sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

landmark judgment

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERVENOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEMVATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY, UTTARAKHAND LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEAD DIGITAL WORKS, DELHI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VOYAGER CAPITAL Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 1 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court of India affirms that the right to shut down a business is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Learn how this landmark judgment impacts business owners, labor laws, and public interest. Supreme Court Declares Business Closure a Fundamental Right Under Article 19 In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the right to close a business is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment, delivered on June 4, 2025, underscores that the freedom to practice any profession includes the right to shut down operations, subject to reasonable restrictions. This critical verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. Case Background: Harinagar Sugar Mills and the Closure of Its Mumbai Unit The case stemmed from a petition by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division), which sought to shut down its Mumbai facility after losing a vital processing contract with Britannia Industries. The company filed a closure application on August 28, 2019, under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Despite the statutory requirement for a decision within 60 days, the Maharashtra Labour Department, particularly a Deputy Secretary, delayed the process by either not acting or asking unauthorized questions. Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Presumed Permission The Court ruled that failure by the State to respond within the 60-day period amounts to presumed permission for business closure. It emphasized that the Deputy Secretary’s actions lacked legal backing, as there was no delegation under Section 39 of the Act authorizing such inquiries. This interpretation ensures clarity and accountability in labor law, making it clear that bureaucratic delays cannot hinder legitimate business decisions. Legitimate Grounds and Public Interest Must Be Considered While upholding the right to close a business, the Supreme Court clarified that financial difficulty alone is insufficient. Business owners must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or inability to continue operations. Moreover, public interest considerations under Section 25-O must be taken into account before final closure is approved. Bombay High Court Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Lawful Closure In this ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a previous decision by the Bombay High Court, which had ruled against the company citing procedural deficiencies. The apex court concluded that the closure was lawful after the statutory deadline had passed. Additionally, the business compensated 178 employees, with the court ordering ₹15 crore to be disbursed within eight weeks, reflecting its commitment to employee welfare alongside corporate rights. Balancing Constitutional Rights with Accountability This judgment reinforces that Article 19(1)(g) not only safeguards the right to practice a profession but also the right to cease business operations. However, this right must be exercised responsibly, ensuring transparency, legal compliance, and respect for the interests of employees and the public. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Read More »

Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Shahdara Gurdwara Dispute, Affirms Sikh Ownership

