The VakilNetwork Blog
Expert commentary on Indian law, case analysis, and legal guides
Visitor's Disciplinary Authority Over First Registrar Appointed Under Section 46(b) Of RGNAU Act Is Valid : Supreme Court
The First Registrar of Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University challenged his termination of service ordered by the Visitor. The High Court held that the Visitor and Ministry of Civil Aviation had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the Visitor being the appointing authority under Section 46(b) had power to terminate services, but declined to interfere with the High Court's operative directions due to peculiar circumstances.
Statutory Right To Additional Amenity TDR Cannot Be Waived By Contractual Undertaking : Supreme Court
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation challenged a High Court order directing it to grant additional amenity TDR to a landowner for developing a garden on land surrendered under the MRTP Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that statutory compensation rights under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act cannot be waived by contractual undertakings and that delay or laches cannot defeat claims for fair statutory compensation.
Absence Of Corroborative Evidence And Material Improvement In Testimony Renders Conviction Unsafe : Supreme Court
A Sri Lankan national was convicted for offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and other statutes based on allegations of involvement in LTTE activities. The Supreme Court acquitted him finding it was a case of mistaken identity where the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant Ranjan was the same person as the absconding accused Sri.
Stray Dogs Removed From Institutional Areas Cannot Claim Right Of Re-Release Under ABC Rules 2023 : Supreme Court
Taking suo moto cognizance of rising dog-bite incidents in schools and hospitals, the Supreme Court examined whether stray dogs can be re-released to institutional areas under ABC Rules 2023. The Court held that Rule 11(19) does not apply to restricted-access institutional premises and upheld directions for their removal.
Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction By Reappraising Evidence Rejected By High Court In Land D : Supreme Court
The State of Tamil Nadu challenged the Madras High Court's acquittal of nine accused persons in a murder case involving Dr. Subbiah, a Chennai doctor killed over a land dispute. The Supreme Court reappreciated the evidence and reversed the acquittal, restoring the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Executive Instructions For Promotion To Selection Posts Are Superseded By Statutory Rules Framed Under Article 309 : Supreme Court
The State of Odisha challenged High Court orders directing convening of Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of Assistant Section Officers to Assistant Regional Transport Officer posts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that employees have no vested right to promotion and that the post being a selection post, the Government could fill vacancies through direct recruitment under 2021 Rules, superseding earlier Executive Instructions.
Decree Directing Auction Upon Commissioner Report That Physical Division Is Impossible Is Executable As Final Decree : Supreme Court
Jennifer Messias filed a partition suit against her separated husband Peter Messias and obtained a decree declaring equal shares. After the husband died and the property proved indivisible, the executing court ordered auction. The High Court set aside these proceedings holding only a final decree could be executed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the decree contained executable provisions for auction upon commissioner's report and restored the execution proceedings.
Non-Speaking Order Rejecting Premature Release Without Disclosed Reasons Is Arbitrary : Supreme Court
Rohit Chaturvedi, convicted for murder and incarcerated for over 22 years, challenged the Ministry of Home Affairs letter rejecting his premature release despite the State of Uttarakhand recommending his release. The Supreme Court quashed the non-speaking order, holding that denial of remission cannot rest solely on the heinousness of the crime and that the petitioner is entitled to premature release.
Mediclaim Compensation Received By Accident Victim Is Not Deductible From MACT Award : Supreme Court
New India Assurance Company challenged a Bombay High Court decision that Mediclaim amounts received by accident victims need not be deducted from MACT compensation awards. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court ruling, holding that Mediclaim insurance proceeds are contractual benefits that coexist independently with statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Second Application Under Order VII Rule 11 Barred By Res Judicata When Identical Issue Already Decided : Supreme Court
The daughters of a Hindu male who died intestate filed a suit for partition claiming 1/8th share as Class I heirs. The Supreme Court held that a second application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on identical grounds was barred by res judicata, Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act is a saving clause and not a jurisdictional bar, and the daughters have an independent right under Section 8.
Co-Landlord With Valid Share Certificate And Bona Fide Need Can Seek Eviction Of Tenant Under Rent Act : Supreme Court
Marietta D'Silva, a co-landlord of Memorare Building in Mumbai, filed an eviction suit in 1993 against tenants Rudolf Lacerda and others under the Bombay Rent Act claiming the suit premises were required for her own occupation. The Supreme Court upheld her eviction decree, holding that she had sufficiently pleaded her status as co-landlord through share certificates and proved her bona fide need coupled with greater hardship.
Order XV Rule 5 CPC Requires Determination Of First Date Of Hearing Before Striking Off Tenant's Defence : Supreme Court
Landlords filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against their tenant who operated a hotel on the premises. The Trial Court struck off the tenant's defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for non-deposit of rent. The Supreme Court set aside both the Trial Court and High Court orders, holding that striking off the defence was impermissible without properly determining the 'first date of hearing' and examining whether there was substantial compliance with the statutory requirements.