It ruled that pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case exists. The Court emphasized that criminal conspiracy and cheating must be tried independently, reinstating the trial court’s proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, ensuring accountability for fraudulent deprivation of property rights. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around a dispute over compensation amounting to ₹33 crores awarded by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation for ancestral land purchased by K...
Read More
No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, affirming that such tests and information derived from them are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction. While voluntary tests with safeguards are permissible, their results alone cannot lead to conviction. An accused has a right to voluntarily undergo the test during trial, but it's not an indefeasible right; the court must assess all circumstances, including free consent and safeguards. The Court emphasized that a bail application should not involve ordering such involuntary investigative techniques. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report (FIR No. 545 of 2022) was registered on August 24, 2022, at P.S. Mahua, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...
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 :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC

The Supreme Court of India ruled that for a prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary, as this section punishes the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in order to commit extortion," which is a stage prior to the actual commission of extortion. The High Court's quashing order was set aside because it wrongly emphasized the non-delivery of money, which is not an essential ingredient for an offense under Section 387 IPC. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal filed by M/s. Balaji Traders (appellant-complainant) against a High Court judgment dated June 28, 2024, which quashed a summoning order and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar ...
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
Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by Abhishek Singh, holding that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR filed by him. The High Court erred by considering extraneous documents and evaluating the merits of the case at the quashing stage, rather than determining if a prima facie offense was made out. The proceedings from the FIR are revived, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents is to be established at trial. Facts Of The Case: Abhishek Singh, the appellant, a businessman, secured a loan of ₹7,70,000 from the Bank of India on July 22, 2020, by pledging 254 grams of 22-carat gold ornaments. According to Singh, he repaid the loan, including interest, by March 31, 2023, after receiving a notice from the bank on October 7, 2022, to pay ₹8,01,383.59. However, unbeknownst ...
Read More
Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

The Supreme Court of India, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict on a charge for which the trial court acquitted the accused, especially when no appeal or revision was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. The Court emphasized the principle of no reformatio in peius, meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal Facts Of The Case: Nagarajan, the appellant, was the neighbor of the deceased, Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant entered Mariammal's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Mariammal's mother-in-law intervened, scolded the appel...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

The Supreme Court ruled that while consumer commissions can award compensation for deficiency in service, including mental harassment and litigation costs, they cannot award interest on a loan taken by the consumer in addition to the stipulated contractual interest (8% compounded annually) on the refunded amount. The Court emphasized that the awarded interest sufficiently compensates for the deprivation of investment, and awarding interest under multiple heads for the same default is unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) launched a residential scheme called 'Purab Premium Apartments' in 2011. Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar (respondents) applied for flats, with Anupam Garg paying an earnest money of ₹5,50,000 for a 2-BHK + Servant Room apar...
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