The Vohra Law Office Blog
Expert commentary on Indian law, case analysis, and legal guides
Unregistered Agreement To Sell Filed After 38 Years Is Barred By Limitation Under Article 54 : Supreme Court
The appellants challenged an order where the High Court affirmed rejection of their application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The respondents had filed a suit for specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell from 1984 after a delay of 38 years. The Supreme Court held that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order.
Magistrate Cannot Record Evidence At Committal Stage For Offences Exclusively Triable By Sessions Court : Supreme Court
The complainant challenged the discharge of two accused persons in a murder case. The High Court ordered the Magistrate to record evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committal. The Supreme Court held that for offences exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the Magistrate's role is restricted to administrative functions like verifying jurisdiction and transmitting records, with no requirement to record evidence at the committal stage.
Candidate Must Disclose Spouse's Solely Owned Properties In Election Affidavit Under Gujarat Municipal Rules : Supreme Court
Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda challenged the criminal case against her for not disclosing her husband's landed properties in her 2015 municipal election affidavit. The Supreme Court held that the Gujarat Municipalities Rules require candidates to disclose all assets of themselves, their spouse and dependents, including properties solely owned by the spouse.
Zero Tolerance For AI Hallucinated Precedents In Judicial Adjudication : Supreme Court
A suspended director of Essel Infraprojects Ltd challenged the admission of a Section 7 IBC application against the corporate debtor and guarantor. The Supreme Court set aside both NCLT and NCLAT orders after discovering the Tribunal had relied on fake, AI-generated judgments as precedents, directing zero tolerance for such material in judicial proceedings.
2002 Policy Governing Remission Of Life Convicts Is Under Article 161 And Cannot Be Superseded By Statutory 2008 Policy : Supreme Court
Parveen Kumar, convicted for murder and serving life imprisonment, sought remission under Haryana's 2002 Policy framed under Article 161. The State rejected his application applying the subsequent 2008 Policy under Section 432 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the 2002 Policy being constitutionally sourced cannot be superseded by a statutory policy and granted the appellant relief.
Compromise Decree Without Express Authorization From Party To Counsel Is Void Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC : Supreme Court
The legal heirs of plaintiffs challenged the setting aside of a 1994 compromise decree in a partition suit. The Supreme Court held that the compromise decree was invalid as it was not signed by defendant no.5 nor was there express authorization to his counsel to enter into the compromise, violating Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the partition suit must be adjudicated through a full trial.
Non-Filing Of Additional Copies Of Charge-Sheet Does Not Entitle Accused To Default Bail Under BNSS : Supreme Court
Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, accused in a cyber fraud case involving mule accounts and digital extortion, filed for default bail claiming the prosecution failed to supply charge-sheet copies within the statutory period. The Supreme Court rejected his plea, holding that the right to default bail arises only upon non-filing of the charge-sheet itself within sixty or ninety days, not mere procedural deficiencies in supplying additional copies.
Functional Disability Must Correspond To Actual Earning Capacity Loss For Manual Workers : Supreme Court
A mason who suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee in a road accident filed for enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court held that for manual workers, functional disability must be assessed at 100% as the injury completely obliterated his earning capacity, directing the Insurance Company to deposit Rs. 40,29,730/- as enhanced compensation within six weeks.
Parents Of Deceased Unmarried Son Entitled To Filial Consortium Compensation In Motor Accident Claims : Supreme Court
The Oriental Insurance Company challenged a motor accident compensation award arguing the truck driver was not negligent and the assessed income of the deceased CA student was excessive. The Supreme Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' appeal to enhance compensation by Rs. 80,000 towards filial consortium, raising total compensation to Rs. 82,01,900.
Sentence Reduced To Period Already Undergone For Forging Revenue Document To Secure Bail : Supreme Court
The appellant Israfil was convicted for forging a Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika to secure bail for another accused. The Supreme Court, confining its review to quantum of sentence only, maintained the conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC but reduced the five-year sentence to the period already undergone, citing over a decade of criminal proceedings and absence of habitual criminal conduct.
Sale Deed Contravening Section 154 Of Abolition Act Is Voidable Not Void And Consolidation Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Cancel Registered Instruments : Supreme Court
The appellant sought to establish ownership of land purchased through a sale deed dated 04.06.1957. Lower authorities and the High Court held the sale deed void for contravention of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court reversed these findings, holding that transfers violating Section 154 are merely voidable at the instance of the Gaon Sabha and not void ab initio.
Continuous Readiness And Willingness Must Be Proven Throughout Contract Period And Not By Post-Suit Financial Documents : Supreme Court
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property dated 20.12.1990. The Trial Court decreed the suit in his favor, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.