LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest (April,2025)
Get monthly updates on landmark decisions on the Constitution, Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce laws, and much more in one place with LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest, exclusively for you! Stay updated, Good People, with LatestLaws.com!
- ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
“Continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee,” observed the Supreme Court while deciding a case involving a retired Tehsildar who faced disciplinary action nearly 14 years after passing a land settlement order. The Court was called upon to examine whether a delayed chargesheet and an allegedly incorrect quasi-judicial order—passed without any corrupt motive—could justify departmental proceedings. The case presented a significant question on the balance between administrative discipline and judicial protection for officers exercising statutory powers.
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while setting aside orders deducting amounts from the salaries of employees in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation held that the doctrine of prejudice does not replace principles of natural justice but operates as an integral part of the same and the projection of an argument of prejudice would not by itself be a sole ground to brush aside the applicability of principles of natural justice.
“Now when the provision even in its clarificatory notification denies an increment, then by logic such teachers cannot be given the higher pay scale.”- SC
With this pointed observation, the Supreme Court stepped into a long-standing debate on academic qualifications and their impact on career advancement in technical education. The case brought into sharp focus a contentious dispute over whether faculty members in technical institutions, lacking a Ph.D., could rightfully claim higher pay scales and re-designation under the AICTE framework. As the Court dissected overlapping notifications and competing interpretations, it addressed not only questions of statutory authority but also broader issues of academic standards and constitutional fairness.
“Just because such factories come under the broad umbrella of the appellant-trust, which is also involved in some charitable work, the workers cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Bonus Act.”- SC
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between charitable purpose and statutory obligations. The Court was called upon to decide whether an institution, deeply rooted in social rehabilitation, could sidestep its obligations under the Labor laws. The case posed a compelling question: can the pursuit of noble objectives override the mandatory rights of workers engaged in commercial operations? What began as a claim for bonus by rehabilitated workers evolved into a significant judicial examination of statutory compliance, institutional identity, and workers’ rights under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
“A recruitment notification occupies an important position in the recruitment process... It is an important principle of transparency, intended to prevent illegality and arbitrariness in executive action.”- SC
Recently, the Supreme Court scrutinized the interpretation of recruitment rules that could affect thousands of teacher candidates in West Bengal. In a case that involved the eligibility of candidates for a teaching position, the Court’s examination of the recruitment rules brought clarity on the application of educational qualifications and cut-off dates. The case raised the fundamental question of how eligibility should be determined in the absence of a fixed cut-off date. What sparked this judicial intervention, and how might it reshape public employment laws? Read on to discover the Court’s detailed reasoning.
“Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces.” - SC
This statement by the Supreme Court, was made in a recent judgment examining a complex question of whether personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) qualify as "ex-servicemen" under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. With the potential to impact the careers of ex-servicemen and shape state recruitment policies, the Court's analysis navigates both statutory interpretation and the broader goals of military resettlement. To understand the full implications, read the complete case analysis here.
“The period of limitation could not have been stretched by the respondent by asserting that rejection of her non-statutory representation resulted in accrual of the cause of action for moving the Tribunal,” declared the Supreme Court while delivering an important judgment highlighting an essential issue regarding the limitations of time-bound claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
In this case, the Court examined whether a delayed application could be revived through non-statutory representations and whether such claims could circumvent the prescribed limitation period. The judgment not only addressed this central question but also invoked the Court's extraordinary powers under Article 142, considering equitable factors for the respondent. To learn more about how the Court balanced procedural discipline with fairness in a unique case, read below the complete case analysis.
Recently, the Gujarat High Court upheld the dismissal of nine railway constables, observing that had they travelled as assigned on the Sabarmati Express, the tragic 2002 Godhra train burning incident could potentially have been averted. The Court made strong observations on the dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the constables, highlighting the gravity of their misconduct.
