Every day brings new court rulings that quietly reshape the rules ordinary people and businesses live by — from how a bank can recover a vehicle loan to how strong the evidence against someone must be before they go to jail. This digest from Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates picks out the Supreme Court developments from the last two days that matter most to readers in Patiala and Punjab, explained in plain language, with links to the original reports.
Supreme Court tells RBI to rein in forcible vehicle repossessions by banks and NBFCs
The Supreme Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India to ensure that banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) actually follow the recovery guidelines it has issued over the past two decades, after finding that vehicles financed on loan are still being forcibly seized — often without notice — despite those rules existing on paper. The Court held that while a lender has a contractual right to recover dues and repossess a hypothecated vehicle after default, it cannot use force, intimidation or other extra-legal means to do so; doing so can violate the borrower’s constitutional rights. In the case before it, the Court ordered a finance company to close a truck owner’s loan account and refund over ₹4.5 lakh recovered from an unlawful sale of his vehicle, with interest.
For anyone in Punjab who has financed a car, tractor or commercial vehicle, this is a reminder that a loan default does not give the lender a free hand — due process still applies, and unlawful repossession can be challenged. If you are facing this kind of dispute with a bank or NBFC, our banking & financial litigation practice can advise on your options.
Source: LiveLaw
Handing over a bribe to a middleman isn’t proof enough against the official, rules Supreme Court
In a corruption case against a former Railway Protection Force officer, the Supreme Court held that simply showing that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked a public servant’s name is not, by itself, enough to prove that the official demanded or accepted a bribe. The prosecution must show, with credible evidence, that the money was actually meant for the accused and reached them (or was intended to) — not just that it passed through a middleman. Because that chain wasn’t established here, the Court acquitted the officer.
The ruling is a useful reminder of how high the bar is in bribery prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act — the case against the accused person must be proved step by step, not assumed from suspicious circumstances alone.
Source: LiveLaw
Two men acquitted after 20 years as Supreme Court finds a broken chain of custody in an NDPS case
The Supreme Court set aside the convictions of two men in a narcotics case nearly two decades after their arrest, after finding a serious, unexplained five-day gap between when the seized samples were sent for forensic testing and when the lab actually received them. The Court also noted there were no identification marks on the sample packets, no record of them leaving police custody, and a complete failure to follow the legal procedure (Section 52-A of the NDPS Act) for drawing samples before a Magistrate. Because the prosecution could not show the samples stayed safe and unaltered the whole way through, the forensic report lost its value as evidence — and with it, the case itself.
This case is a strong illustration of why the paperwork and procedure around a seizure matter just as much as the seizure itself in criminal cases — a lesson equally relevant to bail and trial strategy in NDPS and other criminal matters. If you or a family member is facing a criminal case where evidence handling is in question, our criminal law team can help assess the record.
Source: LiveLaw
Have a similar issue?
If any of today’s developments touch a situation you or your business is facing — a loan recovery dispute, a criminal matter, or anything else — feel free to get in touch with our office for a consultation.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.