Can a civic body delay permanent employment and gratuity benefits of contractual sanitation workers despite a binding Supreme Court order?

The Supreme Court addressed BMC’s prolonged non-compliance with its 2017 directions, ensuring overdue compensation, wage recalculations, and gratuity with statutory interest.

The Court emphasized accountability and institutional fairness in executing judicial orders.

Statutes:

* Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

* Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Section 7(3A))

* Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

#SupremeCourt #LabourLaw #IndustrialRelations #BMCJudgement

The Supreme Court dismissed the arbitration petition mainly because the claim was time-barred under applicable limitation laws.

✅ The judgment emphasized that limitation laws must be strictly observed, and parties cannot seek arbitration for stale claims that are outside the prescribed legal timeline.

✅ Attempts to pursue criminal proceedings and delayed filings in other courts further demonstrated the lack of diligence by the petitioner, which the Court noted in rejecting relief.

✅ The case underscores the need for prompt legal action and awareness of limitation periods in commercial disputes and partnerships.

#LimitationAct #TimeBarred #SupremeCourt

Supreme Court reinstates his conviction for the dowry-related strangulation and murder of his daughter-in-law, exposing a staged electrocution cover-up.

Key Takeaways

✅ Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete and consistent chain pointing to the accused’s guilt.

✅ Medical evidence and witness testimonies are crucial in proving dowry-related cruelty and murder.

✅ Burden of proof lies primarily on the prosecution, but the accused must also explain suspicious circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

✅ Fabrication of evidence and false reporting to hide crime attract penal provisions under IPC Sections 201 and 498A.

✅ Delay in recording witness statements may affect credibility but does not necessarily absolve the accused if the overall evidence is strong.

Key Statutes:

✅ IPC, 1860: Sec 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201

✅ CPC, 1973: Sec 174

✅ IEA, 1872: Section 106

When can a plaint be rejected as “barred by law”?

The Supreme Court clarified that limitation and ownership questions are often mixed issues of law and fact; they cannot be decided at the threshold. The Court restored the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that a suit for possession based on title carries a 12-year limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

Key Takeaways :

✅ Limited scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC

✅ Mutation entries do not confer ownership.

✅ Limitation question involves mixed fact and law.

✅ Possession - based suits have 12 - year limitation.

✅ Multiple - relief principle - If a suit involves multiple reliefs and any one of them is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected in entirety under Order 7 Rule 11(d).

✅ Error by the High Court

✅ Outcome : appeals allowed.

Statutes:

1. CPC, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11, Order 2 Rule 2

2. Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58 & 65

#SupremeCourt #LimitationAct

The Apex Court clarified the correct computation of compensation in motor accident claims.

The Court emphasized on including all allowances and accurate income tax deductions, enhancing the awarded compensation significantly.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that not just basic pay, but all emoluments beneficial to the deceased’s family must be considered.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Inclusion of allowances in income computation.

✅ Accurate income tax deduction based on actual slabs.

✅ Correct application of multiplier and future prospects.

✅ Enhanced compensation with interest.

Statutes:

✅ The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

✅ Income Tax Act, 1961

✅ Supreme Court precedents on compensation computation.

#SupremeCourt #MotorAccidentClaim #CompensationLaw

Dispute over possession and compensation related to land in Nashik, reserved originally for public purposes but used by the municipal corporation without formal acquisition.

Key takeaways:

✅ SC emphasized that the market value of land under acquisition must be determined strictly using the method prescribed in Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

✅ The Reference Court's enhanced compensation award of approximately ₹20.20 crores was restored.

✅ The appellant, having purchased the land in 2011, was entitled to compensatory interest (mesne profits) at 8% per annum on the purchase price for the period from 2011 to 2017.

Key Statutes:

* Land Acquisition Act, 1894

* The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013* Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

* SARFAESI Act, 2002

Can a government servant be retained in service if found to have submitted a false certificate at the time of recruitment?

The Delhi High Court examined this question in the context of a CRPF employee dismissed for producing a bogus matriculation mark sheet.

Held - that public service is built on trust and falsification of records breaks that trust, justifying dismissal.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Submitting false documents at recruitment invalidates service eligibility.

✅ Judicial review is limited to procedural fairness and proportionality.

Statutes :

✅ Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965

✅ CRPF Rules, 1955

✅ DoPT O.M. No. 11012/7/91-Estt(A), dated 19.05.1993

#SupremeCourt #DisciplinaryAction #AdministrativeLaw #CRPF #JudicialReview

Can High Courts bypass the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in recruitment disputes?

The Court reaffirmed that when a specialized tribunal exists, writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable except in exceptional circumstances.

Key Takeaways:

✅ In service and recruitment matters, High Courts cannot be directly approached under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists before an Administrative Tribunal like KSAT.

✅ Tribunals are courts of first instance for service disputes; High Court’s role is limited to judicial review of Tribunal orders.

✅ The judgment did not decide on the merits of whether married women’s OBC status should depend on their father’s or husband’s income but sent the matter to KSAT for adjudication.

✅ KSAT has been directed to decide the issue within six months, and 500 posts will remain reserved until its final decision. #AdministrativeLaw #RecruitmentDispute

ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF JUDGMENTS IS CRUCIAL TO PRESERVING LEGAL MEANING AND CLARITY.

Supreme Court clarified that under Muslim law, property left by a deceased person is ‘matruka’—and mere agreement to sell does not transfer ownership.

The widow’s claim was upheld only to the extent of her one-fourth share since Chand Khan died childless.

Key Takeaways :

✅ That property left by a deceased Muslim is termed "matruka" and must be divided according to Muslim inheritance law.

✅ An agreement to sell does not transfer ownership until a registered sale deed is executed.

✅ Widow's entitlement in case of no children is one-fourth (¼) of the total estate.

✅ The court emphasized that only properly executed and registered deeds convey ownership, reaffirming the principle nemo dat quod non habet.

#PropertyLaw #MuslimLaw #MatrukaProperty #SupremeCourt

Supreme Court revisited a chilling murder case arising from political rivalry that had persisted since 1990.

With key witnesses contradicting themselves about the scene and sequence of occurrence, the Court found the prosecution’s narrative unreliable.

Reaffirmed that when the very genesis and manner of the incident are doubtful, conviction cannot stand. Exercising Article 142 powers, the Court acquitted all four accused, invoking the principle of "benefit of doubt" in criminal jurisprudence.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Contradictory eyewitnesses weaken prosecution.

✅ Genesis and manner of incident must be proved.

✅ Article 142 powers ensure complete justice.

Statutes:

✅ Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 & 34

✅ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2)

✅ Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27

– Constitution of India – Article 142

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #BenefitofDoubt #Article142