Tag: Trial court

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute
12Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute

The Supreme Court held that High Courts under Section 100 CPC must frame only correct and appropriate substantial questions of law; erroneous formulation vitiates the second appellate judgment. Liberty to sue reserved in statutory proceedings does not permit reconsideration of concluded issues. Matter remanded for fresh admission and framing of proper substantial questions. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, concerning land in Tamil Nadu. The appellant-temple authority obtained patta grants in its favour through orders passed under the Act. However, when the matter reached the High Court in its appellate statutory capacity, the Court by order dated 22.09.1989 confirmed the grant of patta...
Read More
Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...
Read More
No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for aggravated sexual assault on a child. The Court ruled that cogent ocular evidence from witnesses, including the victim's traumatized behavior, can sustain a conviction even if medical evidence does not show injury or penetration. The sentence was partially modified. Facts Of The Case: On August 15, 2021, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, returned to the victim's home in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with her father and another man after collecting wood. After consuming alcohol, the victim's four-year-old daughter was sleeping inside. Around 4:30 p.m., the mother went inside to give food to the appellant and found him wearing only shorts, sitting near her daughter's legs. Th...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim by impleaded defendants against a co-defendant is not maintainable in a suit for specific performance. Such a claim must be incidental to the original suit's cause of action and cannot be independently raised against another defendant. The Court set aside the admitted counter-claim. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sanjay Tiwari, filed a suit for specific performance against the first respondent, Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, based on an alleged oral agreement dated 02.12.2002 for the sale of 0.93 acres of land. The plaintiff claimed full payment was made and he was put in possession. The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that defendants 2 and 3 were in possession of part of the property, making the suit defective for non-joinde...
Read More
Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...
Read More
Registered Release Deeds Are Binding: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent in Family Partition Case
19Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Registered Release Deeds Are Binding: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent in Family Partition Case

The Supreme Court held that unregistered partition deeds can be used collaterally to prove severance of joint family status and subsequent separate possession. Valid registered release deeds by coparceners are immediately effective to sever their interest, not contingent on being "acted upon," and can create an equitable estoppel against future claims. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a partition suit concerning the joint family property of Pillappa, who died in 1969. The plaintiffs, his sons and daughters, sought division of Schedule A properties (ancestral) and Schedule B properties (purchased jointly in the names of defendant no. 5, a son, and defendant no. 6, a son-in-law). Defendant no. 5 contested, claiming a prior partition between him and plaintiff no. 1 in 1972 via an ...
Read More
How a Medical “Margin of Error” Freed a Convict: A Supreme Court Case Study
16Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

How a Medical “Margin of Error” Freed a Convict: A Supreme Court Case Study

The Supreme Court applied the legal principle from Jaya Mala that medical ossification tests for age determination carry a margin of error of ±2 years. Granting this benefit, one appellant was declared a juvenile at the time of offence and released. For other aged convicts, the Court exercised its sentencing power under Article 142 to commute life imprisonment to a fixed 14-year term, considering the case's 35-year pendency. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an incident dated August 30, 1988, where eight accused persons were tried for offenses including murder (Sections 302/149 IPC) and voluntarily causing hurt (Sections 323/149 IPC). The Trial Court convicted all eight and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life. Their appeal to the High Court was dismisse...
Read More
“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence. The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹9,000 from a labour contractor for renewing three licences. The prosecution alleged that a partial payment of ₹3,000 was made on 25.09.1997, with the balance demanded the next day. The complainant reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 26.09.1997. ...
Read More
Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...
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