- ARBITRATION CASES
Recently, the single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a referral court need not conduct a mini trial in order to ascertain whether the claim was time barred or not, but the referral court should also restrain itself from referring ex facie time barred disputes, instead of relegating a party to litigate in respect of evidently inadmissible claims.
Recently, the single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the period of limitation to challenge the award starts to run against the party challenging the award from the date of delivery of the signed copy of the award to such party, and not from the date of award.
Recently, The Jharkhand High Court, while allowing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that the pendency of proceedings before the competent authority under the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Ownership Act, 2011 does not bar the appointment of an arbitrator where the authority exercises only executive and not judicial powers, and that the arbitration clause in the agreement of sale is valid and enforceable.
"It is only in those cases where the court, while dealing with Section 8 of the Act, finds that there are very serious allegations of fraud which make a virtual case of criminal offence or where allegations of fraud are so complicated that it becomes absolutely essential that such complex issues can be decided only by the civil court……the court can sidetrack the agreement by dismissing the application under Section 8…”
In this landmark case, the Bombay High Court stepped into the intricacies of fraud allegations within a partnership dispute, examining whether such claims can override an arbitration agreement. The Court’s detailed analysis of fraud and arbitrability opens a dialogue on when judicial intervention is warranted and when arbitration must take its course, especially in cases involving allegations that could affect the very core of the agreement.
“It is clear that Section 21 does not expressly mandate the claimant to send a notice invoking arbitration to the respondents. However, the provision necessarily mandates such notice as its receipt by the respondent is required to commence arbitral proceedings…”- SC
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case tackles an important question: Can parties who were not served with a Section 21 notice still be brought into arbitration proceedings? The Court looked into the essential principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, addressing the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals over non-signatories and the implications of procedural lapses in arbitration notices. The Court’s analysis not only clarifies the arbitral tribunal’s role in determining its own jurisdiction but also highlights the importance of party consent, both express and implied, in the arbitration process. This decision is poised to impact how arbitration agreements are interpreted and enforced in future disputes.
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a writ petition filed against the freezing of a salary account, held that a party cannot bypass the efficacious remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the freezing action was pursuant to a lawful order passed by an arbitral tribunal and when the financial institution involved was not made a party.
Recently, the single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the use of the expression “may” in the clause clearly indicates that the parties had not decided to refer their disputes to arbitration, but had kept an option open that in case of disputes not being settled, the parties would have an opportunity to approach an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes. This is not a binding arbitration clause. The use of word ‘may’ denotes a discretion and is typically non-binding.
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court, while dismissing a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, upheld the Commercial Court’s interpretation that interest awarded at “prevalent rate” in an arbitral award must be calculated as per the “current rate of interest” under the Interest Act, 1978. The Court held that no interference was warranted where the arbitrator had already directed the rate conceptually, and the award had not been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a petition challenging the proceedings of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, whereby it refused to transfer a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati to Srivari Temple at Tirumala held that that the scope of judicial review in cases relating to transfers, which is made on account of administrative exigencies, is very limited and the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place.
“Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment being a sine qua non for a fair and transparent selection process, such equality is conspicuously absent in the present case.”- SC
The Supreme Court in a recent ruling drew a clear line between qualification and eligibility, two terms often confused in public employment disputes. What happens when a candidate exceeds the required qualification but misses the precise criteria laid down in law? Can procedural irregularities undo an appointment already made? The case raised compelling questions about overqualification, recruitment rules, and the limits of administrative discretion. The judgment holds significant lessons for future recruitment policies and the enforcement of statutory standards.
"Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division." - SC
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court probed into the complex issue of language use in public signage, specifically addressing the inclusion of Urdu alongside Marathi in the Municipal Council of Bhiwandi. This case raised fundamental questions about the statutory interpretation of the Maharashtra Official Language Act, 2022, and the broader implications of linguistic diversity in governance. What did the Court conclude about the use of Urdu on municipal signboards in Maharashtra? Continue reading to discover the Court's observations and decision.
“Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened.”- SC
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge mounted by retired public sector employees to a repealed pension scheme, raising significant constitutional questions on vested rights, judicial finality, and the limits of Article 32 jurisdiction. The judgment examines key constitutional doctrines and prior precedents, offering clarity on the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and the permissible contours of post-adjudicatory remedies.
“The Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State," stated the Supreme Court in its recent judgment, reinforcing the state’s right to make decisions in the interest of public resources. In a case revolving around the cancellation of an e-tender by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), the Court examined the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the administrative discretion necessary for ensuring fairness and protecting financial interests. Here follows an in-depth analysis of the Court's reasoning and its reaffirmation of judicial restraint in tender matters.
Recently, the Delhi High Court applied the doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata to bar successive writ petitions involving identical issues. While the Civil Procedure Code does not directly govern writs under Article 226, the Court emphasised that its underlying principles, particularly Constructive Res Judicata, remain applicable as a matter of public policy. The ruling came in a case where repeated challenges were made on issues that could have been raised earlier, and the Court warned that permitting such litigation undermines finality and amounts to abuse of process.
- CRIMINAL LAW CASES
“The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.” Reaffirming this principle, the Supreme Court revisited the settled principles governing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a case arising from a violent altercation during a volleyball match in Karnal. The appeal, filed by an Army personnel injured in the incident, challenged a High Court decision that had overturned the summoning of certain individuals accused of aiding and threatening him.
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a bail application of the petitioner accused of offence rape held that rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault and cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently, as granting of bail in such cases by adopting a liberal approach would be against the interest of the society.
Recently, the single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that CDR details showing contact between the petitioner and the co accused, without there being any voice recording relating to conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner for offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, though it raises a suspicion about his involvement in the alleged crime.
Recently, the Supreme Court quashed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order transferring an impersonation and extortion case from the Haryana Police to the CBI. The Court was hearing a plea by the accused challenging the transfer and held that such extraordinary powers must be exercised sparingly. It observed, “Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in exceptional cases".
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the power of the Court to alter or add a charge is exclusively with the Court and no party is required to file a petition praying the Court to invoke the powers under Section 216 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and if the parties to a litigation are allowed to invoke Section 216 Cr.P.C., the very purpose of incorporating Section 216 Cr.P.C., in the Code would be defeated.
“In order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable and admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from the time of their preparation/collection till the time they reached the FSL.”- SC
The Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the reliability of the evidence that had once seemed conclusive. The Court’s examination revealed multiple inconsistencies, from questionable forensic practices to irregularities in the handling of confessions. As the judgment exposed these serious deficiencies, it raised key questions about the integrity of the prosecution's case. Continue reading to discover how these issues ultimately led to the overturning of a conviction.
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the criminal appeals and acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 302, 201, and 120B Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential links required for conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the reliability of last-seen testimony and forensic data.
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the subsequent conduct of the appellant is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but merely on the basis of subsequent conduct, the appellant cannot be convicted that too for an offense under Section 302 of IPC.
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix, along with the absence of medical corroboration, and held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 366 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that in the absence of corroboration, a retracted Section 164 CrPC statement is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
“An unarmed, peaceful protest procession in the land of ‘salt satyagraha’, fast-unto-death and ‘do or die’ is no jural anathema.”-SC
With this affirmation, the Supreme Court recently delivered a judgment addressing the delicate balance between criminal defamation and the fundamental right to protest. In a dispute pitting aggrieved homebuyers against a developer accused of service deficiencies, the Court's ruling exposes fundamental concerns about the limits of dissent and the protection of consumer voices. What boundaries define legitimate protest, and when does criticism cross into defamation? This analysis offers an in-depth look at a decision that promises to reshape the contours of free speech and accountability in India.
"The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication." -SC
With this significant observation, the Supreme Court opened its verdict in a case that raised fundamental questions about the boundaries of criminal litigation, the doctrine of finality in judicial findings, and the proper invocation of vicarious liability in corporate offences. The case involves a detailed examination of whether the criminal justice system permits re-litigation of a defense already disbelieved, and whether an individual can be prosecuted when the company he represents is not even arraigned.
“The overruling of a decision cannot be equated to the enactment of an ex-post facto law, especially when the interpretation given to the statute/provision in the overruling decision is not a novel and unreasonably expansive interpretation of the provision in question such that it was completely unforeseeable.”- SC
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court confronted a substantial question of whether constitutional principle and judicial power of existing law apply to past conduct without violating constitutional safeguards? Rendered in the shadow of conflicting precedents and evolving interpretations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and criminal procedure, the judgment raises compelling questions about the reach of judicial rulings, the boundaries of procedural fairness, and the friction between precedent and public interest. What prompted this judicial pronouncement and what does it mean for cases long thought settled? Read further to uncover the layers of jurisprudential depth embedded in this important case.
Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the release of a man who had already undergone more imprisonment than the sentence awarded to him, in a matter related to the alleged possession of poppy husk. The Court emphasised that justice must not be compromised due to the economic incapacity of an individual, observing that “had the appellant been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on the proceedings.”
“Though in a case of circumstantial evidence, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot be declared as a general proposition of universal application that, in the absence of motive, the entire inculpatory circumstances should be ignored and the accused acquitted.”-SC
This statement, made by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment, sheds light on the role of motive in homicide cases based on circumstantial evidence. In a case involving the suspicious death of a young boy, the Court meticulously examined the evidence, rejecting the defense’s theory of suicide and highlighting the importance of forensic findings, the accused’s conduct, and the falsity of his claims. The absence of an apparent motive did not, as the Court emphasized, negate the chain of circumstances leading to the accused's conviction. What did the Court find compelling in this case? Read on to explore the full analysis and reasoning behind this landmark decision.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a POCSO case. The Court held that the trial court’s finding was based on a reasonable evaluation of evidence, and in the absence of compelling or substantial reasons, no interference was warranted.
“It is only on this paternalistic notion of a woman being likened to a chattel... that no offence is committed if the husband consents or connives.”-Delhi HC
Recently, the Delhi High Court plunged into a critical examination of a colonial-era provision that once criminalized adultery. In a case that drew upon the fallout of a personal relationship and the constitutional death knell sounded by Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Court examined whether a man could still be summoned under a law already declared void. The judgment, layered with constitutional insights and sharp commentary on gendered injustice, offers far more than just a resolution to one man's petition.
“An FIR, by taking cognizance of an offence, merely sets the law into motion. This has nothing to do with a decision on the administrative side, made by a different authority,” declared the Supreme Court in a significant ruling that draws a clear line between administrative lapses and the initiation of criminal proceedings. With important implications for fraud investigations under banking regulations, the Court’s sharp observations invite a closer look into how fairness, procedural safeguards, and the protection of public interest were balanced in this case.
"Though the High Court has unfettered powers conferred by the CrPC for exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, the same is expected to be used very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances."- SC
With these sharp words, the Supreme Court cast doubt on the legitimacy of a High Court’s decision to halt criminal proceedings arising from a multi-crore commercial dispute. But was it truly a civil recovery cloaked in criminal allegations or something more deceptive beneath the surface? Read further to uncover what the Court found.
Recently, the single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that in case, mother-in-law is harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter-in-law or any other member of the family, certainly she could be brought within the fold of aggrieved person and would have a right to maintain the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Supreme Court recently held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and can be prosecuted for corruption-related offences. The ruling came in an appeal against a conviction under the PC Act, where the Court emphasised that it is the nature of the public duty performed, especially when remunerated by the State, that determines coverage under the Act. Notably, the Court observed that “stamp vendors across the country… are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act".
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all four appellants of charges under Sections 302, 307, 460, 506, 120-B, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of a material object and its use in the commission of the offence.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction of the appellants from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ intention to commit murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Recently, the division judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that where the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open to the court, where the charge sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
- CIVIL LAW CASES
Recently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed payment of pendente lite interest on the arbitral sum, holding that a contractual clause barring interest claims does not necessarily prohibit an arbitrator from awarding pendente lite interest. The case arose from a dispute between a contractor and the government regarding a contract clause that restricted interest claims. The Court emphasized that unless a clause explicitly bars the arbitrator from granting such interest, the arbitrator retains the discretion to do so.
Recently, the Supreme Court held that charitable institutions running registered factories for commercial manufacturing are not exempt from the Payment of Bonus Act,1965, merely due to their charitable status. The Court clarified that once a factory is governed by the Factories Act and generates surplus, the Bonus Act applies regardless of the institution's objectives.
The Delhi High Court recently expounded that, "Service charge or TIP as is colloquially referred, is a voluntary payment by the customer. It cannot be compulsory or mandatory. The practice undertaken by the restaurant establishments of collecting service charge that too on a mandatory basis, in a coercive manner, would be contrary to consumer interest and is violative of consumer rights".
Recently, the Supreme Court held that an insurance company cannot repudiate a claim on the ground of voyage commencement during monsoon when it was aware of the intended schedule, in a matter involving the denial of marine insurance coverage for a vessel that sailed from Mumbai to Kolkata. The Court observed that enforcing such a strict condition would make the policy commercially meaningless and unreasonable.
“Whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round...” Emphasising this clarity, the Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling in a long-standing land dispute arising from Mumbai’s Jogeshwari area. The case involved questions of jurisdiction, the scope of quasi-judicial authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, and the applicability of res judicata principles in administrative proceedings.
Recently, the single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the plaintiff does not have any absolute choice and right to bypass mandatory provision under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act of 2015 (hereinafter ‘Act’), by making a prayer for urgent interim relief without justifying any reasonable ground.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the revision petition filed against the order dated 5.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit had been rejected, holding that the suit may only be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit when the Court is satisfied that the suit must fail for reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit.
“The award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations... The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons.”-SC
With this principle, the Supreme Court addressed the complex issue of interest entitlement in a long-standing dispute over the valuation of shares. The Court's examination of the interest rate, in light of the prolonged delay and absence of a contractual agreement, provides important insights into the principles of equitable compensation and judicial discretion in such matters.
“When a discretionary remedy is prayed for… such party must come to court on proper disclosure of facts. The plaint… must state all the facts with sufficient candour and clarity.”-SC
Recently, the Supreme Court stepped into a contentious dispute over a cancelled property deal and examined whether a buyer can still demand specific performance after accepting a substantial refund. The case, which travelled from the trial court to the apex court, raised fundamental issues on the enforceability of agreements, the limits of equitable remedies, and the legal consequences of material suppression. The judgment offers significant clarity on the obligations of a party seeking discretionary relief under contract law.
Recently, the Delhi High Court restrained the Excise Department from stopping liquor sales at a bar holding valid excise licenses, stating that service cannot be halted solely due to a pending Eating House License renewal caused by administrative delay.
- Supreme Court: No Trial required where bar of Limitation is evident on face of plaint, Read Judgment
Recently, the Supreme Court held that when the main relief in a civil suit is clearly time-barred, all related ancillary reliefs must also fail. The ruling came in an appeal challenging a High Court judgment that had wrongly set aside the trial court’s rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The Court found the High Court erred in allowing the suit to proceed despite the evident bar of limitation.
Recently, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Harley-Davidson LLC in a trademark and copyright infringement case over the deceptive use of its iconic 'Eagle' logo on footwear. The Court held that the defendant had misappropriated the brand’s identity and observed that the impugned mark was “structurally and visually similar,” creating a clear likelihood of consumer confusion.
“The attempt of the plaintiffs to disclose the cause of action through clever drafting, based solely on an agreement to sell, must fail…”- SC
In a case that tested the limits of what constitutes a valid cause of action, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a suit grounded entirely in a third-party sale agreement, unsupported by possession or title, could proceed. The Court’s sharp observations signaled a deeper scrutiny into the misuse of legal process and the growing trend of speculative litigation cloaked in clever pleadings.
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court, while partly allowing an appeal filed by the insurance company, held that mere discrepancy in policy number or absence of postmortem report cannot absolve the insurer from liability under a valid claim, particularly when the accident and resultant death are well established by oral and documentary evidence.
“The only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise.”- SC
Recently, the Supreme Court inquired into a decades-long familial dispute steeped in allegations of fraud, questions of ancestral ownership, and the binding force of compromise decrees. The judgment raised questions about how joint family property is determined, the legal sanctity of consent decrees, and the finality of litigation. What happens when heirs attempt to reopen settled matters? Can one generation challenge what another has accepted? This decision offers clarity and a cautionary note.
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of medical negligence against a hospital and its doctor but modified the quantum of compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Court was dealing with a matter arising out of the unfortunate death of a 27-year-old B.Tech graduate and observed that while negligence was evident, a reduced compensation of ₹10 lakhs with interest would suffice in the interest of justice.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that the delay of 3244 days in filing the appeal was inordinate, and the reasons cited were insufficient and unconvincing.
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court, while partly allowing an appeal filed by the insurer, held that technical objections such as policy number mismatch or absence of postmortem report cannot defeat a rightful claim for compensation where the accident and resultant death are otherwise proved.
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, affirming the concurrent findings of the Special Officer and the First Appellate Court, which ordered the eviction of the tenants. The Court held that the tenancy forum did not exceed its jurisdiction and that the findings on adoption and will, although incidental, were justified and supported by evidence.
- FAMILY LAW CASES
- HC rules: ‘Absence of detailed property description in will not a suspicious circumstance,’ Read Judgment
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court, while allowing an appeal against the rejection of a probate petition, held that mere allegations of old age or infirmity, unaccompanied by documentary evidence, are insufficient to cast suspicion on a registered will and the probate court had erred in rejecting the petition based on unfounded doubts and unsupported claims.
"It is a settled principle of law that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family." - SC
In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the complex issue of whether a property, once part of a joint family estate, remains ancestral or becomes self-acquired after a partition. The Court's examination of Hindu law principles, combined with its scrutiny of procedural boundaries in second appeals, has significant implications for property disputes within joint families. To understand the Court's reasoning and the eventual resolution of the case, continue reading.
Recently, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that if, during the period of separation, the parties agree to file for divorce by mutual consent, such an agreement does not negate their status of living separately, unless there is evidence that they cohabited either at the time of the agreement or thereafter.
- CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES
- Can’t believe that accused waited a year to report cheque loss: SC rejects defence in ₹22 Lakh NI Act case, Read Judgment
"The onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal... Only if an objection is raised..." In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court examined the evidentiary inconsistencies surrounding a dishonoured cheque in a long-pending dispute under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”). The case originated from a challenge to the High Court's decision that reversed a conviction upheld by two lower courts, compelling the apex court to revisit the principles of statutory presumption, the burden of proof, and the liability of a partner in a firm issuing the cheque.
Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioner sought to quash proceedings, claiming he had resigned from the firm before the dishonoured cheque was issued. The Court held that vicarious liability under Section 138 and Section 141 applies only to individuals in charge of the firm at the time of the offence. It emphasised that the complainant must specify the accused’s role, and the accused must provide solid evidence to challenge the allegations. The Court noted that criminal liability applies only to those responsible at the time of the offence, with vicarious liability inferred from the complaint but not leading to automatic conviction.
- TAXATION LAW CASES
Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while allowing writ petitions filed against orders of assessment and penalty under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005, held that assessments for periods beyond the statutory limitation could not be sustained and that failure to verify the taxpayer's opted composition scheme vitiated the proceedings.
Picture Source :