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Shahdara Gurdwara Dispute, Affirms Sikh Ownership Chhattisgarh Teachers File Petition Against School Rationalization Orders Telangana High Court Reviews Cow Protection Law Enforcement Ahead of Bakrid Festival Bombay High Court Allows Animal Sacrifice at Vishalgad Fort During Urs Festival Amid Protests Bengaluru RCB Victory Parade Stampede: 11 Dead, Legal Action and Public Outcry Follow IPL Celebration Tragedy LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT PEOPLESCIENT LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SARIN PARTNERS JOB OPPORTUNITY AT VIDHI CENTRE FOR LEGAL POLICY INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UNITEDLEX Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Shahdara Gurdwara Dispute, Affirms Sikh Ownership KASHISH JAHAN 06 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India ends a 50-year legal dispute over the Shahdara Gurdwara, affirming Sikh ownership and setting a vital precedent for future religious property cases. A Landmark Ruling on Religious Property Rights In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India has officially concluded a five-decade legal battle concerning a prominent Gurdwara in Shahdara, Delhi. The Court dismissed the claim by the Delhi Wakf Board that the site qualified as waqf land, instead recognizing the Sikh community’s longstanding religious and historical ties to the site. Legal Dispute and Historical Background The conflict arose from the Delhi Wakf Board’s assertion that the Gurdwara was a “waqf by user” property, suggesting that consistent usage over time had converted it into waqf land. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gurdwara has existed since 1947, thus invalidating the claim of implied conversion based on historical use. The judgment was grounded in historical evidence and long-standing community association. Impact and Broader Legal Significance This verdict not only resolves a long-pending religious property case but also establishes a judicial precedent for similar disputes. The ruling reinforces the significance of verifiable historical documentation in religious land ownership conflicts and highlights the crucial role of the Indian judiciary in preserving cultural heritage and ensuring religious freedom. Conclusion: Strengthening Religious and Legal Integrity By siding with factual history and religious continuity, the Supreme Court’s decision safeguards the rights of religious communities and contributes to a stronger legal foundation for addressing disputes involving sacred sites. The ruling is seen as a victory for truth, faith, and the rule of law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Shahdara Gurdwara Dispute, Affirms Sikh Ownership Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Shahdara Gurdwara Dispute, Affirms Sikh Ownership Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Chhattisgarh Teachers File Petition Against School Rationalization Orders Chhattisgarh Teachers File Petition Against School Rationalization Orders Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Telangana High Court Reviews Cow Protection Law Enforcement Ahead of Bakrid Festival Telangana High Court Reviews Cow Protection Law Enforcement Ahead of Bakrid Festival Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Ends 50-Year Shahdara Gurdwara Dispute, Affirms Sikh Ownership Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s SC List Amendment: Tanti-Tantwa Merger Declared Unconstitutional Supreme Court Strikes Down Arbitrary Bail Conditions Violating Privacy in Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024) Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 REHA BHARGAV 02 June 2025 In a landmark 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that financial compensation under CrPC Section 357 cannot substitute imprisonment for serious crimes. Learn about the case, its background, judgment, and implications for India’s criminal justice system. Introduction In a significant judgment delivered on May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a crucial principle in criminal law: monetary compensation to victims cannot replace custodial punishment, especially in serious offenses involving bodily harm. The case of Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya v. State of Gujarat has become a cornerstone in understanding the limits of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This ruling highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal sentencing and reinforces that justice should not be influenced by an offender’s financial capacity. Case Background: What Happened? The Incident The case dates back to September 2012 when Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya filed an FIR in Surendranagar, Gujarat, alleging that he was assaulted by five individuals. The charges included: Rioting (Sections 147–149 of the Indian Penal Code) Voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt (Sections 323, 325 IPC) Extortion (Section 384 IPC) Criminal intimidation (Section 506(2) IPC) Violation of the Gujarat Police Act (Section 135) After trial, the Sessions Court convicted two accused, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fines. Three others were acquitted. High Court Appeal The Gujarat High Court later reduced the sentence to four years and allowed the convicts to be released early upon payment of ₹2.5 lakh each as compensation to the victim. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, raising a critical question: Can financial compensation under CrPC Section 357 justify sentence reduction? Key Legal Issue Can Victim Compensation Replace Imprisonment? The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether voluntary payment of compensation to the victim under Section 357 CrPC could be a valid ground to reduce or substitute imprisonment. Arguments from Both Sides Petitioner (Rajendra Umraniya) Punishment and Compensation Serve Different Roles: Compensation is supplementary, not a replacement for legal sentencing. Threat to Justice and Deterrence: Allowing compensation to mitigate punishment creates bias for wealthier offenders, undermining justice. Misuse of Section 357 CrPC: The provision was intended to benefit victims, not help convicts escape prison time. Violation of Judicial Precedents: Prior Supreme Court rulings have emphasized that compensation cannot override the seriousness of the crime. Denial of Justice to the Victim: Reducing punishment weakens public confidence in the system and trivializes the harm caused. Respondents (Convicted Accused) Voluntary Compensation Shows Remorse: ₹5 lakh had already been paid to the victim, indicating sincere regret. High Court’s Discretion: The sentence balanced restorative justice and punishment. Time Elapsed Since Incident: Over 12 years had passed; the convicts remained law-abiding. Humanitarian Considerations: Good behavior, family responsibilities, and cooperation in the legal process were cited as reasons for leniency. Not Challenging Conviction: They accepted their guilt, only appealing the quantum of sentence. Supreme Court Judgment – May 9, 2024 Final Ruling The Supreme Court of India unequivocally held that: Compensation under CrPC Section 357 cannot substitute imprisonment, especially in serious criminal cases. Key takeaways: The Gujarat High Court’s reasoning was legally flawed. Allowing wealth to influence sentencing violates the principle of equality before law. Sentence must be based on the gravity of the crime, not the offender’s financial position. Compensation is an additional remedy, not a bargaining chip to reduce jail time. However, due to the long lapse of time and partial compensation already paid, the Court did not reinstate the original sentence. Instead, it ordered each convict to pay an additional ₹5 lakh, bringing the total compensation to ₹15 lakh for the victim. Conclusion: A Landmark in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence This landmark decision ensures that India’s criminal justice system remains fair and impartial. The Supreme Court of India clarified that: Criminal sentencing cannot be bought through monetary settlements. Victim compensation and punishment serve separate legal purposes. The economic status of an offender must never influence sentencing outcomes. By reinforcing the objectivity of the sentencing process under CrPC Section 357, the Court has protected the sanctity of justice and prevented misuse of compensatory provisions.             Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Sada Law • June 3, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest

Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Read More »

Supreme Court Quashes False Rape Case Based on Promise of Marriage: A Landmark Judgment on Misuse of Law

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Quashes False Rape Case Based on Promise of Marriage: A Landmark Judgment on Misuse of Law Anna University Sexual Assault Case: Convict Gets 30 Years Rigorous Imprisonment in Landmark Verdict Supreme Court Directs Gauhati High Court to Hear Assam Deportation Petition First CALL FOR PAPERS BY IPVARNA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SHYAMBAZAR LAW COLLEGE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHILANA & CHILANA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ANM GLOBAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NYATI GROUP LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MW ASSOCIATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI Supreme Court Quashes False Rape Case Based on Promise of Marriage: A Landmark Judgment on Misuse of Law KASHISH JAHAN 03 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India quashes a false rape FIR based on a broken promise of marriage, citing abuse of legal process. This landmark judgment highlights the need to protect the innocent while upholding justice for genuine victims. Supreme Court of India Quashes False Rape FIR Based on Promise of Marriage In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man accused of rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage. This case brings attention to the growing concern over the misuse of rape laws and the need for fact-based investigations. The Allegation: Rape on False Promise of Marriage A woman had accused a man of rape, claiming he engaged in sexual relations with her under the pretext of marriage. Following her complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with rape. Inconsistencies in the Victim’s Statement Upon deeper scrutiny, the Court discovered multiple inconsistencies in the woman’s narrative. Despite her serious allegations, evidence revealed that she had maintained contact with the accused even after the alleged incident. This continuity raised serious doubts regarding the nature of the relationship, indicating it was consensual rather than coercive. Supreme Court’s Verdict: FIR Quashed Due to Fabricated Allegations After a thorough review, the Court concluded that the FIR was rooted in false and malicious intent. It stated that allowing such cases to proceed would amount to a “travesty of justice.” The verdict reaffirmed that criminal proceedings should not be used as tools of vengeance or harassment. Balancing Justice: Protecting Genuine Victims and the Innocent This judgment plays a vital role in reinforcing a balanced legal system. It emphasizes that while the law must safeguard genuine victims of sexual violence, it should also protect innocent individuals from being wrongfully accused based on fabricated stories. Such misuse of law can erode the public’s faith in the judicial system. The Broader Impact on Legal and Social Discourse This case has ignited conversations around the need for reform in how the judiciary handles cases involving personal relationships and allegations of sexual misconduct. Legal experts argue that each case must be evaluated on its merits, with concrete evidence rather than emotional claims. A Reminder of Judicial Responsibility and Integrity The ruling underscores the need for fairness and due process in all legal matters. The justice system should not be swayed by bias or manipulated through false accusations. It must serve all parties equally — ensuring justice for victims while shielding the innocent from unlawful persecution. Conclusion: Upholding Justice with Integrity The quashing of the FIR by the Supreme Court of India sets a powerful precedent in cases involving a false promise of marriage and alleged rape. It highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done — for both the accused and the accuser. False allegations can have devastating consequences, tarnishing reputations and misusing valuable legal resources. At the same time, the law must continue to protect genuine survivors of sexual assault. This judgment serves as a critical reminder that the legal system must remain impartial, fact-driven, and resistant to manipulation. By drawing a clear line between genuine claims and fabricated accusations, the Court reinforces the integrity of India’s legal framework — one that stands for truth, justice, and fairness for all. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Quashes False Rape Case Based on Promise of Marriage: A Landmark Judgment on Misuse of Law Supreme Court Quashes False Rape Case Based on Promise of Marriage: A Landmark Judgment on Misuse of Law Sada Law • June 3, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Anna University Sexual Assault Case: Convict Gets 30 Years Rigorous Imprisonment in Landmark Verdict Anna University Sexual Assault Case: Convict Gets 30 Years Rigorous Imprisonment in Landmark Verdict Sada Law • June 3, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Gauhati High Court to Hear Assam Deportation Petition First Supreme Court Directs Gauhati High Court to Hear Assam Deportation Petition First Sada Law • June 3, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Quashes False Rape Case Based on Promise of Marriage: A Landmark Judgment on Misuse of Law Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote