Supreme court
Courts Can Deviate From Schedule Of Employees Compensation Act To Determine Functional Disability : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that in computing the compensation for functional disability, Courts don't need to confine themselves to the schedule under the Employees' Compensation Act 1923. The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court, which reduced the disability percentage of 100% to 34% for...
Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected As Time Barred When Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Law & Facts : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts, such issues cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court reasoned that when the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it cannot be decided summarily without allowing the parties to lead evidence on the arising of the cause of action.The bench comprising Justices...
E-Governance Platforms, Digital Payment Systems & Govt Websites Must Be Accessible To Persons With Disabilities : Supreme Court
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 30) declared that right to digital access is a part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and issued a set of directions to ensure that e-KYC process is accessible to persons with face disfigurment (due to acid attacks, accidents etc.) and visaul impairment.The Court also directed that it is mandatory for...
CCS Pension Rules | Contractual Service Must Count Towards Pension Once Employee Is Regularised : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a contract job period should be counted for pensionary benefits, once the government employee is regularized. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi ruled in favour of government employees who were initially appointed on a contractual basis and later regularized, holding that they are entitled to pensionary benefits for their entire service...
Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court By 4:1
Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral...
Citizens Who Approach Police Station To Report Crime Entitled To Be Treated With Dignity : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that every person who approaches a police station to report the commission of an offence is entitled to be treated with dignity. "That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated.A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while upholding an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human...
Delay Cannot Be Reason To Quash FIRs For Offences Punishable With More Than 3 Years Imprisonment : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that a delay in registration of an FIR for offences punishable for more than three years is not a ground to quash the FIR if the same discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was hearing the case where FIR was registered against the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 under Sections 467,468,471,420, and 120B of...
Mere Institution Of Civil Proceedings Not A Ground To Quash FIR : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere institution of civil proceedings does not automatically justify the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR).The Court observed that the existence of a civil remedy for breach of contract does not preclude the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings. "Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by...
S. 8 IBC | Service Of Demand Notice On Corporate Debtor's Key Managerial Personnel Is Valid To Trigger Insolvency Process : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 29) upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor's Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC. Setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal...
In Cases Of Cross-FIRs, Unfair To Quash One FIR While Probing The Other; Both Be Investigated Together : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court yesterday (April 29) ruled that in cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be imprudent to quash one FIR and investigate another FIR. Instead, the investigative agency must examine both the FIRs, as truth-seeking requires examining both sides of the dispute comprehensively.“this Court is of the opinion that in cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 21, 2025 To April 27, 2025
Nominal Index [Citation – 441- 491]Citations R. Baiju v. State of Kerala 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 441Ajay Raj Shetty v. Director and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 442Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 443Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 444Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 445Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr....