sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy.

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Indonesia Protests Turn Deadly as Parliament Building Torched in Makassar Bolivia’s Opposition Leader Luis Fernando Camacho Released from Jail — A Political Turning Point U.S. Senator Roger Wicker Pushes Joint Weapons Production with Taiwan, Raising Tensions with China The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy.   Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra July 26, 2023 Introduction This case revolves around disputes concerning insurance claims for theft and fire at the business premises of Suresh Chand Jain. The insurer, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., denied or closed the claims, leading to litigation before consumer forums. After adverse orders from the State Commission (SCDRC) and the National Commission (NCDRC), the insurer approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution.The Supreme Court had to decide whether such petitions are maintainable or whether the insurer should first approach the jurisdictional High Court under Articles 226/227. Facts of the Case The complainant obtained two insurance policies (Standard Fire and Special Perils, and Burglary Insurance) worth ₹50 lakhs through Allahabad Bank. He informed the bank when he shifted goods to a new office in Bawana, Delhi. Incidents: 29 June 2012: Theft occurred. 18 October 2012: Fire broke out. The insurer: Rejected the theft claim. Closed the fire claim for lack of documents. The complainant approached SCDRC, Delhi demanding ₹49 lakh, compensation of ₹20 lakh, and interest. SCDRC Order (18 March 2016): Granted ₹41.31 lakh with 12% interest. Ordered ₹2 lakh compensation for mental agony. Directed insurer to finalize the fire claim of ₹4 lakh. NCDRC Order (16 January 2023): Dismissed the insurer’s appeal and upheld SCDRC’s ruling. The insurer bypassed the High Court and filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. Issues of the Case Whether the petitioner should first approach the High Court under Article 226/227 before coming to the Supreme Court? Whether a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is maintainable against an NCDRC appellate order? Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, holding: 1. Appeal Structure under Consumer Protection Laws 1986 Act, Section 23 and 2019 Act, Section 67 allow appeals to the Supreme Court only from original orders of NCDRC. No further appeal lies to the Supreme Court against NCDRC appellate/revisional orders. 2. High Court as Proper Remedy Where NCDRC exercises appellate jurisdiction, the remedy lies before the High Court under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) or Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction). 3. Scope of Article 136 (Special Leave Jurisdiction) Article 136 is an exceptional discretionary remedy, not a substitute for statutory appeals. It applies only in cases of grave injustice or questions of public importance. Since no such exceptional circumstances existed here, the Court refused to entertain the SLP. 4. Deposit Refund As a condition for stay earlier, the insurer had deposited 50% of the claim amount. The Court directed this deposit be returned after verification since the SLP was dismissed. 5. Liberty to Approach High Court The petitioner was allowed to approach the jurisdictional High Court, if so advised. The Court clarified it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Conclusion The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that: It should not act as a routine appellate body against NCDRC’s appellate decisions. Litigants must respect procedural hierarchy and approach High Courts under Articles 226/227. Article 136 is to be used sparingly, for exceptional cases only. This ruling ensures that the Supreme Court remains a constitutional court of last resort, while High Courts handle supervisory review of consumer appellate orders. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Indonesia Protests Turn Deadly as Parliament Building Torched in Makassar Bolivia’s Opposition Leader Luis Fernando Camacho Released from Jail — A Political Turning Point U.S. Senator Roger Wicker Pushes Joint Weapons Production with Taiwan, Raising Tensions with China Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Rajesh Bindal 28 July 2023 Introduction This case concerns Ex-Sepoy Madan Prasad, who was dismissed from the Indian Army after repeatedly overstaying his leave without sufficient cause. The dismissal followed a Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceeding where he pleaded guilty. He challenged the dismissal, claiming the punishment was disproportionate and contrary to the Army Act, 1950. The Supreme Court examined whether the SCM had the authority to impose dismissal and whether the punishment was excessive given the circumstances. Facts of the Case Enrollment & Leave: The appellant joined the Army Service Corps on 4 January 1983 as a Mechanical Transport Driver. He was granted leave from 8 November 1998 to 16 December 1998, extended till 15 January 1999. Absence & Desertion: He failed to return after expiry of leave and was declared a deserter from 16 January 1999 following a Court of Inquiry under Section 106 of the Army Act. Surrender: He surrendered on 3 May 1999, after being absent for 108 days. SCM Trial: On 24 August 1999, he faced a Summary Court Martial, pleaded guilty, and was dismissed from service under Section 39(b) of the Army Act. Appeals: His appeal under Section 164 Army Act was rejected. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upheld the dismissal. He then approached the Supreme Court. Issues of the Case Whether the Summary Court Martial had the authority to impose dismissal as punishment. Whether the dismissal was disproportionate to the offence of overstaying leave. Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the dismissal, making the following key observations: Habitual Indiscipline: The appellant had a history of five prior punishments for overstaying leave and absence without leave. His repeated misconduct proved him to be a habitual offender. Guilty Plea: He pleaded guilty during the SCM, which established the charge conclusively. Legal Basis for Dismissal: Section 39(b) of the Army Act covers overstaying leave. Sections 71 & 120 empower SCM to impose dismissal as punishment. Dismissal is a lesser punishment than imprisonment, and hence legally valid. Defence Service Regulations (Reg. 448): These are guidelines, not binding restrictions. SCM retains discretion to impose higher punishment if justified. Discipline in Armed Forces: Discipline is the core foundation of military service. Repeated absence could not be condoned as it sets a wrong precedent for other soldiers. Conclusion The Supreme Court reiterated that discipline is non-negotiable in the armed forces. Given the appellant’s repeated misconduct and his guilty plea, the punishment of dismissal was held appropriate, lawful, and proportionate. The Court affirmed that SCMs have full authority to impose dismissal in such cases, and internal regulations do not limit that discretion. The appeal was dismissed as meritless, with each party bearing their own costs. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Read More »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Indonesia Protests Turn Deadly as Parliament Building Torched in Makassar Bolivia’s Opposition Leader Luis Fernando Camacho Released from Jail — A Political Turning Point U.S. Senator Roger Wicker Pushes Joint Weapons Production with Taiwan, Raising Tensions with China Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JM FINANCIAL HOME LOANS Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability   Justice C.T. Ravikumar,Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 28 July 2023 Introduction This civil appeal arose from a long-standing property dispute linked to improper valuation of the suit and non-payment of appropriate court fees. The respondent, Raj Pal Sharma, filed a suit challenging a gift deed and sale deed relating to family property. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for deficient court fees. The Delhi High Court, however, allowed amendment and revived the suit under its supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227 of the Constitution). The matter came before the Supreme Court to decide whether the High Court was justified in interfering and whether proper valuation and court fee are mandatory in declaratory-cum-cancellation suits. Facts of the Case Original Ownership: G.D. Mal was the owner of the suit property. He bequeathed it to his wife, Pritam Devi, through a will. Transfer of Property: In 2010, Pritam Devi gifted the property to her grandsons, who in 2011 sold it to the appellants (B.P. Naagar & Ors.) for ₹1 crore. Filing of Suit: G.D. Mal’s son, Raj Pal Sharma (respondent), filed a suit seeking: Cancellation of gift and sale deeds. Injunctions restraining eviction. Trial Court: Rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for improper valuation and non-payment of ad valorem court fee. High Court: Overruled the Trial Court under Article 227, holding valuation could be determined at trial, and allowed plaint amendment. Appeal: The appellants challenged the High Court’s interference before the Supreme Court. Issues of the Case Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of ad valorem court fee. Whether the High Court could invoke Article 227 jurisdiction to revive the plaint, instead of the respondent availing appeal under Section 96 CPC. Whether a plaintiff who is not a party to a deed must pay ad valorem court fee when seeking cancellation of such deed. Whether the High Court was correct in allowing amendment without addressing valuation and jurisdictional consequences. Judgment Proper Valuation is Mandatory:The Supreme Court reiterated that where the plaintiff himself values the suit at ₹1 crore and seeks cancellation (not mere declaration), ad valorem court fee is mandatory under the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Suits Valuation Act, 1887. High Court Overreach:The SC held that once a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the remedy lies in a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, not a supervisory writ under Article 227. Trial Court’s View was Legally Sound:The Trial Court correctly applied precedents like Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (AIR 1958 SC 245) and Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112. High Court’s Order Set Aside:The SC set aside the Delhi High Court’s order, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration of valuation, court fee, and maintainability within six months. Conclusion The Supreme Court emphasized that proper valuation and payment of ad valorem court fee are essential for maintainability of suits involving cancellation of documents. It further clarified that once a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only remedy is a regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC, not a constitutional writ under Article 227. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural discipline regarding court fees and valuation cannot be bypassed and must be judicially addressed before proceeding with property suits. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability Read More »

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Indonesia Protests Turn Deadly as Parliament Building Torched in Makassar Bolivia’s Opposition Leader Luis Fernando Camacho Released from Jail — A Political Turning Point U.S. Senator Roger Wicker Pushes Joint Weapons Production with Taiwan, Raising Tensions with China Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JM FINANCIAL HOME LOANS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VISTAAR FINANCE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Dipanker Datta 04 July 2023 Introduction This case deals with the claim of reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The respondent, A.K. Nair, a physically disabled RBI employee, was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Grade A) despite narrowly missing the cut-off. RBI refused to provide any relaxation or accommodation. The Bombay High Court acknowledged the applicability of reservation but denied him direct relief. Dissatisfied, Nair appealed to the Supreme Court, raising key questions about reservation in promotions, reasonable accommodation, and statutory rights of disabled employees. Facts of the Case Employment: A.K. Nair worked as Coin Manager in RBI’s Currency Management Department. He had a locomotor disability due to polio. Promotion Attempt (2003): Appeared for internal promotion exam for Grade A post. Fell short by 3 marks from general cut-off. RBI refused relaxation despite disability. High Court Proceedings (2006–2014): Filed writ in Bombay High Court citing Section 33, PwD Act 1995. HC held that horizontal reservation applies but denied individual relief, citing RBI rules. Appeal to Supreme Court: Nair appealed, arguing denial of promotion and lack of reasonable accommodation violated statutory and constitutional rights. Issue of the Case Main Issue:Whether persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions under Section 33 of the PwD Act, 1995, and whether RBI’s refusal amounted to violation of statutory and constitutional rights. Sub-Issues: Is RBI bound to provide horizontal reservation for PwDs in promotional posts, including Group A? Does failure to relax qualifying marks amount to discrimination/denial of reasonable accommodation? Can relief such as retrospective promotion and monetary benefits be granted despite earlier denial? Judgment Reservation in Promotion Confirmed: The Court held that PwDs are entitled to reservation in promotions under Section 33, PwD Act 1995. Appointment includes both recruitment and promotion. Evolution of Law Considered: Rajeev Kumar Gupta (2016), Siddaraju v. Karnataka (2020), and Leesamma Joseph (2021) all upheld reservation in promotions. PwD Act, 2016 (Section 34) expressly provides for promotion reservation. RBI’s Approach Unjustified: RBI failed to provide relaxation of 3 marks despite similar concessions to SC/STs. Ministry of Finance (2006) directed parity for PwDs, but RBI ignored it. This amounted to discrimination and breach of statutory rights. Relief Granted (using Article 142 powers): Notional promotion from 27 September 2006 (date of writ). Actual promotion from 15 September 2014. Arrears and retirement benefits to be recalculated and paid within 4 months. Clarification: Ruling limited to PwD reservation in promotions. Other service requirements under rules remain unaffected. Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal and granted full relief to A.K. Nair. The judgment reaffirmed that: Persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions. Reasonable accommodation (like relaxation in marks) must be provided. Public authorities like RBI must act as model employers and uphold statutory rights of PwDs. This case strongly reinforced the constitutional and statutory mandate to ensure equal opportunity in public employment for persons with disabilities. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Read More »

Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Indonesia Protests Turn Deadly as Parliament Building Torched in Makassar Bolivia’s Opposition Leader Luis Fernando Camacho Released from Jail — A Political Turning Point U.S. Senator Roger Wicker Pushes Joint Weapons Production with Taiwan, Raising Tensions with China Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JM FINANCIAL HOME LOANS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VISTAAR FINANCE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FORESIGHT LAW OFFICES INDIA, DELHI Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Bela M. Trivedi 4 July, 2023 Introduction These appeals stem from a land acquisition dispute where the appellants challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired under the Greater Noida Development Project. Their primary grievance was that the High Court failed to consider their cross objections regarding enhanced compensation during appellate proceedings. Facts of the Case On 30.04.1993, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire large tracts of land, including the appellants’ property, for the Greater Noida Project. A declaration under Section 6 followed on 25.06.1993, and possession was taken between 13.08.1993 and 31.05.1994. On 27.08.1994, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at rates of ₹32.52, ₹22.44, and ₹16.46 per sq. yard. Dissatisfied, the appellants sought reference under Section 18, demanding ₹350–₹500 per sq. yard. On 09.05.2002, Allahabad High Court Remand Case the District Judge fixed compensation at ₹267 per sq. yard (after deducting development charges), along with solatium and interest. The Greater Noida Authority appealed, while the appellants filed cross objections seeking higher compensation. On 04.01.2017, the Allahabad High Court upheld the District Judge’s order but failed to consider the appellants’ cross objections. Their review petition (05.01.2017) was also dismissed. This led to the filing of the present appeals before the Supreme Court. Issues of the Case Did the High Court err by failing to consider the appellants’ cross objections regarding enhanced compensation? Should the matter be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration? Judgment The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the High Court of Allahabad for fresh adjudication. Key findings: The High Court erred in ignoring the cross objections filed by the appellants. As per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have the same legal effect as an independent appeal and must be adjudicated with due consideration. The High Court’s judgments dated 04.01.2017 and 05.01.2017 did not reflect any discussion on cross objections. Referring to Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 2 SCC 407, the Court reiterated that the first appellate court must apply its mind to all issues raised before it. Supreme Court’s Directions ✅ Set aside the High Court’s judgments insofar as they ignored the cross objections.✅ Remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.✅ Clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of compensation. Conclusion The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed in its judicial duty by not considering the appellants’ cross objections relating to enhancement of compensation. Under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, cross objections carry equal weight as a full-fledged appeal. The Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the appellants’ claims are properly addressed. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Read More »

Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JM FINANCIAL HOME LOANS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VISTAAR FINANCE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FORESIGHT LAW OFFICES INDIA, DELHI Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Dipankar Datta 04 July 2023 Headnote The Supreme Court upheld the classification of maize starch under Entry No. 61 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as “starch of any kind” taxable at 4%. The Court ruled that specific tax entries prevail over general exemptions and validated retrospective clarifications issued by the Commissioner under Section 28-A. Introduction The Supreme Court in Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., decided on 04 July 2023, examined whether maize starch was exempt from tax as a “product of millets” or taxable under “starch of any kind” in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The case also tested the legality of retrospective tax clarifications issued by the Commissioner under Section 28-A. Facts of the Case The appellant manufactured and sold maize starch. Earlier circulars of the Tamil Nadu Commissioner exempted maize starch treating it as a maize product. Later, a clarification dated 08 October 1998 declared maize starch taxable at 4% under Entry No. 61 (sago and starch of any kind). Assessments were raised retrospectively from 17 July 1996, leading to tax demand and penalties. The High Court upheld the validity of the clarification. The appellant approached the Supreme Court. Issue of the Case Whether maize starch falls under the exempt category of “products of millets” or under Taxation Entry 61 as “starch of any kind”? Whether the Commissioner’s clarification under Section 28-A can apply retrospectively? Appellant’s Arguments Maize starch is a maize product and falls under Exemption Entry No. 8. Earlier circulars exempting maize starch created legitimate expectations. Retrospective application of the 1998 clarification was arbitrary and contrary to law. The omission of the word “like” in the 1994 amendment did not change legislative intent to exempt maize starch. Respondent’s Arguments Maize starch is a processed product, not raw maize, hence not exempt. “Starch of any kind” in Entry No. 61 covers maize starch. Clarifications under Section 28-A are meant to resolve ambiguity and naturally operate retrospectively. Legislative intent was clarified by later amendments removing “maize” from exemption entries. Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding: Maize starch is a processed commodity, distinct from maize, and thus falls under Taxation Entry No. 61 (“starch of any kind”) taxable at 4%. Exemption Entry No. 8 covers only raw maize and listed millet products. Specific entries prevail over general exemptions in tax law. The Commissioner’s 08 October 1998 clarification was validly issued under Section 28-A and operates retrospectively, since clarifications make explicit what was already implicit. Conclusion The Court reaffirmed that maize starch is taxable at 4% under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It upheld the principle that specific tax entries override general ones and validated the retrospective effect of clarifications. The judgment underscores the importance of precise classification in tax matters and the binding nature of clarifications issued under statutory authority. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Read More »

Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VISTAAR FINANCE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FORESIGHT LAW OFFICES INDIA, DELHI Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal 05 July 2023 Headnote The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused, holding that a conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of a minor child witness unless proper judicial inquiry under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act is conducted. The Court stressed the need for corroboration and procedural safeguards in criminal trials. Introduction The case of Pradeep v. State of Haryana, decided on 5 July 2023, revolved around the murder of a woman and the attempted murder of her minor son. The prosecution’s case depended almost entirely on the testimony of the child witness, Ajay. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a conviction could be sustained without proper judicial inquiry into the competence of the child witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of crucial corroborative witnesses. Facts of the Case On 30 December 2002, a woman was murdered and her minor son Ajay injured. Ajay, aged around 11 at the time, became the sole eyewitness and identified the accused, Pradeep, and his co-accused. The Sessions Court convicted both accused under Sections 302, 307, 449, and 324 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, where the reliability of Ajay’s testimony and procedural compliance under Section 118 were challenged. Issue of the Case Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC could be sustained solely on the testimony of a child witness, without proper judicial inquiry into competence and without examining key independent witnesses? Petitioner’s Arguments The child’s evidence was unreliable, full of contradictions, and possibly tutored. No proper inquiry under Section 118 of the Evidence Act was conducted before recording testimony. Key witness (milkman Surender), to whom Ajay first disclosed the incident, was not examined. Forensic evidence, like shoeprint mismatch, further weakened the prosecution’s case. Respondent’s Arguments A child witness is legally competent