The VakilNetwork Blog
Expert commentary on Indian law, case analysis, and legal guides
Loss Of Domestic Care Recognised As Separate Compensation Head For Homemaker Death : Supreme Court
Claimants sought enhancement of compensation after their wife and mother died in a 2001 road accident caused by rash driving. The Supreme Court held that homemakers must be recognised as nation builders and introduced a new compensation head of loss of domestic care worth Rs. 30,000 per month, enhancing the total award from Rs. 8.43 lakhs to Rs. 62.77 lakhs.
Absence Of Mandatory Official Members In BOD Meeting Does Not Invalidate Recruitment Process : Supreme Court
Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar appointees challenged cancellation of their appointments by cooperative society members for violation of mandatory recruitment rules. The Supreme Court held that absence of official members in the Board meeting during appointment decision does not render the entire recruitment void when earlier stages of advertisement and interview were properly conducted.
Tree Falling On Stationary Vehicle Does Not Qualify As Accident Arising Out Of Use Of Motor Vehicle : Supreme Court
A Bangaluru resident travelling in an auto-rickshaw was injured when a branch fell from a roadside tree during heavy rain. He claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the Supreme Court held that a tree falling on a stationary vehicle does not constitute an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle under Section 166 of the MVA. However, exercising powers under Article 142, the Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 25 lakhs.
Maintaining Complete Records In Prescribed Form Is Mandatory Under PCPNDT Act : Supreme Court
A doctor challenged criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act for errors in maintaining Form F records. The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's cognizance, holding that any deficiency in record-keeping is a substantive offence under the Act, not merely a clerical error, and the burden lies on the doctor to prove otherwise.
Repeated Psychological Evaluation Of Child Victim By Multiple Experts Without Demonstrated Necessity Contradicts Child Welfare Principle : Supreme Court
A mother challenged High Court orders directing appointment of a four-member panel of experts to psychologically evaluate her minor daughter, who is also an alleged victim in pending POCSO proceedings against the father. The Supreme Court modified the impugned orders, holding that repeated multi-layered psychological evaluations of child victims without recorded reasons violate the paramount principle of child welfare and risk re-traumatisation.
Disciplinary Authority Must Issue Fresh Show-Cause Notice After De Novo Proceedings Before Labour Court : Supreme Court
A former employee of MSEDCL challenged her dismissal from service after disciplinary proceedings spanning over a decade. The Supreme Court partly allowed her appeal, holding that while the finding of misconduct remained undisturbed, the dismissal order was disproportionate and the disciplinary authority was required to issue a fresh show-cause notice after de novo proceedings before the Labour Court.
Third Judge In Criminal Appeal Under Section 392 CrPC Cannot Reverse Unanimous Division Bench Conclusions On Co-Acquitted Accused : Supreme Court
The complainant and the State challenged the High Court's acquittal of the Rastogi brothers in a murder case, where a third Judge reversed their convictions despite unanimous affirmation by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that Section 392 CrPC does not empower the third Judge to reverse unanimous conclusions of the Division Bench on co-accused, and referred the broader question regarding the scope of third Judge's jurisdiction to a larger Bench.
Auction Sale Conducted Without Strict Compliance With SARFAESI Rules Payment Timeline Is Void : Supreme Court
The daughter of a deceased guarantor challenged an auction sale of her father's mortgaged property conducted by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court quashed the sale after finding that the auction purchaser failed to pay the balance 75% of the bid amount within the mandatory 15-day period prescribed under Rule 9(4) of the SARFAESI Rules, without any written agreement extending the deadline.
Delhi High Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction To Entertain Writ Petitions Of CAPF Members : Supreme Court
A Border Security Force constable dismissed from service challenged the rejection of his writ petition by the Delhi High Court before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) to entertain the writ petition since the offices of the Director General, BSF and Union of India are located in Delhi, and set aside the impugned order declining jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds.
Condonation Of Re-Filing Delay Beyond 28 Days Not Permissible In IBC Section 62 Appeals : Supreme Court
The liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation filed an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code challenging an NCLAT order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period of 45 days plus grace period of 15 days, and the re-filing after curing defects was also beyond the 28-day window under the Supreme Court Rules.
Heir Cannot Alienate Entire Property As Karta When Co-Heirs Hold Definitive Shares As Tenants-In-Common Under Hindu Succession Act : Supreme Court
The step-mother Darubai challenged her four step-daughters' suit for partition and separate possession of their father's property, claiming she had authority to sell a portion as family karta. The Supreme Court upheld that when property devolves under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, heirs take as tenants-in-common with distinct one-fifth shares, and no single heir can alienate the whole property claiming karta status.
Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Justifies Grant Of Divorce Even When One Spouse Refuses Consent : Supreme Court
A wife challenged the High Court's decree granting divorce to her husband after they lived separately for 15 years without children. While the wife maintained she wanted to continue the marriage and contested the cruelty allegations, the Supreme Court held that prolonged separation with no hope of reconciliation constitutes irretrievable breakdown of marriage justifying dissolution under Article 142 of the Constitution.