{"id":310432,"date":"2023-12-31T15:00:24","date_gmt":"2023-12-31T09:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310432"},"modified":"2023-12-31T16:26:49","modified_gmt":"2023-12-31T10:56:49","slug":"sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed by the appellant in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the four-judges bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose*<\/span> and Ghulam Hasan, JJ., referred to order passed by the High Court, on which the respondent relied on to show that the proceedings were terminated in his favour and opined that the order was passed on an appeal from the Ramlal and Co.’s petition alone and the appellant was not a party to the appeal. The Supreme Court opined that the appellant had no opportunity of contesting it, nor the order was passed after the contest. The appellant had filed an independent petition because Ramlal and Co. had compromised with the respondent. The Supreme Court opined that this was not the type of termination of proceedings which the respondent was required to show in a suit for malicious prosecution and that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent’s claim and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and allowed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In an instant case, the appellant was a registered firm of brokers, which carried on the business in stocks and shares. On 05-04-1937, the managing partner of the appellant advised the respondent to buy certain number of shares in Indian Iron and Steel Company as the market for these shares were rising. The respondent accepted the appellant’s advice but immediately after the purchase, the market dropped drastically, and the respondent suffered a loss of over Rs. 1,00,000 on a resale. Thereafter, the accounts between the parties showed a debit balance of Rs. 51,712 against the respondent.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, the respondent discovered that the appellant had secret information that the market for the purchase and sale of Indian Iron and Steel Company’s shares was going to close, which would result in the rapid fall in the shares’ prices. Therefore, the appellant decided to unload the loss on the respondent and fraudulently led him to believe that the market would rise. Thereafter, the appellant sued the respondent and obtained interim orders of attachment. Subsequently, Ramlal and Co., to whom the respondent was also indebted, filed an insolvency petition in the High Court to have the respondent adjudged as an insolvent. Further, the appellant intervened by filing an independent petition against the respondent and though, both the petitions were heard together, but they were dealt separately.<\/p>\n

On the appellant’s petition, a separate order was passed, and the appellant was held entitled to get costs of their application. However, later, the appellant’s claim of certain sum of money against the respondent was dismissed and all the further appeals from such dismissal was also rejected. Further, with regard to Ramlal and Co.’s claim, the official assignee also made an order dismissing the claim. It was further stated that it was the appellant, who owned the respondent a considerable sum of money, on account of loss suffered by him in the Indian Iron and Steel Company.<\/p>\n

The appeal filed by Ramlal and Co. was dismissed, because of the compromise and on the basis of termination of proceedings in his favour, the respondent then filed a suit for damage of malicious prosecution only against the defendant and not Ramlal and Co. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but the High Court decreed a part of it. Hence, the present appeal was filed by the appellant.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the insolvency proceedings were not instituted either by the appellant or its partners, it was instituted by the third party named Ramlal and Co., which had not been sued. The Supreme Court opined that ordinarily, that would not give the respondent, a cause of action against the appellant, but the appellant intervened in the insolvency and filed another petition, asking for the adjudication and explained that the respondent was trying to compromise with Ramlal and Co., and if they compromised, it would probably affect the other creditors prejudicially. Further, the Supreme Court opined that it was true that the two petitions by the Ramlal and Co. and the appellant were heard together but the respondent’s petition was not treated as the foundation of these proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court referred to the order passed by the High Court, on which the respondent relied on to show that the proceedings were terminated in his favour and opined that the order was passed on an appeal from the Ramlal and Co.’s petition alone and the appellant was not a party to the appeal. The Supreme Court opined that the appellant had no opportunity of contesting it, nor the order was passed after the contest. The appellant had filed an independent petition because Ramlal and Co. had compromised with the respondent. The Supreme Court opined that this was not the type of termination of proceedings which the respondent was required to show, in a suit for malicious prosecution. Even if it was assumed that the appellant was one of the parties, responsible for the institution and carrying out the proceedings, it was evident that the termination of the proceedings was by the consent and was brought about behind the appellant’s back by an agreement with a third party.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent’s claim, and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and allowed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

[Trojan and Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar, (1952) 2 SCC 446<\/a>, decided on 12-11-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: Malicious Prosecution<\/p>\n

Malicious prosecution is a kind of tort, which denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. The plaintiff has to prove the following essentials in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution: a.) that he was prosecuted by the defendant; b.) the prosecution was instituted without any reasonable and probable cause; c.) the defendant acted maliciously and not with a mere intention of carrying the law into effect; d.) the proceedings complained of terminated in favour of the present plaintiff; e.) the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the prosecution.<\/p>\n

*Judgment by- Justice Vivian Bose<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> V. Rangachari, Senior Advocate (K. Mangachary, Advocate, with him);<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> K. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, Senior Advocate (K. Parasuraman, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on malicious prosecution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":310440,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[2711,63976,36368,58925,5363,63977],"class_list":["post-310432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-compromise","tag-failure-of-proceedings","tag-malicious-prosecution","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-supreme-court","tag-termination-of-proceedings"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on malicious prosecution| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent\u2019s claim and accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent\u2019s claim and accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-12-31T09:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-12-31T10:56:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on malicious prosecution| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-31T09:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-12-31T10:56:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent\u2019s claim and accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"compromise not termination of proceedings in malicious prosecution\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on malicious prosecution| SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent\u2019s claim and accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]","og_description":"Supreme Court that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent\u2019s claim and accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-12-31T09:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-12-31T10:56:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on malicious prosecution| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg","datePublished":"2023-12-31T09:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2023-12-31T10:56:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Supreme Court that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the respondent\u2019s claim and accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"compromise not termination of proceedings in malicious prosecution"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":320439,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/21\/sc-mere-clause-in-compromise-deed-to-drop-criminal-proceedings-will-not-render-compromise-unlawful-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":310432,"position":0},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Mere clause in compromise deed to drop criminal proceedings between parties will not necessarily render compromise unlawful [(1953) 1 SCC 249]","author":"Arushi","date":"April 21, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on unlawful consideration.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"compromise deed to drop criminal proceedings not unlawful","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/compromise-deed-to-drop-criminal-proceedings-not-unlawful.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/compromise-deed-to-drop-criminal-proceedings-not-unlawful.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/compromise-deed-to-drop-criminal-proceedings-not-unlawful.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/compromise-deed-to-drop-criminal-proceedings-not-unlawful.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213099,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/01\/employee-is-entitled-to-full-back-wages-if-charges-against-him-are-found-to-be-malicious\/","url_meta":{"origin":310432,"position":1},"title":"Employee is entitled to full back wages if charges against him are found to be malicious","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of L Nageswara Rao and MR Shah, JJ held that a man, by virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the Appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental inquiry.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289347,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/12\/at-the-stage-of-discharge-or-while-exercising-the-powers-under-s-482-crpc-high-court-has-very-limited-jurisdiction-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":310432,"position":2},"title":"High Courts have very limited jurisdiction at the stage of discharge or while exercising its powers under S.482 CrPC: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court held that Punjab & Haryana High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 CrPC and\/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1105.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1105.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1105.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1105.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216297,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/01\/sl-sc-appeal-is-not-fresh-suit-but-continuation-of-original-proceeding-right-to-sue-held-to-survive-in-heir-in-suit-for-malicious-prosecution\/","url_meta":{"origin":310432,"position":3},"title":"SL SC | Appeal is not fresh suit but continuation of original proceeding; Right to sue held to survive in heir in suit for malicious prosecution","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: An Application for leave to appeal under and in terms of Article 127 and 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5(c) of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provision) Act, 2006\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":314508,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310432,"position":4},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"February 18, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on possession of co-owned property.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"possession of co-owned property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244477,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/27\/sale-confirmed-objections-of-judgment-debtor-overruled-can-consent-decree-be-set-aside-in-such-case-supreme-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":310432,"position":5},"title":"Sale confirmed; objections of judgment debtor overruled. Can consent decree be set aside in such case? Supreme Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"February 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah* and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., set aside the order of High Court of judicature at Karnataka holding that the Court had exceeded its jurisdiction while quashing the order. The Bench expressed, \u201cWhen the mortgaged property was sold in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/310432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=310432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/310432\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/310440"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=310432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=310432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=310432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}