Supreme Court Ruling - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts

20Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts

The Supreme Court held that the application of a "split multiplier" in motor accident compensation cases is impermissible. Relying on the structured formula from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court ruled that compensation must be calculated using a single multiplier based solely on the victim's age, as superannuation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a deviation from this settled method. Facts Of The Case: On 3rd August 2012, T.I. Krishnan, aged 51, died in a road accident on the Pala-Thodupuzha Road when his car was hit by a rashly driven bus. His surviving family—his wife and children—filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pala, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, in April 2014, awarded approximately ₹44 lakhs, determining...

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

In this Supreme Court judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 149 applies when a member of an unlawful assembly shares its common object, irrespective of direct commission of the fatal act. It upheld that active facilitation and participation in a coordinated attack establishes guilt. Facts Of The Case: On April 27, 1999, Ankush Gholap and others were returning from Bhor in a jeep when they were intercepted by six accused persons on two motorcycles. The accused, armed with weapons like knives and a sattur, stopped the jeep near Navi Ali. Accused no. 3 removed the jeep's keys and assaulted the driver, while the others dragged Ankush and two other occu...

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Investment vs. Debt: Supreme Court Explains Why Preference Shares Don’t Trigger IBC

The Supreme Court held that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) represent an equity investment, not a financial debt under the IBC. Preference shareholders are not creditors, and redemption is contingent upon company profits under the Companies Act. Therefore, they cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for non-redemption. Facts Of The Case: EPC Constructions India Limited (EPCC) held outstanding receivables from Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited for construction work. In 2015, to help Matix meet lender-mandated debt-equity ratios, the parties agreed to convert ₹400 crores of dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS). Matix subsequently allotted CRPS worth ₹250 crores to EPCC. When the shares matured after three years, M...

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

The Supreme Court held that a candidate in the reserved panel (waitlist) has no vested right to appointment once the selected candidates join their posts. A legal concession made before a tribunal cannot bind the authorities if it contravenes statutory recruitment rules or extends the life of a waitlist indefinitely. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel (waitlist). All three selected candidates joined their posts, so the waitlist was not operated. In 1999, during litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the appellants (Union of India) gave a statement that the r...

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...

Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers

25Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers

Supreme Court , This Constitution Bench judgment overruled prior rulings from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor, holding that Article 233(2) of the Constitution does not bar in-service judicial officers from direct recruitment to District Judge posts. It clarifies that eligibility is determined at the time of application and requires a combined seven-year experience as an advocate and judicial officer. Facts Of The Case: The batch of matters arose from conflicting interpretations of Article 233 of the Constitution regarding the eligibility of in-service judicial officers (Civil Judges) for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. The core legal controversy was triggered by the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), which held that for di...

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...

False Promise of Marriage” or Vengeance? Supreme Court Weighs In on Key Legal Issue

10Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

False Promise of Marriage” or Vengeance? Supreme Court Weighs In on Key Legal Issue

The Supreme Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, quashed the FIR and chargesheet. It ruled that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and initiated with an ulterior motive for vengeance after prior complaints against the complainant constitute a clear abuse of the legal process. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellant, Surendra Khawse, and the complainant, who were colleagues at a municipal corporation. Their friendly relationship progressed into a consensual physical intimacy. The complainant, who was previously married and had a son, alleged that the appellant had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions between March 15 and April 10, 2023, based on a false promise of marriage. She claimed that when she later i...

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that its continuation after a conclusive settlement order granting immunity from penalty was an abuse of process. The Revenue's action was in blatant disregard of its own binding circulars which mandated prosecution only after penalty confirmation by the ITAT. Facts Of The Case: A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the appellant's residence on 24.04.2016, leading to the seizure of unaccounted cash. Based on this, the Revenue initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, alleging a wilful attempt to evade tax. The appellant's petition before the High Court to quash these proceedings was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an...

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Power to Levy Interest on Unpaid Penalties

11Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Power to Levy Interest on Unpaid Penalties

The Supreme Court held that under Section 28A of the SEBI Act, interest on unpaid penalties is recoverable as per Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and accrues from the date the penalty becomes payable, not from the date of subsequent demand notices. The Court clarified that the adjudication order itself constitutes a valid demand, and interest is compensatory, not penal, in nature. The insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 28A merely clarified the existing legal position and did not introduce a substantive change. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals was upheld, affirming SEBI's authority to levy interest from the date of default. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, Jaykishor Chaturvedi and others, were promoter-directors of Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Limited, a company list...