under Section 118, and Ajay clearly identified the accused. Corroboration is not a strict requirement if the testimony is found credible. Minor contradictions did not undermine Ajay’s reliability. Both Trial Court and High Court had already examined the testimony and upheld conviction. Judgment The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and set aside the conviction. The Court held: Child witness testimony requires strict scrutiny; preliminary inquiry under Section 118 must be recorded. Only three superficial questions were asked to Ajay, which was insufficient to establish competence. Non-examination of the milkman, the first person informed, was a serious lapse. Contradictions in Ajay’s testimony and lack of corroboration made conviction unsafe. Forensic evidence (shoeprint mismatch) also raised doubts. Accordingly, the conviction was overturned, and Pradeep was acquitted. Conclusion The Supreme Court reinforced that while child witnesses are competent, their testimony must be approached with caution. Courts must record satisfaction of the child’s ability to understand and speak the truth, and corroborative evidence is crucial. This judgment highlights the importance of fair trial safeguards, ensuring that convictions rest on reliable and legally tested evidence rather than procedural shortcuts. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Read More »

Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JM FINANCIAL HOME LOANS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VISTAAR FINANCE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FORESIGHT LAW OFFICES INDIA, DELHI Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023)    Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath 05 July 2023 Headnote The Supreme Court held that in cases of severe permanent disability resulting in loss of livelihood, compensation must be calculated on the basis of full functional disability without deductions in income while applying the multiplier method. The Court enhanced compensation under various heads, ensuring just and fair relief to the victim. Introduction The case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 5 July 2023, concerns a motor vehicle accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, who suffered 85% permanent partial disability in a road accident, sought enhanced compensation. The judgment clarifies the proper application of the multiplier method, emphasizing that deductions should not apply when functional disability leads to complete loss of earning capacity. Facts of the Case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable, a 29-year-old welder, sustained grievous injuries in a 2011 road accident, resulting in 85% permanent disability. His disability left him unable to continue his skilled profession, effectively rendering him unemployable. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded reduced compensation by applying deductions. The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, contending that the lower courts had undervalued his loss of livelihood and economic dependency. Issue of the Case Whether the appellant, suffering 85% permanent disability that functionally amounts to 100% loss of earning capacity, is entitled to enhanced compensation without deductions in monthly income under the multiplier method? Petitioner’s Arguments Disability of 85% equated to functional disability of 100%, leaving him unemployable as a welder. The High Court wrongly applied deductions to income, contrary to precedents like Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar. Compensation must reflect total loss of earning capacity. Sought additional amounts for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future livelihood. Respondent’s Arguments Disability was only 85% in the right lower limb, not 100%. The appellant could still pursue alternative less strenuous work. Compensation already covered medical costs and non-pecuniary damages. Tribunal and High Court exercised proper discretion based on evidence. Judgment The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ orders, holding that: Functional disability equated to 100% loss of earning capacity. No deductions in income should apply when the victim is rendered completely unemployable. Compensation recalculated on full pre-accident monthly income of ₹15,000, with the correct multiplier of 18. Enhanced awards were granted under multiple heads, including: Pain and suffering Future medical expenses Attendant charges Loss of marriage prospects Loss of amenities The Court reaffirmed that just and fair compensation must consider both economic and human suffering. Conclusion The judgment in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. underscores that compensation in motor accident claims must reflect full functional disability and loss of livelihood. The ruling strengthens victim-centric interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring that seriously injured claimants receive compensation that secures dignity, sustenance, and justice. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next » Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023)   Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath 05 July 2023 Headnote The Supreme Court held that in cases of severe permanent disability resulting in loss of livelihood, compensation must be calculated on the basis of full functional disability without deductions in income while applying the multiplier method. The Court enhanced compensation under various heads, ensuring just and fair relief to the victim. Introduction The case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 5 July 2023, concerns a motor vehicle accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, who suffered 85% permanent partial disability in a road accident, sought enhanced compensation. The judgment clarifies the proper application of the multiplier method, emphasizing that deductions should not apply when functional disability leads to complete loss of earning capacity. Facts of the Case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable, a 29-year-old welder, sustained grievous injuries in a 2011 road accident, resulting in 85% permanent disability. His disability left him unable to continue his

Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Read More »

Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra 25 July 2023 Introduction This case dealt with a critical legal issue — whether a shareholder or former director of a co-operative society can initiate criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when special provisions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 exist. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Section 81(5B) of the Act barred any person other than an auditor or Registrar from filing an FIR in cases of financial irregularities in co-operative banks. Facts of the Case The appellant, Dhanraj N. Asawani, filed FIR No. 806/2019 against the CEO and Chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The FIR was based on an inspection report alleging that loans were given to ineligible borrowers, funds were misappropriated, and recovery measures were mishandled, causing massive NPAs. The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR, holding that only the auditor or Registrar, under Section 81(5B), could lodge such FIRs. Issues Does Section 81(5B) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act bar shareholders from filing FIRs in cases of financial irregularities? Do special provisions under the 1960 Act override the general provisions of Section 154 CrPC, which allows any person to report a cognizable offence? Judgment The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the FIR. Key findings included: Section 81(5B imposes obligations, not prohibitions: The duty of auditors/Registrars to file FIRs does not mean others are barred from doing so. No express or implied prohibition: The Act does not contain language excluding shareholders or individuals from initiating criminal law. CrPC prevails in absence of express bar: Under Section 4 CrPC, criminal law applies to all offences unless explicitly excluded, unlike MCOCA or TADA which contain overriding clauses. Principle of criminal law: As reaffirmed in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, locus standi is not a requirement in criminal law — any person can set the law in motion. Public interest & accountability: Restricting FIRs only to auditors/Registrars would hamper transparency and undermine depositors’ rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court ruling and reinstated FIR No. 806/2019. Conclusion The Supreme Court clarified that Section 81(5B) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not prevent shareholders from filing FIRs. Every citizen retains the right to report cognizable offences under the CrPC. The judgment strengthens public accountability in co-operative banks, ensuring that financial frauds affecting depositors and shareholders can be promptly investigated.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Read More »

Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta 3 July 2023 Introduction This case arises from an appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which altered the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court further reduced the sentences to the period already undergone. The appellant, Uggarsain (informant/complainant), challenged this decision, arguing for proportionality and uniformity in sentencing, as the High Court’s approach resulted in glaring disparities in punishment despite similar roles of the accused. Facts of the Case On 7 March 2012 (Holika Dahan eve), Krishan (A-1) insulted Subhash (deceased). Next morning, Brahmjit (Krishan’s son) assaulted Subhash with a danda. Later, a group of accused, armed with weapons, attacked Subhash, Sita Ram (PW1), Uggarsain (the appellant), and Pawan near their residence. Subhash sustained severe head injuries and died after a few days in hospital. FIR was initially filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 323 IPC; after Subhash’s death, Section 302 IPC was added. The Trial Court convicted all eight accused under Sections 148, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced each accused to the period already undergone, leading to vast discrepancies (from 11 months to over 9 years). Issues of the Case Was the High Court justified in altering the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC)? Was it correct for the High Court to reduce the sentence to “time served,” leading to arbitrary disparities among similarly placed convicts? What constitutes a proportionate and uniform sentence in cases involving group offences? Judgment The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s reasoning as “inexplicable, if not downright bizarre,” noting that sentencing should not create arbitrary disparities when the roles of accused are indistinguishable. Proportionality Principle: Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime and be consistent across similarly placed accused. Uniform Sentencing: The High Court erred by treating “sentence undergone” as the basis, disregarding the gravity of the offence and injuries. Factors Considered: Serious head injuries suffered by the deceased (at least six). Presence of deadly weapons. Injuries to multiple members of the complainant party. Final Decision: Krishan and Brahmjit: Sentence not disturbed, as they already served over five years. Other accused (Raju, Parveen, Sunder s/o Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh, Sunder s/o Rajpal): Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. They were directed to surrender within six weeks. Appeals were partly allowed. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the importance of consistency, fairness, and proportionality in sentencing, especially in group offences where individual roles cannot be clearly distinguished. The Supreme Court corrected the disparity created by the High Court’s flawed “time served” approach and set a guiding precedent that sentences must correspond to the gravity of the crime and remain uniform across similarly situated convicts. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote