Vinod Chandran - The Legal Chamber

Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's finding that the death was not a direct consequence of the motor accident injuries. The legal requirement of establishing a direct causal nexus between the accident and the death was not satisfied, as the medical evidence indicated the fatality was a possible after-effect of the surgery and the victim's pre-existing conditions, not the injuries themselves. Facts Of The Case: On April 29, 2006, an Excise Guard died following injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The accident occurred when the motorcycle he was riding collided with another motorcycle. He was initially hospitalized from April 29 to May 3, 2006, for injuries including a compound fracture of multiple metatarsals in his right foot and a fracture in his l...

Supreme Court Ruling: Fraudulent Share Transfer Struck Down: Key Takeaways from the Satori Global Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that the NCLT has wide jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, to adjudicate on allegations of fraud, oppression, and mismanagement when integral to the complaint. It upheld that acts violating the Articles of Association and statutory provisions, including invalid share transfers and board meetings, constitute oppression, empowering the Tribunal to grant comprehensive relief. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Mrs. Shailja Krishna, a majority shareholder holding over 98% of a private company, and her husband, Mr. Ved Krishna. In December 2010, during a strained marital relationship, Mrs. Krishna allegedly resigned from her directorship and executed a gift deed transferring her entire shareholding to her mother-in-law. She contended s...

Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty

The Supreme Court held that the liberty granted by the High Court to file a fresh suit does not revive a time-barred cause of action or override the principles of res judicata. The Court affirmed that limitation under the Limitation Act and Order 23 Rule 2 CPC applies strictly, and a fresh suit cannot re-agitate issues already decided in prior proceedings. The judgment reinforces that judicial liberty cannot circumvent statutory bars or reopen conclusively adjudicated matters. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property transaction where the original plaintiff (predecessor of the petitioners) had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant, a cooperative housing society. A Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favor of the society’s secretary (second defen...