Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2025

897 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT & ORS. versus M. JAYABAL & ANR. ETC.

  12/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 593

  The Supreme Court held that dependants who had sought and accepted compassionate appointment as sweepers could not, years later, claim appointment as Junior Assistants because they were qualified for that post. Once compassionate appointment is accepted, the right is consummated; the claim was also barred by delay and laches; and parity with others wrongly given the higher post is negative equality, which Article 14 does not recognise. The High Court's directions were set aside.

• SITHARA N.S. & ORS. ETC. versus SAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

  12/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 498

  The Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court that the claimants had not proved the involvement of the alleged offending lorry in a fatal motorcycle accident. Although the standard is preponderance of probabilities, the identity of the vehicle must still be shown by cogent and reliable evidence, which was lacking here.

• JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI versus THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  11/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 488

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for possessing and conspiring over 23.500 kg of ganja (commercial quantity). Absence of independent witnesses, drawing of samples at the spot rather than before a Magistrate, faded sample markings and a small drop in sample weight did not create reasonable doubt where the official evidence was consistent and the chain of custody was intact. The statutory minimum sentence could not be reduced on humanitarian grounds.

• MOHAN LAL FATEHPURIA versus M/S BHARAT TEXTILES & ORS.

  10/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 408

  The sole arbitrator had not made the award within the period allowed by Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and no extension had been sought, so his mandate had terminated. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in extending the mandate of an arbitrator whose mandate had ceased, and itself substituted a former High Court judge as sole arbitrator under Section 29A(6).

• DR. SOHAIL MALIK versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  10/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 505

  The Supreme Court held that the Internal Complaints Committee at the aggrieved woman's workplace, here a Central Government department, has jurisdiction under the POSH Act to inquire into her complaint against an employee of a different department. The words 'where the respondent is an employee' in Section 11(1) only direct which service rules apply and do not limit jurisdiction. Under Section 13 and the DoPT OM on such inquiries, that ICC conducts the fact-finding inquiry and sends its report to the respondent's employer, whose own ICC acts as inquiring authority in any later disciplinary proceedings.

• VINEETA SRINANDAN versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION

  10/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 426

  The Supreme Court, while agreeing that a housing society director's circular alleging a 'dog mafia' with influence over High Court and Supreme Court judges amounted to criminal contempt, remitted her sentence of one week's simple imprisonment and fine, holding that the High Court should have weighed her prompt unconditional apology under the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and wrongly relied on precedents with materially different facts.

• SUVEJ SINGH versus RAM NARESH AND ORS.

  09/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 584

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court remand that had reopened a 17-year-old settled dispute over correction of a revenue map. Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 allows correction of errors or omissions detected in the map or field book, not a fresh attempt to relocate a plot after an earlier correction application had failed and attained finality.

• ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

  09/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 548

  A Delhi Transport Corporation conductor who resigned after more than 20 years of service forfeited his past service under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and was not entitled to pension, since a resignation cannot be recast as voluntary retirement. His legal heirs were, however, entitled to gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which covers resignation, and to leave encashment, with interest.

• HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus BCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD.

  09/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 455

  A sub-vendor engaged by HPCL's contractor, and later assigned the contractor's receivables against HPCL, sought appointment of an arbitrator under HPCL's tender arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that a referral court under Section 11 must be prima facie satisfied that a non-signatory is a veritable party; since the sub-vendor had no privity with HPCL, no consent to assignment was shown and the parties operated on separate orbits, no arbitration agreement existed between them and the Section 11 application was dismissed.

• SURENDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  09/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 439

  The Supreme Court, on a limited notice confined to whether the conviction could be reduced to a lesser offence, held that none of Exceptions 1, 2 or 4 to Section 300 IPC applied to an accused who inflicted four knife blows on vital parts of an unarmed deceased, and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

• GOVIND MANDAVI versus STATE OF CHATTISGARH

  08/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 560

  The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's murder conviction because the FIR, lodged by the deceased's father on the account of the sole eyewitness (the deceased's wife), spoke only of unknown masked assailants. Her naming of the appellant four days later, after admitted prior enmity, was an improvement that impeached the prosecution case. With that identification discarded and the recoveries not linked to the crime, nothing connected the appellant to the offence.

• AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. versus ZISHAN HUSSAIN AZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANR.

  08/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 391

  The High Court, in a PIL brought by a corporator, had set aside the Akola Municipal Corporation's 2017 resolutions revising property tax for 2017-18 to 2021-22. The Supreme Court held that the PIL was really an individual grievance used to bypass the statutory appeal under Section 406 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by reassessing a fiscal policy decision without any finding of perversity or illegality. The High Court's judgment and review order were set aside.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND versus THE INDIAN BUILDERS JAMSHEDPUR

  05/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 417

  Doubting whether Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment v. State of Jharkhand lays down that contractual clauses barring certain claims bind only the employer and not the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court referred that decision to a larger bench for reconsideration. It noted that Bharat Drilling relied on a decision about interest, which stands on a different footing from excepted-claim clauses.

• ADARSH SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SWAWLAMBI SOCIETY LTD. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  05/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 356

  The Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand Registration Department memo that allowed the Section 9A stamp duty exemption for transfers by cooperative societies to their members only on a recommendation of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, holding that the requirement rested on an irrelevant consideration and was superfluous because the registration certificate under Section 5(7) of the 1996 Act is conclusive evidence of the society's existence.

• NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  04/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 295

  The Supreme Court directed that the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law's husband of a woman shot dead by her husband be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, holding that the depositions of her brother and minor daughter, read with the deceased's Section 161 statements admissible as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, prima facie showed their complicity, and that the courts below had wrongly conducted a mini-trial.

• THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. versus TAGHAR VASUDEVA AMBRISH & ANR.

  04/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 366

  A co-owner leased a residential building to a company that sub-let it as long-stay hostel accommodation for students and working professionals. The rent he received was exempt from IGST under Entry 13 of Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) for the period before the 2022 amendment. Entry 13 does not require the lessee itself to use the dwelling as its residence, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

• MISSION ACCESSIBILITY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  03/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 443

  In a public interest writ seeking accessibility measures for candidates with disabilities in UPSC examinations, the Court recorded UPSC's in-principle decision to introduce Screen Reader Software, found that implementation lacked a roadmap, and issued directions: change of scribe to be allowed up to seven days before an examination with reasoned decisions in three working days, a compliance affidavit with a plan and timeline for screen readers, uniform guidelines, and Union support.

• ABHISHEK GUPTA versus DINESH KUMAR & ORS.

  03/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 479

  A person who was not impleaded in a writ petition but whose licence was adversely affected by the Single Judge's order may maintain an intra-court special appeal with leave, despite the bar in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952; the Division Bench's dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was set aside and the appeal restored.

• ROUSANARA BEGUM versus S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.

  02/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 273

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order that had denied a divorced Muslim wife the return of Rs. 7 lakh and 30 bhories of gold recorded in the marriage register as given at the marriage by her father, holding that the High Court wrongly preferred the father's statement in an ended Section 498A IPC trial over the Marriage Registrar's evidence and failed to construe the 1986 Act purposively.

• JYOTI BUILDERS versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.

  02/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 317

  A slum developer sought a mandamus requiring the State to acquire, under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, a 2,005 sq. m. plot reserved as a recreational ground, relying on a 2015 order of the CEO-SRA. Meanwhile the owner had sold the plot to another developer. The Supreme Court refused the mandamus: the acquisition power is subject to the owner's preferential right to redevelop, and it was too late to act on the 2015 order. It directed issue of the developer's occupation certificate on handover of a separate 2,700 sq. m. RG plot, held the developer fully compensated through sale FSI, and barred any construction on the disputed plot, which must remain a recreational ground.

• COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT versus NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.

  02/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 281

  The Supreme Court restored the Commissioner's order denying a textile processing unit the exemption for 'cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam'. Bleaching and mercerising at one unit, stentering with power at an adjoining unit, and baling at the first unit were integrally connected steps in one manufacture, so the use of power at any stage defeated the exemption. The fact that the two units were separately owned made no difference.

• TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

  02/12/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 258

  The Supreme Court discharged the appellant of offences under Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC arising from a dispute over entry into a co-owned property governed by a civil court's joint-possession injunction. Taking the FIR and chargesheet at face value, there was no allegation of a 'private act' for voyeurism, no specified threat for criminal intimidation, and no right of the complainant to enter for wrongful restraint, so no strong suspicion existed to justify framing charges.

• RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

  17/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 221

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of a 2008 murder in a house robbery because the conviction rested on unsafe evidence. The sole injured eyewitness, then about 73 and with weak distance vision, identified him by video link about eight and a half years later with an improved description. The TIP was doubtful, and the recoveries were not linked to the crime. The Court also directed that a witness examined by video conferencing who is to be confronted with a previous written statement must first be sent a copy electronically, so that Sections 147 and 148 BSA (Sections 144 and 145 of the Evidence Act) are complied with.

• GOVIND versus STATE OF HARYANA

  14/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 206

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, who had been convicted of murder and an Arms Act offence on the strength of a pistol recovered on his disclosure and an FSL report. The eyewitnesses turned hostile and there was no last-seen evidence. The recovery came from an unlocked box in a room accessible to family members, without independent witnesses, the chain of custody to the FSL was incomplete, and nothing showed the recovered pistol was the murder weapon. The motive alleged was speculative and related mainly to co-accused who were acquitted or not chargesheeted.

• M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. versus M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD

  13/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 189

  A company in the import-export business bought a software licence to automate its export and import documentation. The purchase had a nexus with generating profit and so was for a commercial purpose; the company was not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its complaint was rightly held not maintainable.

• KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS versus KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

  11/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 540

  In execution of a 1933 compromise decree providing for rotation of idols and pooja between two sects worshipping the same deity, the Supreme Court held that the decree-holders bore the burden of proving that the judgment-debtors held the idols and had violated the decree. As the Executing Court had ordered delivery on presumption rather than proof, the High Court rightly set that order aside.

• K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS K.S. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. versus M/S KRISHNA MILLS PVT. LTD.

  11/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 167

  A tenant who challenged the fixation of fair rent without obtaining a stay, and cleared the accumulated arrears only years later after the special leave petitions were dismissed, was held guilty of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. A two months' notice under the Explanation is not a precondition for eviction, and payments made under a 'without prejudice' order did not waive the landlord's rights. The eviction was upheld.

• SURENDRA KOLI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  11/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 152

  In the Nithari (Rimpa Haldar) case, the Supreme Court allowed Surendra Koli's curative petition, recalled its 2011 judgment and 2014 review order, and acquitted him, holding that his conviction could not stand on the same Section 164 CrPC confession and Section 27 recoveries that had been rejected as involuntary and inadmissible in twelve companion cases whose acquittals the Court affirmed in 2025, since such irreconcilable outcomes on an identical record offend Articles 14 and 21.

• K.S. MANJUNATH AND OTHERS versus MOORASAVIRAPPA @ MUTTANNA CHENNAPPA BATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AND OTHER

  10/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 43

  The Supreme Court upheld a decree for specific performance of a 2000 agreement to sell agricultural land in favour of the original vendees against subsequent purchasers. Because the agreement was not determinable in nature, the vendors' unilateral termination on grounds unrelated to any default by the vendees (a pending third-party suit with a status quo order and a vendor's death), without refunding the money, was invalid, and the vendees needed no declaration against it. The subsequent purchasers, who admittedly saw the termination notice yet made no inquiry, were not bona fide purchasers without notice under Section 19(b); the Court, however, required the vendees to pay the balance with 16% interest and an additional Rs. 5 crore.

• MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. versus M/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

  10/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 531

  An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a deemed decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is therefore appealable to the Commercial Appellate Division under the main part of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; the proviso confining appeals to orders listed in Order XLIII CPC governs only interlocutory orders. The High Court's non-suit of the plaintiff's appeal was set aside and the appeal restored.

• R. RAJENDRAN versus KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

  10/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 123

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction compelling the appellant, accused of cheating a married woman who alleged he fathered her child, to give blood samples for DNA profiling, holding that the Section 112 Evidence Act presumption that the husband is the father stood unrebutted absent any plea or proof of non-access, that the test failed the eminent need, balance of interests and privacy requirements, and that paternity was only collateral to the offences alleged.

• LIPI BOILERS LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

  10/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 578

  The value of duty-paid bought-out items delivered directly to the buyer's site cannot be added to the assessable value of a boiler cleared in completely knocked down condition, because the steam generating plant that emerges on erection at site is immovable property and not excisable goods; the transaction value under Section 4 is relevant only once excisability under Section 3 is established. The extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was also wrongly invoked as no wilful suppression was shown. CESTAT's order was set aside.

• RAVI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  07/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 549

  In special leave petitions by homebuyers of a Greater Noida cooperative housing project stalled since GNIDA cancelled the land lease in 2011 amid alleged fraud by the society's office bearers and the developer, the Supreme Court decided no question of law; finding that identifying genuine allottees, restoring the lease and completing construction could not be resolved under Article 136, it appointed a one-Judge enquiry committee headed by Justice Pankaj Naqvi (retired) and listed the matter for its report.

• SAMIULLAH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  07/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 448

  Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, added in 2019 to let registering officers refuse sale or gift deeds that do not mention and prove jamabandi or holding allotment (mutation) in the seller's favour, were struck down as beyond the rule-making power in Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, and as arbitrary, since mutation and survey in Bihar are far from complete. The Court also requested the Law Commission to study integrating registration with conclusive titling, including through blockchain.

• ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  07/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 500

  Allowing 96 appeals, the Supreme Court held that the landholders' lands had not vested in the State as 'private forests' under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 merely because notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act were published in the 1960s. As held in Godrej & Boyce, vesting under Section 2(f)(iii) needs a served, live notice, and here there was no service, no final Section 35(1) notification, and no possession, inquiry or compensation. The High Court had sidestepped that binding precedent on immaterial distinctions, contrary to Article 141. The mutations treating the lands as private forest were quashed.

• M/S SHANTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

  07/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 475

  The highest bidder in a sand-quarry auction was rejected for not filing the income tax return for FY 2021-22, though bids closed in July 2022 before the statutory due date for that return. The Supreme Court held that 'previous Financial Year' in Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 had to be read with the Income Tax Act and meant FY 2020-21; the rejection was a misconstruction that reduced competition and State revenue. As most of the lease term had lapsed, a fresh auction was ordered.

• MUSKAN versus ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 273

  The High Court erred in quashing an FIR for cruelty and dowry demand under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that two specific incidents in the FIR were absent from the wife's earlier complaints to the women's police cell and were therefore an afterthought. Read together, the complaints and FIR disclosed prima facie allegations of harassment and dowry demand, and weighing their credibility amounted to an impermissible mini trial under Section 482 CrPC.

• P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRS versus A.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS.

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 423

  In a Hindu family partition suit, the Court held that two registered release deeds executed for consideration by two sons (1956 and 1967) were valid and took effect at once without proof of being 'acted upon', and that an unregistered palupatti of 11.02.1972 was admissible for the collateral purpose of proving severance of joint status and later separate possession. The concurrent decrees were set aside and a fresh preliminary decree with re-computed shares was substituted.

• PREETHA KRISHNAN & ORS. versus THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 487

  In a motor accident death claim for a 51-year-old government engineer, the Court held that a split multiplier, applied by the High Court because the deceased was nearing superannuation, is foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compensation must be computed on the income at the date of death with the age-based multiplier, and it was recomputed at Rs.47,76,794 with the conventional heads enhanced under Pranay Sethi.

• STATE OF CHHATTISGARH versus AMIT AISHWARYA JOGI

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 406

  A three-Judge Bench declined to reconsider Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2010) 5 SCC 1, so the State's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal in a CBI-investigated murder case was not maintainable under Section 378 CrPC. The victim's son also had no right of appeal, because the acquittal predated the proviso to Section 372. Given the gravity of the charges, the Court condoned the CBI's delay of 1373 days and sent its leave application back to the High Court to be decided on merits.

• M/S ALCHEMIST HOSPITALS LTD. versus M/S ICT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 24

  A dispute clause headed 'Arbitration' that sent disputes to the two parties' Chairmen as 'arbitrators' and allowed the complaining party to go to court if the dispute was not resolved within 15 days was held not to be an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because it lacked any intention of a final and binding adjudication. Dismissal of the Section 11(6) application was upheld.

• POONAM versus DULE SINGH & ORS.

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of a municipal councillor's election. She had not disclosed, in the Rule 24-A affidavit filed with her nomination, a subsisting conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act carrying one year's imprisonment. The non-disclosure made the acceptance of her nomination improper and her election void under Section 22(1)(d) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, without separate proof that the result was materially affected. That the offence was minor or did not involve moral turpitude, or that she was acquitted after the election, made no difference.

• MIHIR RAJESH SHAH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 291

  The Supreme Court held that the duty under Article 22(1) to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest applies to every offence under every statute, including the IPC/BNS, and that the grounds must be given in writing in a language the arrestee understands. Where written grounds cannot be supplied at or soon after arrest, they may first be given orally, but must be supplied in writing within a reasonable time and at least two hours before the arrestee is produced for remand. Otherwise the arrest and remand are illegal and the arrestee is entitled to release.

• SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER versus BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS.

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 12 S.C.R. 248

  The municipal corporation could not refuse building plans for rebuilding a dilapidated residential house on a notified mixed-use street in Darya Ganj on the ground that the ground floor had to be commercial; mixed-use regulations and the 27.05.2009 circular let the owner choose fully residential use. The corporation's appeal was dismissed, a time-bound sanction was directed and costs of Rs.10 lakh were imposed for harassment.

• VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  06/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 264

  Where both appellants in a first appeal had died before the appeal was heard and their legal heirs were never brought on record, the first appellate decree passed in their favour was a nullity. The trial court decree therefore remained executable, and the executing court and High Court erred in refusing execution on the footing that it had merged in the appellate decree.

• SADIQ B. HANCHINMANI versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY

  04/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 246

  The Supreme Court restored an FIR, registered on a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that a rent agreement on a fake e-stamp paper was produced before the High Court in a pending first appeal. The High Court had quashed the direction for want of application of mind. The Court held that the Magistrate's use of the word "further" did not make it a Section 173(8) direction, and the material prima facie disclosed cognizable offences warranting police investigation.

• U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER versus KASHMIRI LAL BATRA & ORS

  04/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 379

  The Supreme Court held that private operators holding inter-State stage carriage permits granted under a Madhya Pradesh-Uttar Pradesh reciprocal transport agreement made under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot ply on portions of inter-State routes that overlap intra-State routes notified in UPSRTC's favour under an approved scheme. Chapter VI overrides Chapter V by Section 98, and an inter-State agreement is not law, following Adarsh Travels. The High Court's directions to countersign permits and permit pick-up and drop were set aside. The two States were asked to confer on working out the agreement in the public interest.

• MMTC LIMITED versus ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED

  03/11/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 327

  The Supreme Court dismissed MMTC's appeal against the Delhi High Court's refusal of its Section 47 CPC objections to enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of Anglo American, which the Supreme Court had itself upheld in 2020. Although a plea of nullity can be raised in Section 47 proceedings within a narrow compass, MMTC failed to show even a prima facie case that its officials' fixing of the US$ 300 PMT coal price was a fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty, and a later FIR did not make the award inexecutable.

• LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS. versus SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.

  16/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 631

  In a special appeal concerning recruitment to the U.P. Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats, the Allahabad High Court, without any prayer for it, directed the registration of a suo motu PIL and referred the matter to the CBI for a preliminary enquiry on the basis of 'doubt' and unspecified 'inexplicable details' about the external examining agency. The Supreme Court set aside those directions because the prima facie threshold for a CBI enquiry was not met, and asked the Division Bench to decide the special appeal on its merits.

• S.K. JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  10/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 572

  The Armed Forces Tribunal, having found that a conviction under Section 69 of the Army Act read with the Arms Act for possession of ammunition could not stand, validly used Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 to substitute a finding of guilt under Section 63 of the Army Act (act prejudicial to good order and military discipline) and to reduce dismissal to compulsory retirement with retiral benefits. The officer's appeal was dismissed.

• RAVI ORAON versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  09/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 226

  The Supreme Court set aside the termination of three Scheduled Tribe primary school teachers in Jharkhand, holding that Rule 21 of the 2012 Rules, which excludes additional-subject marks, governs only preparation of the merit list and not eligibility under Rule 4, so their vocational-subject marks had to be counted as per the marksheet; and that terminating them on a ground not put to them in the show cause notice violated natural justice.

• SANKAR PADAM THAPA versus VIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

  09/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 197

  A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act over a cheque issued on behalf of a trust is maintainable against the trustee who signed it, without arraying the trust as an accused. A trust is an obligation annexed to property under the Indian Trusts Act, not a juristic person, and acts only through its trustees. The High Court's quashing of the complaint was set aside, and contrary High Court decisions were overruled.

• VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA

  09/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 136

  The upper age limits for intending couples in Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 do not operate retrospectively. Couples who before 25/01/2022 had created and frozen embryos for transfer to a surrogate are not barred by age. Their right to pursue surrogacy, a facet of reproductive autonomy under Article 21, had crystallised before the Act. The vires of the age limits was not examined.

• RAJNI AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 548

  The Court held that the widow's affidavit, together with a railway inquiry report recording that the ticket forwarded by the police had been verified as issued from Indore station, discharged the claimants' initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; the absence of a seizure memo and non-examination of the investigating officer could not defeat the claim. Compensation of Rs. 8 lakh was awarded.

• HIND SAMACHAR LTD. (DELHI UNIT versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 126

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's 'pay and recover' direction against the owner of an offending truck. Even assuming the driver's licence was fake, the insurer had neither pleaded nor proved a lack of due diligence by the owner in employing the driver or entrusting the vehicle, and the owner's production of the licence did not by itself show collusion.

• DASHWANTH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 587

  A three-Judge Bench set aside the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the sexual assault, murder and burning of a seven-year-old girl. It found that the trial denied him a fair defence (charges framed while he was unrepresented and without supply of documents, legal aid counsel appointed four days before evidence began, and sentence passed the same day as conviction), and, examining the merits given the eight-year lapse, held that none of the circumstances relied on (last seen, CCTV footage, disclosure-based recoveries, DNA reports) was proved.

• MAHAVEER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 381

  The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal of a company director charged with theft of electricity and meter tampering under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, relying on three holes found in the meter box. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal, holding that the statutory presumptions against the consumer arise only when the use of artificial means is proved, and the prosecution witnesses spoke only of inference, estimation and possibility.

• M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD. versus M/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 559

  In a commercial suit, the defendant's written statement was rejected as filed beyond 120 days and its cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness was recorded as nil, leading to a decree. The Supreme Court held that the 120-day period fell wholly within the COVID-19 limitation exclusion ordered in the suo motu proceedings, so the written statement should have been taken on record, and that non-filing of a written statement does not take away the right to cross-examine; the decree against the appellant was set aside and the suit remanded.

• STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus PARMESHWAR RAMLAL JOSHI AND OTHERS

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 354

  The High Court recalled its own reasoned order, calling it a clerical mistake, and then transferred the investigation of two FIRs to the CBI. The Supreme Court quashed both orders. A criminal court cannot review its own final order under the guise of inherent powers, and a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking the same relief as a writ petition already withdrawn without liberty could not be entertained.

• M/S GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER, MEERUT DIVISION & ANR.

  08/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 368

  Instruments styled "Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed" and "Security Bond or Mortgage Deed", by which the principal debtor itself mortgaged its own property to secure its own obligations, were held chargeable to stamp duty as mortgage deeds under Article 40 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh), and not under Article 57, because the second limb of Article 57 requires a surety distinct from the principal debtor.

• ZAINUL versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 60

  The Supreme Court acquitted ten appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for two killings in a 1988 mob clash over settled land. Restating the rule of caution where a large number of persons are implicated, it held that the evidence of the injured and other eyewitnesses was riddled with material contradictions and inconsistent with the medical evidence, that no appellant's participation was proved by reliable, consistent evidence, and that the informant's hospital statement could not be treated as the FIR because the police already had information about the occurrence earlier.

• SWACCH ASSOCIATION, NAGPUR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 531

  The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a PIL against recreational and beautification works at Futala Lake, Nagpur, holding that the lake, a man-made waterbody built for irrigation, is not a 'wetland' under Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, that the impugned structures were sanctioned and not permanent constructions, and that the High Court's directions applying the spirit of Rule 4 were a proper application of the public trust doctrine, which extends to man-made waterbodies.

• DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS versus SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court dismissed a suit claiming land as the daughter, heir and oral donee (hiba) of the deceased owner. It held that the High Court could not enlarge the decree in the plaintiff's favour without an appeal or cross-objection; that the courts below accepted the relationship on Section 50 Evidence Act testimony of interested relatives and a Section 73 signature comparison without testing credibility; that the hiba failed for want of proof of delivery of possession; and that the suit, filed in 2013 against 1995 sale deeds, was time-barred given her constructive notice.

• RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ETC.

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 342

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of an acquittal in a murder case and acquitted the three appellants. The only independent eyewitness could not identify the assailants and no identification parade was held; the father and another witness were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful; and the recoveries of weapons, unsupported by any forensic link to the deceased, could not prove identity because the accused's statements that these were the weapons of crime were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

• PREM AGGARWAL versus MOHAN SINGH & ORS.

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 395

  After the Supreme Court had dismissed the appellant's suit for specific performance as barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC but awarded him Rs. 2 crores in lieu of Rs. 25,000 earnest money, the appellant refused the tender and resisted execution to keep possession of the ground floor. The Court upheld the issue of warrants of possession with police assistance, holding that a purchaser whose possession rested only on the failed agreement to sell cannot both keep possession and take the compensation, and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs.

• S. RAJASEEKARAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 311

  In a 2012 public interest petition on road safety, the Court, noting the rising share of pedestrian deaths and the large number of two-wheeler deaths attributed to not wearing helmets, issued interim directions on five matters: footpaths, pedestrian crossings, helmet enforcement, wrong-lane driving, and dazzling headlights, strobe lights and hooters. It directed audits under the IRC pedestrian safety guidelines, grievance redressal, strict enforcement, and the framing of rules by States under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act within six months.

• LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 463

  Giving reasons for its earlier dismissal of the decree-holders' SLP, the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's stay, without deposit and on an undertaking, of an ex parte money decree of about Rs 339 crore against Amazon Technologies. It held that deposit is not a condition precedent to a stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC; money decrees are ordinarily stayed only on deposit as a rule of prudence, but an unconditional stay may be granted in an exceptional case, such as a decree that is egregiously perverse, riddled with patent illegalities or facially untenable. Security may include an undertaking.

• NILESH BABURAO GITTE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 11 S.C.R. 37

  The Supreme Court acquitted a son convicted under Section 302 IPC of murdering his mother on circumstantial evidence. The medical evidence left hanging open and did not establish homicide, the investigating officer's own evidence showed the appellant lived separately so Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked, the recovery evidence was unreliable and had already been rejected against the acquitted co-accused, the motive rested on an interested uncle, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.

• M/S ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.

  07/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 405

  The Supreme Court held that a printer of lottery tickets on customer-supplied paper is liable to trade tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the ink and processing chemicals it uses, because property in the diluted ink passes when it is applied to the paper. The question is whether property in goods was transferred in executing the works contract, not whether the goods were later consumed, and decisions treating consumption as excluding transfer proceeded on a wrong footing.

• VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

  06/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 301

  A tender condition requiring bidders for supply of sports kits to State schools to have supplied at least Rs.6 crores of sports goods to Chhattisgarh State Government agencies in the previous three financial years was struck down. Tying eligibility to past local supplies erected an artificial barrier against equally competent outside suppliers, had no rational nexus with the object of the procurement, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

• NAZIM & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  06/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 263

  The Supreme Court acquitted three appellants convicted of the murder of a ten-year-old boy on circumstantial evidence. Two of them were not named in the FIR despite being known to the complainant; the witness who claimed to have overheard a conspiracy kept silent until trial; the last-seen witnesses identified the accused for the first time in court without a test identification parade and the time gap was too wide; and the only forensic evidence was neutral. The chain of circumstances was incomplete.

• P. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. versus COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS.

  06/10/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 286

  Having upheld the Devaswom Board's enhancement of a licence fee, the High Court went on, without notice to the writ petitioners, to direct a fresh fixation of the fee and a vigilance enquiry into the original allotment. The Supreme Court expunged those directions as beyond the scope of the writ petition, contrary to natural justice and leaving the petitioners worse off for having come to court.

• SINGAMASETTY BHAGAVATH GUPTHA & ANR. versus ALLAM KARIBASAPPA (D) BY LRS./ALLAM DODDABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

  25/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1539

  The Supreme Court restored the District Court's order dismissing a partner's application to acquire, through the official receiver, the insolvent appellant's one-anna share in a partnership firm. The High Court wrongly treated the receiver's 1983 transfer deed as saved by Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, although the order underlying that deed had itself been set aside and remanded, and it reversed the District Court's finding that the offer and acceptance documents were fabricated without re-appreciating the evidence.

• SANJABIJ TARI versus KISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR.

  25/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1515

  The Court restored a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act that the High Court had set aside ex parte in revision. Once the accused admitted signing the cheque, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose and were not rebutted. A cash loan above Rs. 20,000 in breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains a legally enforceable debt. The Court also revised the Damodar S. Prabhu compounding guidelines and issued directions to reduce the backlog of cheque cases.

• DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus CORPORATION BANK & ORS.

  25/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1559

  The Court set aside a DRT recovery auction of a DDA leasehold plot because the proclamation of sale did not disclose DDA's claim to unearned increase or the lease terms, contrary to Rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act and Rule 16 of the 1962 Rules and to the bank's undertaking to the High Court. DDA's second writ petition was not barred by res judicata, since the first was withdrawn and not decided on merits. The bona fide auction purchaser was to get its deposit back with 9% interest.

• GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED versus ESSAR POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER

  25/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1575

  In the long-running dispute over Essar Power's diversion of GUVNL's allocated share of electricity to its sister company, the Supreme Court, reading its 2016 decision as a whole, held that GUVNL is entitled to reimbursement of proportionate fixed charges for the diverted power on the principle of restitution, in addition to compensation at the HTP-1 energy charge, and that the diversion must be computed on a half-hourly basis from 23.02.2005, as the parties had adopted that metering on the CEA's recommendation sought by Essar itself.

• ANUKUL SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

  24/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1401

  The appellant sought quashing of an FIR and charge sheet under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC alleging that he advanced a smaller loan than agreed and coerced the complainant into an agreement to sell and cheques. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the allegations, even if accepted, disclosed only a civil loan dispute and that the FIR was a retaliatory counterblast to proceedings the appellant had earlier initiated, falling within Bhajan Lal categories (1) and (7).

• BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA versus RAJIV NARESHCHANDRA NARULA & ORS.

  24/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1363

  The Supreme Court quashed disciplinary proceedings against two advocates initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on complaints by opposing parties. It held that a State Bar Council must record reasons to believe that an advocate is guilty of misconduct before referring a complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, that a cryptic reference order is invalid, and that merely identifying a party or deponent does not amount to misconduct. Costs were imposed on the Bar Council and on one complainant.

• RAMA BAI versus M/S AMIT MINERALS THROUGH INCHARGE OFFICER/COMPETENT OFFICER & ANRS.

  24/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1599

  The Court accepted that the insurer was not liable because the driver's licence had lapsed and had not been renewed on the date of the accident, but, following its earlier line of decisions, directed the insurer to satisfy the enhanced award to the deceased conductor's mother and recover it from the owner.

• DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  24/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1303

  The Supreme Court upheld the Collector's 1974 rescission of Portuguese-era 'Alvara' land grants in Dadra and Nagar Haveli for non-cultivation under Article 12 of the Organizacao Agraria (OA). The OA, as the special law, governed the grants; pleas based on the 1917 Law and a 1936 Decree were new and in any case untenable; waiver and acquiescence could not defeat a public-interest cultivation condition, mere delay did not amount to acquiescence, and the Collector's reasoned order was not mala fide. The High Court had rightly interfered in second appeal.

• M/S U.P. ASBESTOS LIMITED versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

  24/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1419

  The Supreme Court quashed Rajasthan's Notification S.O.377 dated 09.03.2007 under Section 8(3) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003, which exempted from tax sales of asbestos cement sheets and bricks with 25% or more fly ash only if manufactured in Rajasthan, as discriminatory against goods from other States under Article 304(a). The notification gave no reason beyond 'public interest', reasons in a counter affidavit could not supply it, the exemption did not require use of Rajasthan's fly ash, and it was neither confined to new industries nor truly time-limited, so the Video Electronics exception did not apply.

• HLV LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HOTEL LEELAVENTURE PVT. LTD.) versus PBSAMP PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

  24/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1378

  Where the parties' MoU fixed 21% per annum interest on refund of advances from disbursement until repayment and the arbitral tribunal awarded exactly that, the award-holder could not claim compound or additional post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the execution stage. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's remand and restored the executing court's order recording full satisfaction of the award.

• SATHEESH V.K. versus THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

  23/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1255

  A borrower who unconditionally withdrew his special leave petition against a High Court order in a SARFAESI matter, without liberty to re-approach the Court, then sought review in the High Court and filed fresh appeals against both the original order and the review dismissal. The Supreme Court held both appeals not maintainable, applying Upadhyay & Co. and the public policy behind Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and noting that no appeal lies against rejection of review under Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC.

• NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  22/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1239

  The Supreme Court acquitted three accused convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. Motive was not proved, the extra-judicial confessions were made inside a police station and were barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of a chopper on a joint disclosure was unreliable, and the presence of the body in the accused's house, even if accepted, could not alone sustain a conviction.

• THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus MIR USMAN @ ARA @ MIR USMAN ALI

  22/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1490

  The CBI sought cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a rape trial. The Supreme Court declined to cancel bail, which had operated for about a year, but, noticing that the victim's further examination had been put off by months and that the prosecution proposed some 30 witnesses, reiterated the day-to-day trial mandate of Section 309 CrPC (now Section 346 BNSS) and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, and asked High Courts to circulate directions to trial courts against piecemeal trials and adjournments.

• KAVERI PLASTICS versus MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL

  19/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1210

  The Court held that a demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must demand the very amount of the dishonoured cheque. A notice demanding Rs. 2 crore for a Rs. 1 crore cheque was invalid even though it correctly gave the cheque details, and a plea of typographical error was no defence. The High Court's quashing of the complaint was upheld.

• ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION versus RAHUL MEHRA & ORS.

  19/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1146

  In AIFF's appeals against the Delhi High Court's 2017 order setting aside its elections for non-compliance with the National Sports Development Code, 2011, the Supreme Court finalised the draft AIFF Constitution prepared by the Committee of Administrators and revised by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, pending notification of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. It approved most provisions with modifications (eminent players in the General Body, three Vice-Presidents, disqualification only on conviction with sentence and for ministers or government servants, binding effect on State associations, limits on delegation to commercial partners, promotion and relegation, amendments only with the Court's leave), treated the current Executive Committee as a permanent body, and directed AIFF to adopt the Constitution within about four weeks.

• M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II

  19/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1110

  The Supreme Court held that placing imported gas generating sets in steel containers and fitting the containers with radiators, ventilation fans, air filters, oil tanks, pumps, valves, silencers and piping to produce leased 'Power Packs' amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The added components are parts, not accessories; the re-engineered portable product has a distinct character and identity and is marketable, so excise duty was payable.

• THAMMINENI BHASKAR versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

  17/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1064

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder, kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidence because the only witnesses relied on for the kidnapping and last-seen circumstance turned hostile and identified no one, leaving motive alone, which cannot sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence.

• THE STATE OF HARYANA versus JAI SINGH AND OTHERS

  16/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1016

  Rehearing the State of Haryana's appeal after recalling its 2022 judgment on review, the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court Full Bench's view that 'bachat' land, contributed pro rata by proprietors during consolidation but not reserved or earmarked for any common purpose in the scheme, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State under the amended definition of 'shamilat deh' and continues to belong to the proprietors in proportion to their contribution. Relying on the Constitution Bench decisions in Ajit Singh and Bhagat Ram and on stare decisis, it dismissed the appeal.

• DASTAGIRSAB versus SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA POLICE PATIL (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

  16/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1053

  The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's dismissal of a coparcener's suit challenging a sale of HUF land by the Karta. It held that the purchaser had proved legal necessity (debts from the marriage of the Karta's daughter) and was a bona fide purchaser, and that the purchaser could not be made to prove how the price was shared among coparceners, a fact especially within their own knowledge.

• KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA & ORS. versus SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.

  16/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1085

  In a cross-border custody dispute, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's habeas corpus order giving interim custody of a young son, left by the mother with her parents in India while she moved to the UK with the daughter, to the father as natural guardian. Treating the child's welfare as paramount and deprecating the mother's concealment from courts in India and the UK, it directed handover of custody, regular access for the mother, sibling and maternal grandparents, and the filing of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 within a month.

• ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus TANYA ENERGY ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ALLURI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA VARMA

  15/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 963

  The Supreme Court set aside High Court orders directing SBI to reconsider a defaulting borrower's application under its OTS 2020 Scheme. The application was not accompanied by the mandatory up-front deposit under clause 4(i), so it was not even liable to be processed. The Court held that, in appropriate cases and after notice to the affected party, a court may uphold an administrative rejection on an alternative ground that appears from the order's own narrative or the records, even if the ground stated is untenable.

• KAILAS S/O BAJIRAO PAWAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  15/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 935

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order directing a re-trial in an NDPS case involving seizure of 39 kg of ganja. A video recording supported by a Section 65B(4) certificate is admissible like a document and need not be played during each witness's deposition or transcribed; a Chemical Examiner's report is admissible under Section 293 CrPC without examining him; and non-production of samples or contraband could be cured by additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC. Re-trial is for exceptional cases only, so the appeals were restored to the High Court for fresh decision.

• REENA BANERJEE AND ANOTHER versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 855

  In long-running public interest proceedings on implementation of disability law and conditions in State-run homes for persons with cognitive disabilities (beginning with Asha Kiran, Delhi), the Supreme Court directed a nationwide monitoring exercise, 'Project Ability Empowerment', by eight National Law Universities with the Advisory Group Expert Panel, covering all care institutions and RPwD Act implementation, funded by the Union and States. It also called on the Union of India to explain whether meritorious candidates with disabilities who score above the unreserved cut-off are given upward movement, noting that denial of it defeats reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act.

• VANEETA PATNAIK versus NIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI & ORS.

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 253

  The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, as time-barred, of a faculty member's sexual harassment complaint against the Vice-Chancellor of NUJS. The last incident of sexual harassment was in April 2023; the later administrative actions (removal as Centre Director, a preliminary inquiry) were collective, independent decisions with no direct link to the earlier harassment, so the complaint of 26.12.2023 was beyond the maximum six-month period under Section 9 of the POSH Act.

• SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN versus JAGAN DEVI & ORS.

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 825

  The Supreme Court held that a co-owner's suit for injunction or joint possession, attacking a 1973 sale deed she was found never to have executed and for which no consideration was shown to have been paid, was governed by Article 65 (12 years) and not Article 59 (3 years) of the Limitation Act, 1963, because such a deed is void and need not be cancelled. The suit filed about 11 years after the deed was within time; the High Court erred in applying Article 59 but its conclusion was correct, so the appeal was dismissed.

• ITC LIMITED versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 764

  The Supreme Court quashed the search of ITC's warehouse and seizure of 7,600 cartons of exercise books under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, holding that Section 15 requires recorded reasons to believe and, through Section 15(4), compliance with the Cr.P.C. search provisions including a warrant or Section 165 reasons and two independent witnesses under Section 100(4), irrespective of whether the business premises were open or closed. The Single Judge's order quashing the seizure and compounding notices was restored.

• ANNA WAMAN BHALERAO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 982

  Two retired revenue officials (a Circle Officer and a Talathi) accused of certifying mutation entries on the basis of a sale deed executed through forged powers of attorney in the names of dead owners were refused anticipatory bail; the Supreme Court affirmed the refusal, holding that the 1998 cancellation of the entries and the 20-year delay in lodging the FIR did not efface their alleged role, that custodial interrogation may be needed even in document-based cases, and that they had not cooperated during six years of interim protection. Noting that their applications had remained pending in the High Court from 2019 to 2025, the Court issued directions that bail and anticipatory bail applications be decided expeditiously, preferably within two months of filing.

• PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED versus MANDEEPA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 794

  A bidder for a road user fee collection contract that quoted Rs.9,72,999 (in figures and words) in a BOQ column expressly meant for the full 1095-day period, and after financial bids were opened claimed this was a per-day rate, was not entitled to have its bid recomputed so as to make it the highest. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's direction permitting such rectification: the clarification clause in the instructions to bidders could not override the tender's bar on any change to the BOQ, and the High Court had decided the matter without impleading or hearing the H1 bidder.

• M.S. PATTER versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 895

  In a PIL arising from deaths of inmates in a cholera and gastroenteritis outbreak caused by contaminated water at a Delhi Beggars' Home in 2000, the Supreme Court, after years of monitoring, found that the High Court's 2001 directions had been fully complied with. Holding that beggars' homes must be rehabilitative 'homes' and that inhumane conditions in them violate the right to life with dignity under Article 21, it issued nationwide directions to all States and Union Territories on healthcare, sanitation, capacity, nutrition, vocational training, legal aid, protection of women and children, oversight and compensation.

• MANSI BRAR FERNANDES versus SHUBHA SHARMA AND ANR.

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 169

  The Supreme Court upheld NCLAT orders setting aside the admission of Section 7 IBC applications by two allottees, holding that both were speculative investors whose agreements were in substance buy-back or assured-return arrangements rather than purchases of homes, and laid down indicative criteria for identifying speculative investors. It set aside the NCLAT's finding that the 2019 Ordinance threshold for allottee applications did not apply, holding that compliance during appeal cured the defect because an act of the court must prejudice no one. Treating timely possession of a home as part of the right to shelter under Article 21, it issued systemic directions for the real estate and insolvency framework.

• RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETH versus KIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 152

  In a suit by a co-owner to declare void an agreement to sell executed by the other co-owner, the purchaser (a co-defendant) sought to file a counter-claim for specific performance and partition. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's rejection: a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC must be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant, and it cannot be brought in after the issues are framed.

• GEETA @ REETA MISHRA versus AJAY KUMAR MISHRA

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 640

  The Supreme Court declined to disturb a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, given the long separation, failed mediation and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and, the wife having confined her claim to her daughter's marriage expenses, directed the husband to pay Rs.10,00,000 towards them as part of his duty as a parent.

• MANIKLAL SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 212

  The victim, thrown from a terrace and beaten, suffered a spinal cord injury causing paraplegia and died about nine months later of septic shock, pneumonia and infected bedsores. The High Court altered the murder conviction to attempt to murder on the ground that death followed late and from want of proper treatment. The Supreme Court held this was a serious error, since the complications flowed from the original injuries and Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC makes adequacy of treatment irrelevant, and laid down principles for delayed deaths; but as the State had not appealed, it only dismissed the accused's appeal.

• CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (CREDAI) versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 94

  The NGT had held that the General Conditions of the EIA Notification, 2006 apply to building, construction, township and area development projects (Items 8(a) and 8(b)), so that such projects within 5 km of protected, critically or severely polluted, eco-sensitive areas or inter-State boundaries must be appraised centrally as Category A. Since a coordinate Bench in Vanashakti v. Union of India had meanwhile upheld the 2025 notification declaring that the General Conditions do not apply to Item 8 (save Note 1 to Item 8(a)), the Supreme Court agreed with that view and held that the NGT order no longer survived.

• MAMMAN KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA

  12/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 131

  The trial court, of its own motion and without hearing the appellant, a sitting MLA accused in FIRs arising from the 2023 Nuh communal violence, directed a separate charge-sheet and separate trial for him, citing day-to-day trial of legislators' cases and co-accused's non-appearance. The Supreme Court quashed the segregation and directed a joint trial: the prosecution alleged one conspiracy on common evidence, political office alone is no ground for separate trial, and the order was passed without notice in breach of Articles 14 and 21.

• M/S SHIV STEELS versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

  11/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1069

  The Supreme Court held that Section 21 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which permits an assessment within four years of the expiry of limitation with the Commissioner's prior sanction, applies only where no assessment at all was made within the time limits of Section 19; it cannot be used to revive assessments already held to be time-barred. The High Court's contrary reading was set aside and the appeals allowed.

• MOHAMMAD AFZAL MOHAMMAD SHARIF versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  11/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 78

  The appellant, a 17-year-old injured during the 2023 Akola communal riots who claimed to be an eyewitness to a murder, complained that the police never registered an FIR on the assault on him. Holding that the police, once informed of the medico-legal case, were bound under Section 154 CrPC to register the cognizable offence, and that the Superintendent of Police failed to act on his written complaint under Section 154(3), the Court set aside the High Court's dismissal and directed a special investigation team and disciplinary action.

• GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD) versus K. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

  10/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1229

  Cultivating tenants were ordered to be evicted by the Revenue Court under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 for allegedly felling trees and digging pits, on the strength of a civil court Commissioner's report, and the High Court affirmed the order in revision while also allowing the landowners' second appeal. The Court set the eviction aside: there was no cogent evidence of any act destructive of or injurious to the land, pruning of trees by itself would not attract Section 3(2)(b), and the Act, being a beneficial statute enacted to protect cultivating tenants, must be construed in their favour.

• AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTAD versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  10/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 585

  A three-judge Bench set aside the death sentence of accused No. 1 and the convictions of both appellants for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a young girl who went missing from a wedding, a case resting on circumstantial evidence of motive, 'last seen' and DNA. Motive was unproved; the 'last seen' witnesses surfaced five days later and did not place the child with the accused; the cousin who first told the police where the body lay was never examined; the arrest at Ludhiana, the mobile surveillance story and the hair-band recovery were unsubstantiated; and the DNA report was unreliable because semen was found in the cervical swab but not in the cervical smear or vaginal samples, and the examiner's qualifications were doubtful. Both appellants were acquitted.

• JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

  10/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 58

  The Supreme Court quashed a Section 420 IPC prosecution against the head of an education society accused of obtaining school recognition by submitting a forged fire-safety NOC. Because the building was below 15 metres and a fire NOC was admittedly not required for recognition (as an earlier writ order had declared), the alleged false representation could not have induced the Education Department to act, so the ingredient of dishonest inducement was missing; forgery offences also failed because nothing connected the appellant to making the document.

• VINOD KUMAR PANDEY & ANR. versus SEESH RAM SAINI & ORS.

  10/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 66

  Two CBI officers challenged orders of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directing registration of an FIR against them on complaints of coercion and of preparing a false seizure memo, after a CBI preliminary inquiry had found no offence. The Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136: the High Court's prima facie finding that cognizable offences were made out justified the direction, a preliminary inquiry report cannot oust a constitutional court's power to reach its own conclusion, and alternative remedies are no absolute bar. The orders were modified so that the Delhi Police (not its Special Cell) investigates, the inquiry report may be looked into but is not conclusive, and no coercive steps are taken while the officers cooperate.

• THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) CANARA BANK versus GANGANARASIMHAIAH

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 703

  A bank sub-staff employee was compulsorily retired after a domestic enquiry, held fair by the Industrial Tribunal, found him guilty of unauthorised debits in a customer's account, coercing the manager into sanctioning loans to his father and wife, and tampering with bank records. The Tribunal nevertheless set aside the punishment for want of proof that he authored the entries, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had acted as an appellate court contrary to the settled limits of judicial review under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, applied criminal-law standards of proof instead of preponderance of probabilities, and wrongly treated compulsory retirement as denying retiral benefits; it restored the punishment.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SAJIB ROY

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 542

  OBC candidates who availed three years' age relaxation in the Staff Selection Commission recruitment of Constables (GD), and who scored below the last selected OBC candidate but above the last selected unreserved candidate, were directed by the Tripura High Court to be considered in the unreserved category on the strength of Jitendra Kumar Singh. The Court set that direction aside: the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 bars migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxed standards such as age, Jitendra Kumar Singh turned on U.P. statutory instructions that expressly permitted such migration, and whether migration is permissible depends on whether the governing recruitment rules impose an embargo.

• RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus PREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS.

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 558

  Two appeals on migration of reserved-category candidates to unreserved vacancies. In the Railway Protection Force recruitment of ancillary constables, Revised Directive No. 29 made Standing Order No. 85 applicable in partial modification of Standing Order No. 78, so Para 14(f) of SO 85, which bars candidates who availed relaxation in age or physical measurements from being counted against unreserved vacancies, prevails over Para 14(b) of SO 78; the Delhi High Court's direction to appoint such candidates against unreserved posts was set aside. In the CISF Assistant Commandant limited departmental examination, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 does not treat relaxed physical standards such as height as a 'relaxed standard', so a Scheduled Tribe candidate who scored above the general cut-off was rightly selected in the general category.

• MAHA MINERAL MINING & BENEFICATION PVT. LTD. versus MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD. & ANR.

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 528

  A bidder relying on the past experience of a previous joint venture was wrongly disqualified for not filing the JV agreement, because Clause 5(D) of the NIT did not expressly require it and the work execution certificate it did file stated its 45% share. The Supreme Court set aside the disqualification but, finding that the High Court had impermissibly gone beyond the Tender Committee's reasons to hold the bidder disqualified under Clause 5(B) (spare washery capacity) on a point raised only in written submissions, remanded that question to the High Court.

• GEETA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 44

  The appellant, a neighbour who had quarrelled with the deceased for about six months and allegedly abused and assaulted her two days and again on the day she set herself on fire, had her conviction under Section 306 IPC confirmed by the High Court, which acquitted her under the SC/ST Act. The Court set the conviction aside: taking the prosecution case at its highest, heated exchanges and even physical blows in a neighbourhood quarrel did not show the intention to abet suicide or an instigation of such a degree that the deceased was left with no option but to take her life.

• AMIT NEHRA & ANR. versus PAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS.

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 627

  Homebuyers who had paid almost the entire consideration for an apartment, and whose claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP was verified by the Resolution Professional and entered in the published list of financial creditors before the NCLT approved the resolution plan, could not be treated as belated or unverified claimants entitled only to a 50% refund under the residuary clause of the plan. The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and directed execution of the conveyance deed and handover of possession within two months.

• DEEP NURSING HOME AND ANOTHER versus MANMEET SINGH MATTEWAL AND OTHERS

  09/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 26

  A patient died of atonic post-partum haemorrhage hours after delivery at the appellants' nursing home and her newborn also died; the State Commission found the obstetrician and nursing home negligent in post-delivery care and the NCDRC, while holding there was no negligence in the labour, delivery and post-delivery management and exonerating the nursing home, fastened liability on the doctor for deficient antenatal care. The Court set both orders aside: the complaint never alleged deficient antenatal care, the NCDRC could not build a new case beyond the pleadings, and five Medical Boards constituted at the complainant's own instance had found no negligence.

• MALLEESWARI versus K. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER

  08/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 574

  In a partition suit, the Madras High Court in revision had allowed a daughter's application to amend an ex parte preliminary decree so as to recognise her coparcenary share, but on review it reversed that order and remanded the matter. The Supreme Court held that the review court had re-appreciated the parties' cases and reversed findings as if sitting in appeal, which is beyond the review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; the review order was set aside and the revisional order restored.

• HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE (HPPC) AND OTHERS versus GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LIMITED AND OTHERS

  08/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 663

  A generating company supplying power to distribution utilities in Haryana, Odisha and Bihar from one plant was granted Change in Law compensation for shortfall in linkage coal, with the CERC directing that linkage coal and the cost of alternate coal be apportioned pro rata among all three beneficiaries; APTEL affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Haryana utilities and GRIDCO under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003: no substantial question of law arose, the concurrent findings of two expert bodies interpreting the fuel supply documents could not be disturbed, coal linkage and fuel supply agreements were for the plant as a whole and not procurer-specific, and no beneficiary could claim priority over linkage coal on the basis of an earlier agreement or its recital of fuel source.

• AMANJOT SINGH CHADHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  04/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1075

  In a public interest writ petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court held that Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (inserted in 2012) casts a mandatory, positive duty on every State Government to frame rules enabling registration of Anand Karaj marriages, and directed all defaulting States and Union Territories to notify such rules within four months, with interim registration under existing frameworks without discrimination and specific directions for Goa and Sikkim, where the Act has not been extended.

• SHYAM LAL versus SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

  04/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 522

  The owner of a Bolero Camper utility vehicle challenged a High Court 'pay and recover' order passed on the insurer's appeal on the footing that the policy's 'limitation as to use' barred carriage of passengers. The Court held that the clause restricting use to carriage of goods applies only to goods vehicles; the vehicle was registered as a utility van with a 4+1 seating capacity, held a contract carriage permit and the package policy itself recorded that capacity, so the insurer could not avoid its liability. The Tribunal's awards were restored, with a direction that a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses be made in one of the claims.

• C.P. FRANCIS versus C.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERS

  03/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 645

  In a second appeal, the Kerala High Court set aside concurrent findings upholding a registered joint will by framing an additional substantial question of law under the proviso to Section 100(5) CPC and holding the bequest void under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act because the legatee's wife was an attesting witness. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred: the Section 67 plea was never pleaded, no issue was framed, no suggestion was put to the witnesses, and no reasons were recorded for framing the additional question, so an entirely new case could not be set up at the second-appeal stage. The will was restored, with enhanced payments directed to the other legatees.

• OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S G & T BECKFIELD DRILLING SERVICES PVT. LTD.

  02/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 507

  ONGC challenged an arbitral award, as affirmed by the Gauhati High Court under Section 37, only to the extent that it granted 12% interest on the awarded sum from the date the statement of claim was affirmed, contending that clause 18.1 of the contract barred interest on delayed or disputed payments. The Supreme Court held that an arbitral tribunal's power under Section 31(7)(a) to award pendente lite interest is excluded only where the contract bars it expressly or by necessary implication; a clause merely denying interest on delayed payment is not readily inferred as such a bar. Clause 18.1 did not bar pendente lite interest, and the appeal was dismissed.

• MRS. SHAILJA KRISHNA versus SATORI GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS.

  02/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 383

  The NCLAT had set aside an NCLT order under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the NCLT lacked jurisdiction to decide allegations of fraud and coercion surrounding a gift deed by which a 98% shareholder-director purportedly transferred all her shares to her mother-in-law, relegating her to a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that the NCLT has wide jurisdiction to decide all matters incidental or integral to a complaint of oppression and mismanagement, including the validity of the gift deed, found the gift deed contrary to the Articles of Association and the share transfer forms suspect, held the board meetings of 15.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 invalid for want of notice and quorum, and restored the NCLT order.

• PHIRERAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  02/09/2025 · [2025] 10 S.C.R. 1

  The complainant in a murder case applied under Section 439(2) CrPC to cancel the bail of an accused who, in breach of his bail conditions, was allegedly threatening witnesses; the Allahabad High Court disposed of the application by relegating him to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme is a curative measure that works alongside, and is no substitute for, the court's duty to cancel bail when its conditions are breached; the High Court was bound to decide the application on its merits under settled principles. The order was set aside and the matter remanded, and the practice of template orders in at least forty such cases was deprecated.

• RAJAN versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

  02/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 744

  The appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, affirmed by the High Court, was challenged on the grounds that the High Court uploaded its reasoned judgment about two years and five months after pronouncing the operative order and that the pistol attributed to him was never recovered. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: the testimony of the two eyewitnesses, one of them injured, inspired confidence; non-recovery of the weapon does not render direct evidence doubtful; motive pales into insignificance where the case rests on direct evidence; and delay in uploading reasons, though a matter of grave concern, does not by itself warrant setting aside the judgment. The Court reiterated the Anil Rai guidelines on timely pronouncement of judgments and directed the judgment be circulated to all High Courts.

• RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. versus SURESH CHAND AND ANR.

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 339

  A plaintiff claiming title to his father's house through an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, affidavit, receipt and a registered will, with no sale deed, had no valid title: none of those documents is a conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the will was never proved under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and Section 53A was unavailable because he was not in possession. The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent decrees, dismissed the suit, and held that succession opened to the father's class-I heirs.

• TARUN SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1273

  A conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence, resting solely on a statement treated as a dying declaration recorded by a police sub-inspector after the eyewitnesses turned hostile, was set aside and the appellant acquitted: the doctor who certified fitness was neither identified nor examined, no treatment records were produced, the recording officer noted neither his own satisfaction about fitness nor the time of recording, the deceased's brother and the treating doctors showed the deceased was unconscious and unable to speak, and the knife recovery lacked serological corroboration. The Court also deprecated the High Court's practice of appointing an amicus and hearing a life-sentence appeal on the same day without time to prepare.

• KIRAN versus RAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAIN & ANR.

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 283

  The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(o), (r), (s) and (w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after evaluating witness statements and finding the prosecution case exaggerated. The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in absolute terms wherever a prima facie offence under the Act appears from the FIR itself; the court may grant pre-arrest bail only where, on a first reading of the FIR, no such offence is made out, and may not enter the evidentiary realm or conduct a mini trial. Since the FIR disclosed casteist abuse and assault in public view, the bail order was set aside.

• THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. ETC. versus KALLURI NAGA NARASIMHA ABHIRAM & ORS. ETC.

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 362

  The definition of 'local candidate' for admission to MBBS and BDS courses in Telangana, requiring four consecutive years of study or residence in the local area ending with the qualifying examination, is valid. The 2017 Rules and their 2024 amendment trace their power to the 1983 Admission Act read with Article 371D, the 1974 Presidential Order and Articles 245 and 246, and are consistent with decades of precedent upholding residence-based reservation; the High Court could not expand or read down the definition under Article 226 on grounds of hardship. The State's proposed proviso protecting children of Telangana employees, All India Service officers, defence personnel and State instrumentality employees posted outside the State was recorded as the only mitigation.

• M/S TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 300

  The National Green Tribunal, acting on a complaint about a sugar mill, constituted a joint committee whose inspection report it accepted without adjudication, and then imposed environmental compensation of Rs. 18 crores on the mill owner, which had never been impleaded or heard. The Supreme Court held that the orders were passed in violation of the sampling and analysis procedure in Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, of Section 19 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and of elementary natural justice; the NGT cannot outsource investigation to ad hoc committees in place of the statutory procedure or base adverse orders on their reports without hearing the affected party. The orders were declared null and void and set aside without remand.

• SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI versus HARE RAM SAH & ORS.

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 258

  The Patna High Court acquitted two men convicted under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for raping the appellant's 12-13 year old daughter, citing unproved age, date and time, pregnancy and abortion, a wrongly dated charge and a joint trial contrary to Section 223 CrPC. The Court restored the convictions and life sentences: the victim's consistent testimony was corroborated by unrebutted oral and documentary evidence on each point, an error in the charge or an irregular joint trial does not vitiate a conviction unless actual prejudice and failure of justice are shown (Sections 215, 464 CrPC), and minor inconsistencies cannot be elevated to reasonable doubt.

• ANJUMAN ISHAAT-E-TALEEM TRUST versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  01/09/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 410

  The Court held that passing the Teacher Eligibility Test is a mandatory minimum qualification under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, applying to appointment by promotion as well as to initial appointment and to in-service teachers; it granted transitional relief under Article 142 to teachers appointed before the Act. Doubting the Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, which exempted all minority schools, aided or unaided, from the whole RTE Act, it placed the appeals concerning minority institutions before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of a reference to a larger Bench.

• SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  29/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2289

  The appellant mother-in-law, acquitted with the other accused of the offences under Sections 304-B and 302/34 IPC, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC on the evidence of the deceased's mother and brother, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction: the complaint and the father's evidence disclosed no demand for dowry, the mother's and brother's evidence did not inspire confidence, and the neighbour examined in defence had been wrongly brushed aside.

• M/S TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

  29/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2297

  The appellant's heavy-lifting motor vehicles were confined, under a contract, to the enclosed central dispatch yard of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, where entry is controlled by CISF. The Supreme Court held that the taxable event under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 is the use or keeping for use of a vehicle in a 'public place', that the yard is not a public place as defined in Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that Rule 12A of the Taxation Rules must be read in sync with the charging section, so the absence of a non-use intimation did not make the vehicles taxable for the period they remained inside the yard.

• STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS versus EX. C. SATPAL SINGH

  29/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2326

  Dismissal of a Commando Force constable for wilful unauthorised absence of 37 days upheld. The disciplinary authority's reference to his earlier punishments for absence was not the effective reason for dismissal but only added weight to a decision founded on the proved charge, so the rule in K. Manche Gowda requiring prior notice of reliance on past conduct was not attracted; the dismissal fell within the first limb of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, where length of service need not be considered.

• M/S KKK HYDRO POWER LIMITED versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND OTHERS

  29/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2350

  A generating company and a distribution licensee cannot by private agreement execute a power purchase agreement or fix the tariff for supply of electricity within a State without the review and approval of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. APTEL erred in giving effect to an unapproved supplementary PPA enhancing the tariff, but as the Board had not appealed and the resulting weighted-average tariff had long been acted upon, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the generator's appeal for the enhanced tariff on its entire project.

• VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

  28/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2199

  Prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 launched without any ITAT confirmation of concealment penalty, in disregard of the Department's binding circular of 24.04.2008, and continued even after the Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty on a finding of full and true disclosure, held to be an abuse of process. The High Court's refusal to quash was set aside, the complaint quashed and costs imposed on the Revenue.

• MANOJ TEJRAJ JAIN versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  28/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2437

  In a prosecution under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act over the seizure of 1,364 kg of ephedrine (a controlled substance) from a leased godown, the Court upheld the conviction of the lessee found in conscious possession of the godown despite the panch witnesses turning hostile, reducing his sentence to the period undergone, but acquitted the three co-accused because the only material against them was the lessee's statement to the ATS at the time of the raid, which had no evidentiary value and could not found a conviction, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 could not be invoked without proof of foundational facts.

• IN RE: MEPUNG TADAR BAGE, MEMBER, ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus

  28/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2227

  On a Presidential reference under Article 317(1) for removal of a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on six charges arising from the leak of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination paper in 2022, the Supreme Court, after a fact-finding inquiry under Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules, reported that none of the charges was proved: misbehaviour under Article 317 is individual, not collective, and no act or omission attributable to the Member in her personal or official capacity was shown. The Court recommended revocation of her suspension with all consequential benefits.

• ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC. versus PHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

  28/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2416

  Defamation complaint against the Chairman and officers of a bank, founded on a SARFAESI possession notice that, by clerical error, stated an inflated outstanding amount, quashed. Officers cannot be prosecuted vicariously under the IPC without the bank being arraigned and without specific allegations of their individual role; the notice was issued bona fide under Section 13(4) and attracted the protection of Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act.

• M/S MOTILAL AGARWALA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

  28/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2400

  Delivery of a signed copy of an arbitral award to an Assistant Engineer who attended the arbitration on behalf of the State, but who was not a party to the arbitration agreement and had no authority to decide whether to challenge the award, is not delivery to the 'party' under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Limitation under Section 34(3) therefore did not begin to run from that date, and the State's application to set aside the award was not time-barred.

• PUTAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  26/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2108

  Two accused were convicted of the gang rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, one being sentenced to death, on circumstantial evidence comprising recovery of the child's articles from a field cultivated by the first accused, his alleged suspicious conduct, a comb linked to the second accused by a sniffer dog, and DNA reports. A three-Judge Bench acquitted both: the conduct was natural, the comb and underwear recoveries were doubtful or planted, the chain of custody of the forensic samples was wholly unproved, and a supplementary DNA report produced in the High Court through an affidavit, without recalling the expert or putting it to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, was inadmissible.

• SANTOSH SAHADEV KHAJNEKAR versus THE STATE OF GOA

  26/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2100

  Conviction of a labourer under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Section 504 IPC for hitting a schoolchild with a school bag during a sudden quarrel set aside: a single incidental blow without deliberate or sustained maltreatment is not 'child abuse', and abusing the child was not intended to provoke a breach of the peace. Convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC confirmed, with the appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

• DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR. versus PILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

  26/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2191

  A suit for eviction against a sole proprietorship does not become liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the plaint was amended to substitute the proprietor for the trade name. Order XXX Rule 10 CPC is only enabling; the proprietor is the real party, so the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint on that ground.

• M/S EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION LIMITED versus REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER II AND RECOVERY OFFICER, RO BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA) & ANR.

  26/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2183

  Where the Provident Fund Organisation sought to recover an establishment's dues from an asset reconstruction company that had auctioned two secured properties, while another secured creditor (Axis Bank) had sold a third property and claimed priority under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the Court did not decide the competing priority but remanded the writ petition so that the High Court could determine, after impleading Axis Bank, who has the first charge under Section 11(2) of the PF Act vis-a-vis the secured creditors.

• CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (CESC) versus SAISUDHIR ENERGY (CHITRADURGA) PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  25/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1493

  A solar power developer failed to achieve commercial operation under a power purchase agreement because the State transmission utility had not commissioned the evacuation lines; the distribution licensee encashed the performance bank guarantee. The State Commission, affirmed by APTEL, treated the delay as force majeure and directed restoration of the guarantee, extension of timelines and renegotiation of tariff. The Supreme Court set those orders aside: the developer had neither sought extension under the PPA's extension clause nor given the mandatory force majeure notice, so the encashment was a remedy the contract conferred, and regulatory fora cannot rewrite a competitively bid, approved contract in the name of equity.

• VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  25/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2136

  A three-Judge Bench held that Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to reopen the sentencing stage of a death-penalty case that has attained finality after appeal, review and rejection of mercy petitions, where the convict was sentenced without the sentencing safeguards mandated in Manoj v. State of M.P. The death sentence affirmed in 2017 was set aside for the present, the conviction left untouched, and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing on sentence alone in conformity with Manoj.

• CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHER versus VENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

  25/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1532

  In a suit for partition by the children of the alleged first wife of the deceased, the defendants (the second wife and her son) denied the first marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decree: the testimony of a village elder with special means of knowledge was relevant under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, prolonged cohabitation raised a strong presumption of marriage that the defendants met with mere denial, revenue entries conferred no title, and the first defendant's unexplained failure to enter the witness box, despite attending court, attracted an adverse presumption under Section 114(g).

• T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  25/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2389

  On the State of Maharashtra's application to modify the judgment of 22 May 2025 on Zudpi jungle lands, the Court refused to let fragmented land parcels under 3 hectares be used for village purposes instead of being declared protected forest, but clarified that the Forest Rights Act route remains open to the State; it allowed the second prayer by adding a new direction (x-a) saving pre-12 December 1996 encroachments used for agriculture, housing, slums, colonies, schools and public utilities to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares.

• SRI R RAGHU versus SRI G M KRISHNA & ANR.

  25/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2086

  After five rounds of litigation over a court-auction sale of agricultural land in execution of a State Financial Corporation decree, the Court affirmed the High Court's order: the auction sale and sale certificate for Sy. No. 67 stand, but the auction purchaser must pay Rs. 25 lakhs per acre as additional sale price and the District Court must survey the land to fix its boundaries. A second round of objections under Section 47 CPC, on grounds already rejected in an earlier Order XXI Rule 90 application that had failed up to the Supreme Court, was barred.

• RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  25/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1525

  A criminal appeal pending in the Allahabad High Court since 2008 was heard and reserved for judgment on 24.12.2021, but no judgment was delivered and the matter was relisted before a regular Bench. Treating the delay as a recurring systemic failure, the Supreme Court reiterated the Anil Rai guidelines and issued an additional direction to the Registrars General of all High Courts to monitor reserved judgments and place undelivered judgments before the Chief Justice for reassignment.

• M/S C.L. GUPTA EXPORT LTD. versus ADIL ANSARI & ORS.

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1516

  The National Green Tribunal, after a Joint Committee report confirmed the appellant industry's full compliance, nonetheless imposed Rs.50 crore compensation computed on the appellant's turnover, directed the Enforcement Directorate to act under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and ordered closure of non-compliant divisions. The Supreme Court set aside those directions, holding that turnover has no nexus with environmental penalty, that the NGT has no jurisdiction to direct PMLA action, and that a sweeping closure direction was unwarranted after compliance was accepted, while retaining the directions for continuous audit, monitoring and restoration.

• TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1193

  Under Chapter I-A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the owner of land declared a Slum Rehabilitation Area has a preferential right over the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and over other stakeholders to redevelop it; the SRA must specifically notify and invite the owner to submit a scheme before invoking Section 13, and the State's power to acquire under Section 14 cannot be exercised while that preferential right subsists. Acquisition of the subject land without inviting the willing owner was a colourable exercise of power and the High Court's order setting it aside was upheld.

• IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1861

  A three-Judge Bench reconsidered a two-Judge Bench's suo motu directions of 11.08.2025 requiring stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to be rounded up, sterilised and permanently confined in shelters. Holding that Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which requires release of sterilised dogs in the same locality, is scientifically sound and that a blanket no-release direction was too harsh and possibly impossible to implement, the Court kept that part in abeyance (except for rabid or aggressive dogs), prohibited street feeding, mandated ward-level feeding spaces, required deposits from intervening NGOs and individuals, and expanded the matter to all States and Union Territories.

• THE TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF TELANGANA STATE LIMITED & ANR. versus CHUKKALA KRANTHI KIRAN & ORS.

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1413

  After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, TS-Transco cancelled the 2011-12 Sub-Engineer recruitment begun by the erstwhile AP-Transco for the composite State and issued a fresh notification for Telangana. The High Court quashed both the cancellation and the fresh notification and directed appointment of candidates selected in the earlier process. The Supreme Court set this aside: the cancellation was a bona fide policy decision driven by litigation delay, the State's bifurcation and reassessed requirements; the fresh recruitment (different zones, numbers and local-reservation ratio) was not a continuation of the earlier one; legitimate expectation had been met by age relaxation, whose sufficiency is not for judicial review; and Section 79 of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 protects only those already appointed, not select-list candidates.

• KAVIN versus P. SREEMANI DEVI & ORS.

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1184

  A 21-year-old student who suffered 100% permanent disability and was left in a vegetative state after a bus accident was awarded compensation by the Claims Tribunal, which the High Court reduced by Rs. 19 lakh. The Supreme Court held the reduction unjustified, restored the heads set aside without reasons, and enhanced the compensation for future medical expenses, attendant charges and permanent disability, holding that compensation for permanent disability is a head distinct from loss of future income.

• SHAH SAMIR BHARATBHAI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1161

  Assistant Professors appointed on a contractual basis in Gujarat's government engineering and polytechnic colleges after open selection, performing the same duties as regularly and ad hoc appointed Assistant Professors, were held entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of Assistant Professors on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The State's appeals against the Division Bench judgment granting that relief were dismissed, and the appeals of a later batch whose writ petitions the Division Bench had dismissed altogether were allowed in part on the same terms.

• P. MARUTHI PRASADA RAO versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1150

  Under Rule 2(g) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 the Central Government's approval relates to a State service connected with forestry whose members hold gazetted status, not to individual posts. Forest Range Officers in Class A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service are therefore members of the State Forest Service and eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service; but the appellant, who raised his grievance only in 2021, gets no relief for past selection exercises.

• TANKADHAR TRIPATHY versus DIPALI DAS

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1137

  Non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (affidavit in Form 25 supporting allegations of corrupt practice) is a curable defect and substantial compliance suffices, but whether there has been substantial compliance is a question of fact requiring a reasoned examination. The High Court's order refusing to reject the election petition and granting time to cure defects was remitted because it neither enumerated the defects nor examined substantial compliance or the effect of limitation.

• IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. versus ABDUL SHUKOOR

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1174

  Before allowing a party to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC, the appellate court must first examine that party's pleadings to see whether the case sought to be supported by the additional evidence has been pleaded. The High Court, which reversed a decree for specific performance on the strength of additional documents admitted without that examination, was set aside and the first appeal remanded for fresh consideration.

• SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED versus BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1379

  The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by a slum dwellers' proposed society, its developer and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority against a Bombay High Court judgment that had declared void the proposed acquisition under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 of land belonging to a church trust at Bandra. Applying its judgment of the same day in Tarabai Nagar, the Court held that the 2018 Amendment did not dilute the landowner's preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area; the 120-day period in Section 13(1) runs only after the SRA issues a specific notice-cum-invitation to the owner, which was never issued here, and the conduct of the developer, the society and the SRA showed a colourable attempt to take over the land.

• UNION TERRITORY OF J & K (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR) & ANR. versus RAJA MUZAFFAR BHAT & ORS.

  22/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2056

  Environmental clearance for riverbed sand mining in three blocks of the Shaliganga Nallah for the Srinagar ring road was granted on a District Survey Report that admittedly lacked a replenishment study, the authority instead restricting mining depth to one metre. Extending State of U.P. v. Gaurav Kumar, the Supreme Court held that a District Survey Report without a proper replenishment study is untenable, that the Expert Appraisal Committee and the Environment Impact Assessment Authority compromised regulatory integrity, and upheld the National Green Tribunal's order setting aside the clearance.

• SYED BASHEER AHMED versus M/S TINNI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

  21/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1487

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, holding that a material alteration written in a different ink was discernible on a bare perusal of the agreement itself and that courts are not bound to refer such a question to an expert under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The agreement, whose recitals of extent did not match its own schedule, could not found a decree, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness was not established.

• K. POUNAMMAL versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  21/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1371

  A Central Excise Inspector convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe of Rs.300 in 2002 gave up her challenge to the conviction and sought reduction of sentence. Given that more than two decades had passed, that she is a 75-year-old widow living alone and had undergone 31 days' imprisonment, the Court treated the sentence undergone as adequate and increased the fine by Rs.25,000, confirming the conviction.

• STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus RAMADHAR SAO

  20/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1084

  A bank messenger was found in a departmental inquiry to have acted as a middleman in loan sanctions for illegal gratification; the Appellate Authority reduced his dismissal to removal from service with superannuation benefits, but the High Court set the punishment aside and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence in a case where natural justice was followed and findings rested on the preponderance of probabilities, and restored the removal order.

• UNION OF INDIA versus SALEEM KHAN

  20/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2050

  Cross-appeals against a Karnataka High Court order that granted bail to one UAPA accused (accused no.11) and refused it to another (accused no.20) in an NIA case. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with either part of the order, holding that the High Court's reasons were justified and reasonable, but, since the trial had not commenced after five and a half years of custody, directed the Trial Court to conclude it within two years.

• NEELAM KUMARI versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  20/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1464

  The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her infant son by strangulation, affirmed by the High Court, rested on alleged extra-judicial confessions to her husband and village functionaries and on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confessions suffered from serious infirmities, that a material witness to them was not examined, and that the circumstantial evidence (uncertain whereabouts, time gap, an unconnected and commonly available dupatta never shown to the autopsy doctor, conduct consistent with innocence and no convincing motive) did not form a complete chain, and acquitted her.

• DEVENDRA KUMAR versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  20/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1095

  A court process server complained that the SHO of a police station abused him, made him stand with raised hands and sit on the floor for hours and detained him when he came to serve court processes. On the Administrative Civil Judge's written complaint under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, instead of taking cognizance, directed registration of an FIR under Sections 186 and 341 IPC under Section 156(3) CrPC, which the Sessions Court and High Court upheld. The Supreme Court held that 'obstruction' in Section 186 IPC is not confined to physical obstruction or criminal force, disapproved the resort to police investigation on a judge's complaint, and clarified that the Section 195 CrPC bar operates only at cognizance, not against an FIR or investigation; the petition was disposed of leaving the Section 195 objection open at the chargesheet stage.

• ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE versus SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  20/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2368

  CESTAT set aside a customs duty demand founded on computer printouts taken from the importers' seized devices because no certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 accompanied them. The Supreme Court held that Section 138C(4) is pari materia with Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act and, following Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, that due compliance depends on the facts: records of proceedings signed by the importers' directors and accountants recording the printouts taken in their presence, together with unretracted Section 108 statements acknowledging them, amounted to due compliance even without a certificate stricto sensu. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeals remanded for rehearing on other grounds.

• VIKRAM BAKSHI AND OTHERS versus R.P. KHOSLA AND ANOTHER

  20/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1444

  The Delhi High Court had declined to entertain the Khosla Group's application under Section 340 CrPC for prosecution of the Bakshi Group for perjury, because the Supreme Court's consent judgment of 08.05.2014 had left the connected disputes to the CLB/NCLT; it later recalled that judgment on a review application under Order XLVII CPC, on the ground that the Company Petition had in fact been withdrawn. The Supreme Court set the recall aside: proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and governed by the CrPC alone, so a review under the CPC is not maintainable; Section 362 CrPC bars alteration or review of a signed judgment save for clerical or arithmetical errors; the limited 'procedural review' exception is not available where the ground was known to the applicant and withheld at the original hearing.

• NILIMA DAS GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS. versus ON THE DEATH OF ABDUR ROUF HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 740

  In a second appeal the High Court had discarded the entire evidence of DW-5, the son who deposed in place of his mother (defendant no. 1 and counter-claimant), reading Section 120 of the Evidence Act as barring anyone other than a party or the party's spouse from deposing on a party's behalf. The Supreme Court held that Section 120 declares competence and creates no embargo, that under Section 118 all persons are competent witnesses, and that DW-5's evidence could at most be discounted as to facts within his mother's personal knowledge, not eschewed in toto. The matter was remanded, also because the High Court never addressed the substantial question of law it had framed.

• GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. versus SANDEEP GURAV

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1427

  The High Court dismissed the appellant's Section 37 appeal holding its Section 34 petition time-barred because the Section 33 application it had filed sought review on merits and so fell outside Section 33, making limitation run from receipt of the award. The Supreme Court held that where a Section 33 request is made within thirty days of receipt of the award and with notice to the other party, limitation under Section 34(3) runs from the date that request is disposed of, whatever its outcome or the reason for its dismissal, and remanded the appeal.

• NABHA POWER LIMITED versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1308

  Two power generators selected by tariff-based competitive bidding claimed that deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 were available to them on the bid cut-off date and that their subsequent withdrawal by the DGFT, and the Cabinet Press Release of 01.10.2009 on Mega Power Project thresholds, were 'Change in Law' events under Article 13 of their PPAs with PSPCL. Dismissing the appeals from APTEL, the Supreme Court held that the Press Release question was concluded by the three-Judge Bench decision in Nabha Power (only duly published notifications are 'law'), that an in-situ thermal power plant is neither 'goods' nor 'manufactured' and the appellants had shown no supply of goods under International Competitive Bidding, so no deemed export benefit was ever available, and that the DGFT notifications were merely clarificatory; no compensation was payable.

• PAWAN KUMAR TIWARY AND OTHERS versus JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (NOW JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED) AND OTHERS

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1352

  The Supreme Court restored the appointments of three Class-IV employees of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board who had been selected for Class-III posts through an internal process and whose appointments were cancelled en masse, along with hundreds of others, on the ground that they exceeded sanctioned strength. The Court held that the appellants' appointments were within the sanctioned quota (as the Board's counsel conceded), that procedural lapses not attributable to appointees render appointments irregular rather than illegal, and that the doctrine of severability and individualised scrutiny required untainted appointments to be preserved. The appellants were granted continuity of service and notional benefits but no back wages.

• SD. SHABUDDIN versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1040

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 411 IPC, holding that the courts below had wrongly placed a reverse burden on the accused to account for cash recovered from them, that the presumption under illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act arises only once the prosecution proves the theft and possession soon after it, and that once both accused stood acquitted of theft under Section 379 IPC a conviction for dishonestly receiving stolen property could not be sustained.

• KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) versus VINOD AND ORS. ETC.

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1053

  In appeals about compensation to landowners for erection of transmission towers and drawing of 400 KV power lines over about 100 km across four Haryana districts, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's common judgment, which had awarded uniform compensation at 85% of the Sonepat collector rate for the tower-base area and 15% of land value for the right-of-way corridor on the strength of the Ministry of Power guidelines of 2015. The High Court had wrongly treated petitions against trial-court decrees as original proceedings, relied on material relating to one district only, and applied a uniform rate to a corridor of vastly differing lands. The matters were remitted, and the Court flagged the absence of any appellate remedy and of timelines under Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for examination by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Law and Justice.

• K. PRABHAKAR HEGDE versus BANK OF BARODA

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1997

  A bank zonal head was dismissed after a departmental inquiry in which the inquiry officer never questioned him generally on the circumstances appearing against him, as Regulation 6(17) of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 requires, and the proposed penalty of compulsory retirement was altered to dismissal on a CVC recommendation never shown to him. The Supreme Court held that the second limb of Regulation 6(17) is mandatory and no proof of prejudice is needed, Sunil Kumar Banerjee being of diminished precedential value after Olga Tellis, Tulsiram Patel and A.R. Antulay; that a preliminary inquiry report not relied on by the inquiry officer need not be furnished; and that the CVC recommendation could not be withheld as privileged. Remand being impractical, the dismissal was quashed and a lump sum equal to gratuity directed.

• MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S) versus BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1076

  A landlord's 1974 suit for possession and arrears of rent of land let in 1970 for a petrol pump was decreed, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the land had not been declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the High Court directing return of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that both courts overlooked the declaration under Section 143 that had attained finality on 14.03.1986 during the pendency of the litigation, that such a subsequent event going to the root of the case must be noticed in appeal, that non-registration of the declaration (a duty cast on the Assistant Collector, not the landowner) was of no consequence, and that the Civil Court had jurisdiction; the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court for decision on merits.

• M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2394

  An exporter's MEIS claim on 54 shipping bills was rejected because its customs broker had left the 'declaration of intent to claim reward' field at the default 'No', even though the Customs authority had later permitted amendment of the bills to 'Yes' under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court held that an inadvertent procedural error, once rectified under statutory authority, cannot defeat a substantive entitlement under a beneficial export-incentive scheme, quashed the unreasoned rejection by the Policy Relaxation Committee and directed the claim to be processed.

• DHARAM SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  19/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1026

  Daily-wage Class-III and Class-IV employees of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, engaged between 1989 and 1992, had challenged the State's refusals to sanction the posts the Commission itself had proposed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the writ petition as a bare plea for regularisation governed by Umadevi instead of adjudicating the challenge to the State's refusals; non-speaking refusals citing only financial constraints, ignoring perennial work and decades of reliance on the same workers, were arbitrary and were quashed. The Court directed creation of supernumerary posts and regularisation of the appellants with effect from 24.04.2002 with arrears.

• IRFAN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  18/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1475

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail to an accused in a murder case on a second application solely on the ground that continued incarceration would hamper his defence strategy, holding that such a ground, as recognised in the High Court's own decision in Prabhat Gangwar, can be applied only in rare cases after evaluating the facts, the accused's conduct and the specific defence need, none of which the High Court examined.

• M.V. LEELAVATHI versus DR. C.R. SWAMY @ DR. C.R. KUMARA SWAMY

  18/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 178

  The wife challenged the High Court's affirmance of a decree of divorce and of Rs.15,00,000 permanent alimony. Notice having been issued only on alimony, the Supreme Court weighed the husband's capacity to pay (a doctor earning about Rs.1.4 lakh a month) against the wife's needs and her own high qualifications, affirmed the divorce and enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs.50,00,000 as a one-time settlement payable in five monthly instalments.

• ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  18/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 966

  A seven-time Member of Parliament died by suicide leaving a note naming the Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, officials and police who, it alleged, had conspired to humiliate him, extort money and take over his Trust's college. The High Court quashed the FIR under Section 306 IPC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that abetment of suicide requires a conscious intention (mens rea) to drive the victim to suicide and a proximate act that is the direct cause of the suicide; continued harassment and breaches of protocol, raised by the deceased before the Committee of Privileges which had initiated action ten days before his death, did not amount to instigation, and the suicide note, surfacing late, unverified and containing allegations never made earlier, could not be relied upon absolutely.

• AJMERA SHYAM versus SMT. KOVA LAXMI & ORS.

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1789

  The Supreme Court dismissed an election petitioner's appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, holding that the returned candidate's failure to state in her Form 26 affidavit the income shown in her income tax returns for four of the last five financial years (entered as 'NIL'), while fully disclosing her assets, liabilities, profession and sources of income, was a technical defect not of substantial character. It therefore neither rendered the acceptance of her nomination improper under Section 100(1)(d)(i), nor amounted to a corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) read with Section 100(1)(b), nor attracted Section 100(1)(d)(iv). The Court distinguished non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, which must be treated strictly, from non-disclosure of assets, which calls for a substantiality test balanced against the people's mandate.

• STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SRI DARSHAN ETC.

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 194

  The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's common order granting bail to seven accused, including a film actor, in the Renukaswamy murder case, holding that the order was perverse for treating alleged delay in furnishing written grounds of arrest as decisive without any prejudice shown, for appreciating evidence and pre-judging the merits at the bail stage, for relying on the chargesheet and long witness list as grounds for bail, and for overlooking the gravity of the offence, the prima facie material, the accused's influence and the real risk of witness tampering; the Court restated the distinction between annulment of a bail order for legal infirmity and cancellation of bail for post-grant misconduct.

• KESARI NANDAN MOBILE versus OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (2), ENFORCEMENT DIVISION – 5

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 936

  The Supreme Court held that once a provisional attachment order under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 ceases to have effect on expiry of one year under Section 83(2), the revenue cannot issue a fresh or 'renewed' provisional attachment order on substantially the same grounds; the Act contains no power of extension or renewal (unlike the Excise and Customs Acts), a statutory authority needs power conferred by statute or valid executive instruction and cannot act merely because nothing prohibits it, and reading in such a power would render Section 83(2) otiose. The Gujarat High Court's contrary view was set aside and the Kerala High Court's view in Ali K. approved.

• A. RANJITHKUMAR versus E. KAVITHA

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 151

  The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution on the ground that it had irretrievably broken down, the spouses having lived apart for about fifteen years and the husband having remarried, and set aside the High Court order that had reversed the Family Court's decree of divorce. The husband was directed to pay Rs. 1.25 crore as one-time permanent alimony in five quarterly instalments.

• M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1727

  A taxpayer already served a Section 73 show cause notice by the State GST authority challenged summons issued under Section 70 by the Central GST authority after a search, as barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Supreme Court held that issuance of summons, search or seizure is not 'initiation of proceedings'; that expression refers to the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings by issuance of a show cause notice, and the 'subject matter' is the tax liability or contravention sought to be assessed or recovered, ascertainable only from such a notice. The Court laid down a twofold test for 'same subject matter' and guidelines for Central and State authorities whose inquiries overlap, and upheld the High Court's refusal to interdict the summons.

• SANJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS. versus SARDAR INDERJIT SINGH SALWAN & ORS.

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 902

  Where trustees who had sued for injunction, pleaded that their suit was not barred by Section 92 CPC, agreed to arbitration during their own appeal and had the appeal disposed of by a compromise decree in terms of the award, the Supreme Court held them estopped by conduct and election from later contending, in opposition to a Section 9 application, that the award was a nullity for non-arbitrability under Section 92; the Commercial Court and High Court orders were set aside and the appellants were allowed to revive execution of the compromise decree.

• PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER versus KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA

  14/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 805

  The Court declined an interim injunction to the proprietors of the registered whisky marks BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE and SEAGRAM'S against the respondent's LONDON PRIDE, holding on a prima facie view that, compared as wholes from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the rival marks, labels and trade dress are not deceptively similar; the shared word PRIDE is a laudatory term common to the liquor trade over which no exclusivity can be claimed under Section 17(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the appellants could not combine features of two distinct marks to construct a case of infringement.

• MINI versus CBI/SPE COCHIN

  13/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 799

  The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent conviction of a passport-office clerk under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant had not supported the allegation of demand at trial, Rs. 1,000 of the Rs. 1,200 recovered was the lawful passport fee, and the accused's Section 313 CrPC explanation that he was unaware two extra Rs. 100 notes had been added was plausible and had wrongly been brushed aside; the deceased accused was treated as acquitted.

• ASHOK DHANKAD versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

  13/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 785

  On the complainant's appeal, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order granting regular bail to the accused, a celebrated wrestler, in a case of abduction and fatal assault at Chhatrasal Stadium, holding that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the accused's abscondence during investigation, his societal influence and the complaints by witnesses of threats, and restated the principles distinguishing an appeal against a bail order from an application for cancellation of bail.

• KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. versus M/S L.R BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC.

  13/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 137

  The Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court order that, after a sole arbitrator had been appointed under Section 11(6) and the petition disposed of, permitted a non-signatory to the family settlement to remain present in the arbitration and kept certain properties outside its scope, holding that a non-party to the arbitration agreement has no right to attend the arbitral proceedings and that the court became functus officio on appointing the arbitrator and could not entertain later applications under Section 151 CPC.

• SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL versus ISMAT AHMED AND OTHERS

  13/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 156

  The Court held that under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 a tenant seeking protection against eviction must pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent, and in case of dispute file the application for determination of rent together with the deposit, within one month of service of summons; these requirements are mandatory, the proviso to Section 7(2) permitting a one-time extension of up to two months applies only to payment of the amount determined by the Civil Judge, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend the shorter period prescribed by the Act. The tenant's belated application without any deposit was rightly rejected.

• EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF KATRAS AREA OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, DHANBAD versus WORKMAN-SHAHDEO DAS

  13/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1481

  The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order rejecting a workman's claim to change his recorded date of birth from 1960 to 1972, holding that a correction sought after 25 years of service, on a school leaving certificate issued only in 2015, could not be entertained, particularly when the service book showed he had a wife and four children at the time of joining.

• DASARI ANIL KUMAR & ANOTHER versus THE CHILD WELFARE PROJECT DIRECTOR & OTHERS

  12/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 777

  Invoking Article 142 and the general principles in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Supreme Court directed that four minor children taken by the police from persons claiming to be their adoptive parents and placed with the Child Welfare Committee be returned to those persons, subject to quarterly welfare reports through the Legal Services Authority, without prejudice to other proceedings initiated by the authorities.

• YOGESH MADHAV MAKALWAD versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  12/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 750

  The Court set aside the invalidation of the appellant's Scheduled Tribe (Koli Mahadev) claim, holding that a pre-Independence 1943 school entry for his grandfather, which the Court itself examined and found free of interpolation, deserved greater probative value than the Scrutiny Committee and High Court gave it, and that failing the affinity test cannot by itself defeat a tribe claim.

• PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY versus PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.

  12/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1695

  In a two-decade dispute over revision of port tariff for a captive fertilizer berth, the Supreme Court set aside an informal arbitral award, the appellate order and the High Court judgment that had quashed the Port Trust's 1993 tariff revision, and also set aside the TAMP order and High Court judgment for the later period, remitting the whole dispute from October 1993 onwards to the Tariff Authority for Major Ports for fresh decision after hearing both sides; it recommended that an expert appellate body be constituted to hear appeals from TAMP or the Adjudicatory Board instead of direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

• A. KARUNANITHI versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  12/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 130

  In a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court set aside the conviction of the Village Assistant (A-2) who had merely received the bribe on the directions of the Village Administrative Officer (A-1), because no demand by him and no charge of abetment or proof of connivance was established, while confirming A-1's conviction and reducing his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year in view of the lapse of time since 2004 and the petty amount of Rs. 500.

• TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  11/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 730

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court order under Article 227 setting aside an ex parte status quo injunction, holding that the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC is mandatory both as to the court recording reasons and as to the applicant serving the papers, and that non-compliance by the applicant warrants vacating the ex parte order without going into merits; the trial court was left to decide the injunction application afresh after hearing both sides.

• IN RE: N. PEDDI RAJU AND OTHERS versus

  11/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 183

  In suo motu contempt proceedings arising from a transfer petition that made scandalous allegations against a High Court Judge, the Supreme Court held that counsel who sign pleadings scandalising a court without satisfying themselves of adequate grounds are themselves liable for contempt, that involvement of a political figure is no ground to transfer a case out of a State, and that an apology for allegations against a High Court Judge should be tendered to that Judge. The alleged contemnors were permitted to apologise before the High Court Judge, with the matter reopened for that limited purpose, and the question of accepting their apology to the Supreme Court was deferred.

• IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

  11/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1845

  In a suo motu writ petition on stray-dog bites and rabies in the National Capital Region, the Supreme Court, finding the situation grim and the authorities to have failed for two decades, directed the Delhi Government, MCD, NDMC and the authorities of NOIDA, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad to immediately start rounding up stray dogs, create shelters/pounds (initially for about 5,000 dogs) within six to eight weeks, sterilise, deworm and immunise them under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 but not release them back to the streets, set up a dog-bite helpline, maintain records and publish rabies-vaccine availability, warning that obstruction would be treated as contempt.

• ARSHNOOR KAUR & ANR. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  11/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1241

  The Supreme Court held that once the Central Government has, by notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, made women eligible for a branch of the regular Army (here the Judge Advocate General branch), the executive cannot, by policy or administrative instruction, cap the number of women or reserve vacancies for men under the guise of 'extent of induction'. The notification for the JAG 31st Course, which fixed six vacancies for men and three for women with separate merit lists, was held violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Section 12; the 50:50 intake policy from 2024, though facially neutral, causes indirect discrimination against more meritorious women. The Court read the 2023 policy as requiring merit-based selection on a common merit list with not less than 50% of vacancies going to women, and directed induction of Petitioner No. 1.

• GURDEEP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

  11/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 690

  The Court upheld the concurrent conviction of an Assistant Superintendent of Jail for criminal conspiracy and connected offences arising from an attack on a police escort party to free an undertrial prisoner, holding that his summoning under Section 319 CrPC was valid despite his earlier exoneration in a preliminary police enquiry, that conspiracy was established by the chain of circumstances (arranging the private vehicle, the pre-seated assailants, the halt under a false pretext, his inaction and flight), and that the consistent testimony of a single injured eyewitness sufficed even though other witnesses turned hostile.

• ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) & OTHERS versus SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LTD. ETC.

  08/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1574

  A two-Judge Bench split on whether the timelines of the Dispute Resolution Panel procedure under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 run over and above, or are subsumed within, the limitation for completing assessments under Section 153. Satish Chandra Sharma J. held that Section 153 governs only the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1), with the DRP and final-order timelines operating in addition, and allowed the Revenue's appeals; Nagarathna J. held that the entire Section 144C procedure must be completed within the Section 153(1) or 153(3) limitation and dismissed the appeals. The matters were directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate Bench, so no binding ratio emerges.

• HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL versus BABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI & ANR.

  08/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2428

  In a motor accident claim by a child who was 8 years old when injured and left with 90% permanent disability, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,65,000 to Rs.35,90,489, holding that a minor's loss of income must be computed on the minimum wages of a skilled worker in the State at the relevant time, and directed that where income is not proved the insurer must place the applicable minimum wage before the Tribunal.

• M/S SHIKHAR CHEMICALS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  08/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 108

  On a written request from the Chief Justice of India, the Court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of its order dated 4 August 2025, which had directed that the Allahabad High Court judge whose order it had set aside sit only in a Division Bench and not be assigned criminal work, and left the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, while reiterating that it may intervene under Article 136 when the dignity of the institution and the rule of law are at stake.

• KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS. versus GOVIND RAO & ORS.

  08/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 113

  The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition against a High Court judgment that had reversed a first appellate decree founded on adverse possession, holding that a plea of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded, put in issue and proved, and cannot be framed and decided for the first time by the first appellate court, still less on the footing that the plaintiffs' possession ripened into title during the pendency of the suit.

• XXX versus THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

  07/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1941

  A High Court Judge, found by an in-house committee to have committed misconduct serious enough to warrant removal after burnt currency notes were discovered at his official residence, challenged paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the Supreme Court's In-house Procedure as ultra vires Articles 124 and 218. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Procedure has legal sanction through the law declared in C. Ravichandran Iyer under Article 141 and Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, that it is a preliminary fact-finding mechanism and not a parallel removal mechanism, and that the Chief Justice of India may forward the committee's report with his own views to the President and the Prime Minister.

• DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM versus THIRU. C. VE. SHANMUGAM

  06/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 956

  The Supreme Court set aside an ex parte interim order of the Madras High Court restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from using the name or photograph of any living personality, former Chief Minister or party insignia while publicising the "Ungaludan Stalin" welfare-outreach scheme, withdrew the underlying writ petition to itself and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 10 lakh as an abuse of process, holding that naming schemes after political leaders is a countrywide practice and that political battles must be fought before the electorate, not in court.

• JAMNALAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

  06/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 98

  On the appeal of the prosecutrix's father, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order suspending the twenty-year sentence of a man convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC. The High Court's reasons (no sign of sexual assault, absent FSL/DNA report, doubt that the girl would go out to the field) fell far short of the parameters of Section 389 CrPC, ignored the ocular evidence and the convict's antecedents, and rested on conjecture; the convict was directed to surrender.

• IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  06/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1003

  In applications concerning the Matheran eco-sensitive zone, the Supreme Court accepted the expert reports of IIT Bombay and NEERI and permitted clay paver blocks (without a concrete bed) on the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue road only, and held that the practice of humans towing hand-pulled carts/rickshaws offends human dignity and the constitutional promise of social and economic justice reflected in Articles 23 and 38, directing the State of Maharashtra to stop it within six months and to rehabilitate the pullers through an e-rickshaw hire scheme modelled on the Kevadia scheme, with allotments identified by the Matheran Monitoring Committee.

• SHANTI DEVI versus STATE OF HARYANA

  06/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 919

  The appellant's conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence (motive, extra-judicial confessions, last-seen evidence and recoveries), was set aside. The informant gave contradictory versions on motive; the co-accused's confession was made in the presence of the police and was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act; the recoveries were doubtful and the FSL report found no blood on the weapons; the extra-judicial confessions were a police creation. The appellant was acquitted and the benefit extended to her non-appealing son.

• BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

  06/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1875

  In petitions by the three Delhi distribution companies over the 'regulatory asset' of about Rs. 27,200 crores built up through DERC's tariff orders, the Supreme Court laid down the law on creation, continuation and liquidation of regulatory assets under the Electricity Act, 2003. A regulatory asset is not a statutory concept but a tariff-determination measure recognising an enforceable right of recovery through future tariffs; it must be exceptional, capped (Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, 3% of ARR, as the guiding principle) and liquidated in a time-bound manner, and a disproportionate, long-pending regulatory asset is a 'regulatory failure'. Commissions are accountable to the APTEL, whose Section 121 power to direct them was affirmed, and the APTEL was directed to monitor liquidation through a suo motu petition.

• AASIF @ PASHA versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  06/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 682

  The High Court had refused to suspend, pending appeal, a fixed-term sentence of four years imposed under the POCSO Act, the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ignored the settled principles governing suspension of a fixed-term sentence under Section 389 CrPC and merely reiterated the prosecution case; since an appeal of 2024 was unlikely to be heard soon, the sentence would run out and render the appeal infructuous. The order was set aside and the plea remitted for fresh consideration within fifteen days.

• VANASHAKTI versus UNION OF INDIA

  05/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 760

  A writ petition under Article 32 challenging the MoEF&CC notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29.01.2025 (amending the EIA Notification, 2006) and the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2025 was partly allowed. The Court held on a literal reading that the General Conditions never applied to building, construction, township and area development projects in Entries 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule, so appraisal by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority was rightly continued and the notification was upheld, but Note 1 to Entry 8(a), exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels for educational institutions, was arbitrary and quashed.

• THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. versus SANJAY KUMAR

  05/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1551

  Appeals by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation against the Patna High Court's orders appointing arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in disputes with rice millers accused in the PDS paddy-milling scam were dismissed. After restating the principles on arbitrability where serious fraud is alleged, the Court held that under Section 11(6A), as construed by the seven-Judge Bench in In Re: Interplay, a referral court must confine itself to the existence of an arbitration agreement; since one existed, every other objection (criminal proceedings, the Public Demands Recovery Act, limitation, res judicata) was left to the arbitral tribunal as preliminary issues.

• ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION versus VIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

  05/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1

  A money decree of Rs.90,400 against a State Financial Corporation, impleaded in a supplier's suit only because it had taken over the defaulting borrower's unit under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, had grown through 2% monthly compound interest to a claim of about Rs.8.89 crores in execution. The Court held the decree a nullity against the Corporation: no notice under Section 80 CPC was served on it as a 'State' under Article 12; the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993 could not apply to a 1985 supply or to a non-buyer; no issue on maintainability was decided; a post-decree application under Section 21 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable; and its liability was confined to the surplus in its hands under Section 29. Such jurisdictional objections may be raised in execution under Section 47 CPC.

• NADEEM AHAMED versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

  05/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 987

  The Supreme Court acquitted an accused convicted under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, holding that the High Court was wrong to dismiss his appeal solely for a 1183-day delay when he was in custody and without means, that heroin recovered separately from two persons walking together could not be clubbed to make up a commercial quantity without positive proof of conspiracy, and that the seizure and sampling process, with no duplicate samples under Standing Order 1 of 1989, missing signatures of the accused on the packets and total non-compliance with Section 52A(2), was so flawed that the FSL report could not be read in evidence.

• KALLU NAT ALIAS MAYANK KUMAR NAGAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

  05/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 611

  After the police dropped the petitioner from the chargesheet in a rape-and-murder case, the Court of Session, on the first informant's application, summoned him under Section 193 CrPC to stand trial with the chargesheeted accused on the basis of the case diary, before any evidence was recorded. The Supreme Court held that on committal under Section 209 what is committed is the 'case', not the 'accused'; the embargo in Section 193 is then lifted and the Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence as a whole and may, indeed must, summon any person who on the materials appears prima facie involved, independently of Section 319. Dharam Pal was explained: the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence for the limited purpose of committal, and this is not a prohibited 'second cognizance'.

• SHAIL KUMARI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  05/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 599

  The Supreme Court acquitted a mother convicted under Section 302 IPC for drowning her two infant children, holding that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence the conviction was founded solely on the testimony of one witness (PW-2) whose deposition was a complete improvement over his police statement, that the rickshaw puller who allegedly saw the children in the pond was never examined, and that the concurrent findings were therefore based on conjectures and surmises.

• DEEPAK KUMAR SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  04/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 395

  The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 and 376(2) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for raping a 15-year-old girl in her home, holding that the victim's clear, natural and consistent testimony, corroborated by her child brother and by the conduct of the family immediately after the incident, was sufficient by itself; the absence of external injuries or categorical medical corroboration could not displace a credible account, and the victim's minority was proved by her school marksheet and her parents' evidence.

• OPERATION ASHA versus SHELLY BATRA & ORS.

  04/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 411

  The Supreme Court upheld the grant of leave under Section 92 CPC to a co-founder and a board member of a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to sue over alleged siphoning of its funds by its CEO and another office-bearer. Registration as a society does not make its property trust property, and the deemed vesting in the governing body under Section 5 creates no express trust, but the governing body holds the property as a fiduciary; where fiduciaries divert the society's funds for their own benefit, a constructive trust arises by operation of law over the diverted property and can found a Section 92 suit. The plaint prima facie met all the conditions, though prayers vindicating the first plaintiff's personal grievances about her removal fall outside Section 92 and must be pursued separately.

• NARAYAN YADAV versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  04/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 568

  Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC (altered by the High Court from Section 302) was set aside and he was acquitted. The FIR he had himself lodged was a confession to a police officer and wholly inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so the High Court could not corroborate the medical evidence with it; medical evidence is only advisory and cannot alone sustain a murder conviction; no discovery under Section 27 was proved; and conduct under Section 8 cannot by itself found a conviction. The Court also explained why Exception 4 to Section 300 could not have applied where the deceased was unarmed.

• BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJU versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  04/08/2025 · [2025] 9 S.C.R. 91

  Special leave petition by a father convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC for repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter was dismissed in limine. The Court found the concurrent findings free of perversity, refused interim bail, held that incestuous sexual violence by a parent admits of no mitigation in sentence, and, invoking Article 142, directed the State to pay the victim Rs.10,50,000 as compensation under the NALSA 2018 Scheme.

• GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED versus GREEN INFRA CORPORATE WIND PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC.

  03/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 345

  The Supreme Court dismissed GUVNL's appeals and upheld the GERC and APTEL orders allowing four wind energy generators to seek project-specific tariff determination despite having signed PPAs at the fixed rate of Rs. 3.56 per kWh, holding that under the Electricity Act, 2003 the procurement price is fixed statutorily by the Commission and not by private agreement, that GERC's Tariff Order No. 1 of 2010 confined that rate to projects availing accelerated depreciation under the Income Tax Act, and that GUVNL, a State instrumentality bound to further the renewable energy policy, could not bind generators that admittedly did not avail that benefit without securing a commitment from them when the statutory option to choose depreciation arises only when the return of income is filed.

• DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE versus LODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD. ETC.

  03/08/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 362

  Reversing the Delhi High Court, the Court held that State Pollution Control Boards, in exercise of their power to issue directions under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air Act, 1981, can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory environmental damages as fixed sums of money, or require bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure against potential environmental damage. Such directions are compensatory, not punitive, and are distinct from the penalties under Chapters VII and VI of the two Acts; but the power is to be enforced only after rules prescribing the principles and procedure, incorporating natural justice, are notified. The set-aside show cause notices of 2006 were not revived.

• THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus N. SANJAY

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2096

  The State appealed against the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS to an IPS officer accused of manipulating tenders and approving payments without verification. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had impermissibly discussed the evidence in detail and recorded findings that the ingredients of the offences were not made out, and had treated the absence of need for custodial interrogation as decisive; on an overall conspectus the facts did not warrant anticipatory bail. The order was set aside and the respondent given four weeks to surrender.

• PADI KAUSHIK REDDY ETC. versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ETC.

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1879

  Disqualification petitions against MLAs who allegedly defected after the 2023 Telangana election remained pending before the Speaker, who did not even issue notice for over seven months. The Supreme Court held that the Speaker deciding petitions under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule acts as a tribunal subject to Articles 136, 226 and 227; that the bar on quia timet actions in Kihoto Hollohan only prevents orders injuncting or delaying the Speaker's decision and does not interdict judicial review in aid of a prompt decision; that the issue is no longer res integra after Rajendra Singh Rana, Subhash Desai and Keisham Meghachandra Singh; and that the Division Bench wrongly reversed the Single Judge's modest direction to fix a hearing schedule. The Speaker was directed to decide the petitions within three months.

• CH. JOSEPH versus THE TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHER

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 320

  A state transport corporation driver found colour blind at a periodic medical examination was retired on medical grounds without being offered alternate employment. The Supreme Court held that Clause 14 of the 1979 Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which promises an alternate job with pay protection to colour-blind drivers, remains binding and was not superseded by the 1986 settlement or internal circulars; that the Corporation made no effort to assess redeployment; and that reasonable accommodation of employees who acquire a disability in service is a constitutional and statutory imperative under Articles 14 and 21 even outside the statutory definition of disability.

• MANCHU MOHAN BABU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1969

  Criminal proceedings against the chairman of an educational institution and his son for holding a rally and dharna against non-reimbursement of student fees during the Model Code of Conduct period were quashed. Taking the FIR and chargesheet at face value, the ingredients of Sections 290, 341 and 171F read with Section 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 were entirely absent, and the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC.

• SURESH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: DEVI SINGH

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 305

  The Court set aside concurrent findings declaring a murder accused a juvenile on the strength of a transfer certificate from a private school whose headmaster admitted the date of birth was entered on the father's oral say-so. A private school's records are not public documents and its headmaster is not a public servant under the Evidence Act, and the certificate could not be treated as conclusive under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 in the face of the statutory family register, the voters' list and a Medical Board report showing the accused to be a major.

• S.N. VIJAYLAKSHMI & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1928

  An FIR for cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy arising from an agreement to sell land in Bengaluru was quashed. The accused were owners of the property, so there was no entrustment for Section 406; on the complainant's own case possession was to pass only on execution of the sale deed, so no deception-induced delivery under Sections 415/420 was made out; and with a civil suit for specific performance pending, continuing a prosecution lacking any element of criminality would be an abuse of process. The Court also laid down that the Priyanka Srivastava affidavit requirement is mandatory but curable before the Magistrate passes a substantive order, extended the quashing to a non-appealing co-accused, and, noting prima facie collusive litigation over the earlier BDA acquisition, restrained creation of third-party rights pending BDA's SLP.

• KHEM SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ANOTHER ETC.

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2108

  Where an injured victim who had appealed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against the High Court's acquittal of the accused died during the pendency of his appeals in the Supreme Court, his son and legal heir was permitted to be substituted and to prosecute the appeals. The 'right to prefer an appeal' in the proviso includes the right to prosecute it, 'victim' under Section 2(wa) includes a legal heir, and Section 394(2) does not abate such an appeal. On merits, the High Court's cryptic judgment of acquittal, delivered without evaluating the evidence, was set aside and the appeals remanded for fresh hearing.

• URMILA DEVI & OTHERS versus BALRAM & ANOTHER

  31/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1956

  A complaint case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against four daughters-in-law who were legatees under an unregistered will, alleging the will was forged after the testator's death to defeat a sale deed executed by one son, was quashed. The Court found none of the offences made out, held that the complaint was a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law after the complainant failed to pursue his civil and revenue remedies, and set aside the High Court's refusal to quash under Section 482 CrPC.

• UMRI POOPH PRATAPPUR (UPP) TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD. versus M.P. ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

  30/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1768

  A concessionaire under a BOT road concession agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation invoked ICADR arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while its reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal was pending, and later withdrew that reference. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of the private arbitration: the concession agreement is a 'works contract' under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, Section 7 of which mandates reference to the Tribunal notwithstanding any arbitration clause; the writ against the private concessionaire was maintainable because of the public law element; and the parallel invocation was barred by election and estoppel. The appellant was permitted to seek revival of its withdrawn reference.

• IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

  30/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1823

  The Supreme Court held that a financial creditor's Section 7 IBC application filed on 15/01/2024 was within limitation because the corporate debtor's balance sheet for F.Y. 2019-20, signed on 12/08/2020 and read in the context of its earlier balance sheets and cash flow statement, was a valid acknowledgment of a subsisting debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act even though it did not name the creditor, and because Para 5(I) of the Court's Covid-19 order of 10/01/2022 excluded the whole period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022, making the application timely; the NCLT and NCLAT orders dismissing the application as time-barred were set aside.

• STATE OF PUNJAB versus GURNAM @ GAMA ETC.

  30/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2053

  The High Court had acquitted two accused convicted under the NDPS Act for transporting poppy husk solely because the informant and the investigating officer were the same person, applying Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, without appreciating the evidence. The Court held that Varinder Kumar confined Mohan Lal to prospective operation and the Constitution Bench in Mukesh Singh overruled it, that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings so the law as it stands today applies, and remitted the appeals to the High Court for decision on merits.

• MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAO versus MADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS

  30/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2073

  A wife, after a foreign decree of divorce had attained finality, filed a complaint case, a Domestic Violence Act petition and an FIR under Sections 494 and 498A IPC against her former husband and his relatives; the High Court refused to quash them. The parties later settled all disputes through a Lok Adalat award in which the wife agreed to withdraw every pending case. The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, quashed the complaint, the FIR and all consequent proceedings, holding that once the marriage has ended and the parties have genuinely settled, continuing criminal proceedings serves no legitimate purpose and would only be harassment.

• MUKUND K. PAI & ORS. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS

  30/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2148

  Ex-servicemen re-employed by a public sector bank had their basic pay reduced on re-fixation pursuant to an Indian Banks' Association clarification of 17.05.2018 and the bank's HRMD circular, which capped pay at the 20th stage of the clerical scale. The Court held that the Department of Financial Services guidelines dated 17.02.2014 govern pay fixation and prevail over the IBA clarification and HRMD circular, that the re-fixation ignoring those guidelines was unjustified, and that reducing pay without a hearing violated natural justice. Re-fixation quashed and the bank directed to re-fix pay under the 2014 guidelines.

• SUBHA PRASAD NANDI MAJUMDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL SERVICE & ORS

  30/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1808

  A Senior Secretary of a faculty council at Burdwan University, who had sixteen years' teaching experience at a government college in Assam, was denied the benefit of a West Bengal Notification of 24.02.2021 raising the retirement age of certain university officers to 65 on the ground that his ten years' continuous teaching experience was not in a university or college aided by West Bengal. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'in any State-aided University or College' only distinguishes aided from unaided institutions and does not exclude experience gained outside West Bengal; confining the benefit to in-State experience is an artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary classification.

• SUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWAN versus STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS

  29/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2012

  A convict sentenced by the High Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, to 'life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission' completed twenty years on 09.03.2025; the State contended that he must still apply for remission of his life sentence to the Sentence Review Board. The Court held that such a fixed-term life sentence is complete on serving the term, that the convict is entitled to release without seeking remission, that his continued incarceration thereafter was illegal under Article 21, and directed that all convicts who have completed their jail term be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

• AJWAR versus WASEEM AND ANOTHER R1: WASEEM R2: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  29/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2062

  After the Supreme Court had twice set aside bail granted to the accused in a murder case, leaving him liberty to apply afresh only on new circumstances, the High Court granted bail a third time citing period of custody, jail overcrowding and a 'one-sided investigation'. The Supreme Court set the order aside: the High Court was bound to give due deference to the earlier judgment, to examine whether genuinely new circumstances had emerged, and to record cogent reasons; overcrowding of jails and comments on the investigation were no ground for bail in a heinous offence. The accused was directed to surrender and remain in custody till the end of the trial.

• S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

  29/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1736

  A 20-year-old engineering student lost his left leg when, after a car ahead braked suddenly on a highway, his motorcycle hit the car and a bus ran over him. The Supreme Court re-apportioned negligence (car driver 50%, bus driver 30%, appellant 20%), raised the notional income of the student to Rs. 20,000 per month, restored the Tribunal's attendant charges of Rs. 18 lakh and enhanced loss of marital prospects, fixing total compensation at Rs. 1,14,24,066 and the payable sum at Rs. 91,39,253 with 7.5% interest.

• DAIVSHALA & ORS. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR

  28/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1706

  A factory watchman died in a motorcycle accident 5 km from the factory while riding to his 3 a.m. shift; the High Court, applying Francis De Costa, held the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Supreme Court held that Section 51E of the ESI Act (inserted 01.06.2010), which deems commuting accidents to arise out of and in the course of employment where a nexus with the employment is established, is clarificatory and retrospective, and that the ESI Act and EC Act being in pari materia, the same meaning applies to Section 3 of the EC Act. The Commissioner's award was restored.

• GAJANAN DATTATRAY GORE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  28/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1980

  An accused obtained regular bail from the High Court on his own affidavit-cum-undertaking to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within five months, failed to deposit, and then argued that the condition was onerous; the High Court cancelled his bail. The Court dismissed his appeal with costs, refused to examine the bail plea on merits, and directed that henceforth no trial court or High Court shall grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of any undertaking by the accused or his family to deposit an amount; bail pleas must be decided strictly on merits.

• CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

  28/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1697

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC against two national badminton players, their parents and their coach, alleging falsification of birth records to compete in age-restricted tournaments. The complaint rested on a single unauthenticated 1996 GPF nomination form, disclosed no ingredient of forgery or cheating, revived allegations already examined and closed by the Sports Authority of India and the Central Vigilance Commission, and bore the marks of personal vindictiveness, so its continuation was an abuse of process.

• MANOHAR AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

  28/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1675

  Farmers whose land near Jintur was acquired in the 1990s for an MIDC industrial area challenged the compensation fixed by the Reference Court, which had averaged lower sale instances while ignoring, without reasons, the highest exemplar of Rs. 72,900 per acre (sale deed dated 31.03.1990); the High Court dismissed their first appeal on a self-contradictory finding that the exemplar had been considered. The Court held that when several exemplars of similar land exist the highest bona fide exemplar is ordinarily to be adopted, averaging is permissible only where prices fall within a narrow band, and certified copies of sale deeds carry presumptive value under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act; applying a 20 per cent deduction for the small size of the exemplar plots, it enhanced compensation to Rs. 58,320 per acre.

• SHRI SHRI SWAMI SAMARTH CONSTRUCTION & FINANCE SOLUTION & ANR versus THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NKGSB CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS.

  28/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1851

  Writ petition under Article 32 by an MSME borrower seeking to restrain a co-operative bank from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the bank had not identified incipient stress in its account under the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs notified on 29.05.2015 before classifying it as NPA. The Court read the Framework harmoniously: a lender may classify the account as NPA and issue a Section 13(2) notice without such identification, but once the borrower, in its Section 13(3-A) response, claims the Framework's benefit with reasons supported by affidavit, the lender must examine the claim keeping further action in abeyance. The petitioner had never invoked the Framework; petition dismissed with liberty under Section 17.

• SUKDEB SAHA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

  25/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1543

  The father of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant who died after a fall from her hostel building in Visakhapatnam sought a CBI investigation, which the High Court refused because two FIRs in two States placed the prayer beyond its jurisdiction. The Court found the local investigation ineffective (an unsubstantiated suicide theory, unreconciled CCTV discrepancies, contradicted claims about the girl's consciousness on admission, one doctor in three forensic roles, destruction of the viscera before court-ordered DNA testing, withheld forensic reports and suspicious stomach contents) and transferred the investigation to the CBI. In Part B, treating mental health as part of Article 21 and acting under Articles 32 and 141, it issued fifteen binding interim guidelines on student mental health and suicide prevention for all educational institutions, with directions to the States and the Union.

• BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTRE versus RANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

  25/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1631

  In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Trial Court allowed the complainant to amend the description of goods supplied from 'Desi Ghee (milk products)' to 'milk' at a stage when cross-examination of the complainant was yet to begin. The High Court set the amendment aside as changing the nature of the complaint and as an attempt to avoid GST. The Supreme Court held that criminal courts may permit amendment of a complaint even after cognizance where the defect is curable and no prejudice is caused to the accused, found no prejudice here, and restored the Trial Court's order.

• K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  25/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1579

  Writ petitions under Article 32 sought a direction to delimit and increase Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, on parity with the delimitation carried out for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court dismissed them: Section 26 is expressly subject to Article 170, whose proviso to clause (3) freezes readjustment of State Assembly seats until figures of the first census after 2026 are published; Article 170 does not apply to Union Territory legislatures, so no parity with Jammu and Kashmir arises; and legitimate expectation cannot override a constitutional bar.

• SATAURAM MANDAVI versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

  25/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1538

  Appeal by special leave, confined to sentence, against conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act with a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The offence was committed on 20.05.2019, before the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on 16.08.2019, so the enhanced punishment introduced by the amendment could not be applied without violating Article 20(1). Conviction upheld; sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for life as understood under the unamended Section 6.

• ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  25/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1599

  Special leave petitions against the Delhi High Court's refusal to quash a Metropolitan Magistrate's order of 01.07.2005 under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of an FIR for cheating and conspiracy arising from a 1995 hotel-financing MoU, and the FIR registered pursuant to it. The Court held that an informant must first exhaust the remedies under Section 154(1) and (3) before moving the Magistrate, but that entertaining a direct application is only a procedural irregularity; that the Magistrate's order reflected application of mind; that with investigation complete and chargesheets filed the discretionary power to quash should not be exercised; that the dispute was not purely civil; and that the question of a successive FIR was left open. Petitions dismissed.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus R. SHANKARAPPA

  25/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1622

  Disciplinary charge-sheets for major penalties against a Group B telecom engineer had been issued by the General Manager, an authority competent to impose only minor penalties, and the High Court quashed the proceedings relying on B.V. Gopinath. The Court held that Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 expressly permits an authority competent to impose minor penalties to institute proceedings for major penalties, that Gopinath turned on a departmental office order requiring ministerial approval which has no counterpart in the Department of Telecommunications, and restored the Tribunal's dismissal of the employee's challenge.

• M/S ASP TRADERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  24/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1462

  Goods in transit were detained and a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act issued; the appellant filed objections but, to secure release, paid the proposed tax and penalty through Form GST DRC-03, after which no final order was passed. The High Court refused a mandamus, holding the proceedings concluded under Section 129(5). The Supreme Court held that every show cause notice must culminate in a reasoned order, that the deeming fiction in Section 129(5) does not absolve the proper officer of the duty to pass an order in Form GST MOV-09 and upload a summary in Form GST DRC-07, that a payment made under business compulsion with objections on record is not voluntary and is no waiver, and that the absence of an order renders the appeal under Section 107 illusory and offends Article 265.

• M/S BENGANI FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD AND ANOTHER versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

  24/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1756

  A consignment of maize unloaded from railway wagons and left at an open siding at Shalimar Railway Yard was damaged by rain; the insurer repudiated the marine transit claim and the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint. The Court upheld the repudiation: under Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A the cover ceased on delivery and unloading, the yard was not shown to be the final warehouse and no onward movement within seven days was shown; the insured also failed in its Clause 8 duty to take reasonable steps to minimise loss and did not disclose that a large part of the consignment was shifted to another warehouse shortly after the loss, contrary to the duty of utmost good faith.

• HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

  24/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1497

  A UAE tax resident providing strategic oversight services to the owner of hotels in Delhi and Mumbai under twenty-year Strategic Oversight Services Agreements challenged the finding that it had a fixed place permanent establishment in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE DTAA. The Court held that the agreements gave the appellant pervasive and enforceable control over the hotels' strategic, operational and financial functions, that exclusive or designated space is not essential, that the twenty-year term and revenue-linked fees satisfy stability, productivity and dependence, and that continuity of business presence in aggregate, not the stay of any individual employee, is what matters. The High Court's finding was affirmed and the appeals dismissed.

• M/S RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

  24/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1744

  Appeal against concurrent orders refusing discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC in a prosecution under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellants contending that the adjudication order on which the sanction rested had been set aside. The Court held that the complaint did not rely on that order except as an addendum, that a remand on procedural grounds is not exoneration on merits, that departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution may run in parallel, and that the complaint prima facie discloses an offence. Appeal dismissed.

• M.C. RAVIKUMAR versus D.S. VELMURUGAN & ORS.

  23/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1451

  The High Court dismissed a first petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a criminal complaint and, six months later, allowed a second petition by the same accused on grounds that were available when the first was decided. The Supreme Court held that a second quashing petition is not maintainable on pre-existing grounds, that the second order was in substance a review barred by Section 362 CrPC, and restored the complaint.

• VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  23/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1371

  One of three co-purchasers of land acquired by NOIDA, after years of joint litigation as co-owners, obtained from the High Court a declaration of sole ownership and enhanced compensation without impleading the other two and while suppressing a pending suit against his compromise decree; the Supreme Court affirmed the quantum in Reddy Veerana (2022). On a co-owner's appeal, a three-Judge Bench held both orders were procured by fraud and are nullities: fraud is an exception to the doctrine of merger, procedural rules cannot shackle the Court's inherent power once fraud is proved, and the Court may recall its own judgment so obtained. The High Court order was set aside, the Supreme Court judgment recalled and the writ petition remanded with the co-owners impleaded; the co-owner's Article 32 petition was dismissed as disclosing no breach of a fundamental right.

• ESAKKIMUTHU versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  22/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1361

  Two accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC for the murder of a man at a TASMAC liquor shop on the testimony of his son and wife, who claimed to have followed him there by bicycle. The Court found their presence at the scene inherently improbable, since they would have had to cover about 16 kilometres on one bicycle in roughly thirty minutes, noted their failure to report at a police station on the way home, that the independent witnesses had turned hostile and spoke of four or five assailants, and that the 26 injuries pointed to a group attack; the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and both accused were acquitted.

• UNITED BANK OF INDIA (NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK) versus SWAPAN KUMAR MULLICK & ORS.

  22/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1642

  A bank head cashier who, having opted for provident fund rather than pension, resigned in 2006 after about 36 years' service citing mental depression, later sought to exercise the 'another option for pension' offered by the IBA circular of 16.08.2010 to retired employees. The Court held that resignation and voluntary retirement are distinct concepts that cannot be substituted for each other on the basis of length of service, that Regulation 22 of the 1995 Pension Regulations, which forfeits past service on resignation, does not offend Article 14, and that a High Court under Article 226 cannot direct the bank's Board to amend the Regulation; it nonetheless granted the employee, under Article 142, a fortnight to opt for pension under the 2024 bipartite settlement or, failing that, a one-time financial relief of Rs. 5 lakh.

• SHAILYAMANYU SINGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  22/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2085

  A non-executive director of a pharmaceutical distributor was summoned under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on an omnibus allegation that he and the company distributed expired drugs to an unlicensed enterprise. The Supreme Court held that vicarious liability under Section 34(2) of the Act requires a prima facie allegation in the complaint of the director's consent, connivance or attributable neglect; the complaint being silent on any inquiry into his role or on who was in charge of the company's business, his prosecution merely for being a director was an abuse of process and was quashed.

• TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. versus S. GANESAN

  21/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1530

  The Supreme Court set aside a Division Bench order that had allowed a defaulting auction-purchaser of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board commercial plot to pay Rs 3 crore in instalments and obtain a sale deed, holding that the respondent, who had paid only a fraction of his 1986 bid in over three decades of possession and had not complied with repeated payment orders including this Court's own interim direction, had forfeited any further right to pay; he was directed to vacate the plot within four months.

• METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS versus METAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.

  21/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1341

  The second wife of the deceased landholder sued for declaration of title to the properties allotted to her under a registered Will of 1974 and an oral family settlement; the trial court decreed the suit but the High Court, treating the land as joint family property, cut her down to a one-fourth share. The Court restored the trial decree, holding that a registered Will carries a presumption of genuineness, that the son had admitted his father's signatures on it and the plaintiff's possession of her share, and that a Will giving the lion's share to the son could not be a manipulated document.

• VICTIM ‘X’ versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

  21/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1330

  The High Court had granted bail, by a cryptic order recording only that there was no specific allegation, to the Superintendent of a women's protection home accused of drugging inmates and sending them out for sexual exploitation, without the victim-informant being impleaded or heard. The Court cancelled the bail, holding that the order could have been quashed solely for non-compliance with Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, and that the gravity of the allegations, the likelihood of witnesses being threatened and the accused's reinstatement as Superintendent of another protection home made it an exceptional case warranting interference under Article 136.

• KHURSHEED AHMAD CHOHAN versus UNION OF TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. ETC.

  21/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1295

  A police constable summoned to the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara alleged that he was illegally detained for six days and tortured, including the amputation of his genitals; the police refused to register his wife's complaint and instead registered an FIR against him under Section 309 IPC for attempted suicide, and the High Court merely ordered a preliminary enquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police and declined to quash the FIR. The Court held that registration of an FIR was mandatory under Lalita Kumari, that an enquiry by the officer whose subordinates were implicated violated the rule against being a judge in one's own cause, transferred the investigation to the CBI, quashed the Section 309 FIR as fabricated and mala fide, and awarded Rs. 50 lakh interim compensation for violation of Article 21.

• MALA CHOUDHARY & ANR. versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

  18/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1208

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC arising from an oral agreement to sell land, finding that the complainant had dressed up a purely civil dispute over non-execution of a sale deed as a criminal case, with allegations in the FIR materially at variance with his own plaint for specific performance; the High Court's cryptic disposal of the quashing petition without touching the merits was disapproved, and exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh were imposed on the complainant.

• SURESH CHANDRA (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS. versus PARASRAM & ORS.

  18/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1233

  Where two defendants who had set up a common defence of joint title through their father jointly filed a second appeal against a decree holding the plaintiff to be owner and them to be tenants, and one defendant-appellant died without substitution of his legal representatives for six years, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to condone the delay and held that the entire second appeal abated, because proceeding with it could produce decrees inconsistent with the one that had become final against the deceased; Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, which operates at the stage of filing an appeal, was unavailable to the surviving co-appellant once all defendants had appealed jointly.

• BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) versus EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

  18/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1275

  The appellant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 relying on clause 13 of the contract's general terms, which, after a two-stage in-house settlement procedure, stated that for parties other than government agencies redressal of the dispute "may be sought through" the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the referral court must itself examine, prima facie, whether an arbitration agreement under Section 7 exists rather than leave the question to the tribunal, and that clause 13 was merely an enabling provision requiring further consent and not a binding arbitration agreement; the High Court's dismissal of the application was upheld.

• KAUSHAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  18/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1221

  Strictures passed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer who had granted bail on parity, with a direction to place the order before the Chief Justice, were expunged: High Courts should ordinarily refrain from criticising judicial officers on the judicial side, the officer was condemned unheard, and the High Court judgment (Jugal) on which the order rested had been reversed by the Supreme Court. All High Courts were asked to consider a rule requiring bail applicants to disclose their other criminal cases.

• RAM CHARAN & ORS. versus SUKHRAM & ORS.

  17/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 272

  The heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman sued for partition of her father's property, and all three courts below dismissed the suit because no custom entitling daughters to inherit had been proved. The Court held that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, that in the absence of any proved custom either way Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 (justice, equity and good conscience) governs, that the 2018 repeal of that Act did not affect the right which had already accrued, and that denying the daughter a share when custom is silent would violate Article 14; her heirs were held entitled to an equal share.

• M SAMBASIVA RAO versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

  17/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1183

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that had reversed the acquittal of an insurance company officer in a CBI bribery trap case and restored the acquittal, holding that the prosecution had not proved demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt: the alleged conspiracy rested on inference from a phone call whose contents were unknown, the co-accused senior officer had himself forwarded a complaint against the appellant to vigilance a month earlier, and three glaring contradictions (the SP's undisclosed participation in the trap shown by his tour diary, a 'white' shirt exhibited as moss-coloured, and phenolphthalein traces on a whisky box never treated with the powder) shook the foundation of the trap.

• NARAYAN DAS versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  17/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 289

  Dismissing a legal-aid SLP against conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of 236 vials of codeine-based cough syrup, the Supreme Court corrected the High Court's reading of Section 32-B: the factors in clauses (a) to (f) are in addition to such other factors as the court deems fit, so a trial court is not obliged to find one of the enumerated factors, or to assign special reasons under that provision, before imposing a sentence above the statutory minimum; the minimum sentence is not to be treated as the maximum. The reduction of sentence from 12 to 10 years was nonetheless left undisturbed.

• M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. versus CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI & ORS.

  17/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1144

  The Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to conciliation under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006 and that time-barred claims may be referred to conciliation because limitation bars only the remedy and not the right, a settlement of such a claim being a contract valid under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act; but the Limitation Act does apply to arbitration under Section 18(3), since the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to MSMED arbitrations is governed by Section 18(3) read with Section 24 of the MSMED Act (which prevail over Section 2(4) of the ACA) and thereby attracts Section 43 of the ACA, affirming Silpi Industries.

• GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR versus JAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.

  17/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 257

  A registered Will by which a testator left his land to his nephew while remaining wholly silent about the existence of his wife, with whom he lived till his death, and the reasons for her disinheritance was held vitiated by the propounder's undue influence; proof of execution and registration do not dispel such a suspicious circumstance, which must be assessed cumulatively with the attendant facts, including the propounder's own denial of the widow's marital status.

• MALA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 221

  The widow of a railway substitute who died in harness after 9 years 8 months of continuous service was held entitled to family pension: a substitute who completes the prescribed continuous service acquires temporary status, and under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 the family of a railway servant who dies after one year of continuous service gets family pension whether or not the post was regularised. The Court also awarded Rs 5,00,000 ex gratia under Article 142.

• THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. versus JSW HYDRO ENERGY LIMITED & ORS.

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1104

  A hydro-power generator bound by an Implementation Agreement to supply the State 12% free power for twelve years and 18% thereafter obtained a High Court writ directing the State to align the agreement with Note 3 of Regulation 55 of the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2019, which takes free energy to the home State as 13% or actual, whichever is less. The Court held that Note 3 governs only how much free power is passed through in tariff determination and does not prohibit supply beyond 13% or override the Implementation Agreement; that the CERC's unappealed order of 17.03.2022 had only held the PPA and power sale agreements overridden; and that interpretation of tariff regulations lies in the CERC's exclusive domain, so the writ petition was not maintainable.

• SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1858

  The State of Haryana's application to modify the order of 21.01.2025, which forbade service of notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS through WhatsApp or other electronic means, was dismissed. A Section 35 notice bears on personal liberty under Article 21 since non-compliance can lead to arrest; the BNSS permits electronic communication only for specified procedures (Sections 530, 63, 64, 71, 94, 193), and its conscious omission for Section 35 notices reflects legislative intent that cannot be supplied by the Court.

• TOSH KUMAR SHARMA versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS. R1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD R2: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R3: SELECTION & APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE OF U.P.H.J.S. EXAMINATION

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1998

  Where thirty-seven General Category posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge were advertised and the Governor approved only thirty-six of the thirty-seven candidates recommended by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (which permits conversion of a direct-recruit vacancy to promotion when 'selected direct recruits available for appointment' fall short) did not apply, because eligible candidates below the cut-off remained available; the candidate ranked thirty-eighth was entitled to be recommended and appointed.

• JAI PRAKASH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 243

  The appellant's conviction for the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl, resting on recovery of the body from his hut, the last-seen evidence of the victim's aunt and two child witnesses, and matching DNA, was affirmed. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without remission for the appellant's natural life because the courts below had relied on the brutality of the crime alone, without considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances or the possibility of reformation.

• SHIV BARAN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 229

  The High Court wrongly quashed a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC by applying the standard for conviction and conducting a mini-trial on affidavits; the three eyewitnesses had named the proposed accused and assigned him a specific role, which met the requisite standard, which is more than a prima facie case at the charge stage but short of satisfaction that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction. The summoning order was restored.

• BYLURU THIPPAIAH @ BYALURU THIPPAIAH @ NAYAKARA THIPPAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 550

  The appellant killed his wife, her sister and his three young children with a chopper, suspecting his wife's infidelity and doubting the children's paternity, and then declared the killings to neighbours and surrendered. The Court affirmed the concurrent conviction under Section 302 IPC but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without remission, holding that the High Court, though it had called for probation, conduct and psychological reports as required by Manoj v. State of M.P., had not adequately considered them, and that where opinion on the possibility of reformation is mixed the court must err on the side of caution.

• BALJINDER KUMAR @ KALA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

  16/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1070

  A death sentence for the murder of the appellant's wife, sister-in-law and two children was set aside and the appellant acquitted: the two purported eyewitnesses contradicted each other and themselves on material particulars (the complainant's presence, whether the mother was at home or at the Gurudwara, the weapon, the accompanying persons), the injured child admitted he was asleep and saw nothing, the recoveries made two months later were unsupported by independent witnesses or forensic linkage, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to fill the gap when the prosecution had not first placed the accused at the scene.

• L. MURUGANANTHAM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 935

  An advocate with 80% Becker muscular dystrophy was illegally arrested on a false complaint and jailed for ten days; the State Human Rights Commission awarded Rs. 1,00,000 and the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 5,00,000 while dismissing the complaint against the prison authorities. The Court declined further enhancement, holding that the deficiencies in diet and treatment arose from institutional limitations rather than deliberate neglect and that Article 21 does not confer a right to personalised food, but, finding systemic neglect of prisoners with disabilities, issued fifteen time-bound directions to the State on identification, accessibility, healthcare, diet, staff training, amendment of the prison manual, access audits, data and compliance reporting.

• PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED versus SH. MANOJ SAHA & ANR

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1041

  The High Court should not have entertained an Article 227 petition by a person claiming tenancy of a secured asset when an appeal lay under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act; Harshad Govardhan Sondagar's observations about the absence of a remedy for tenants belong to the pre-2016 regime. On merits, the claimant produced no rent, tax or electricity receipts showing occupation before the Section 13(2) demand notice and had stayed silent through symbolic and physical possession, so a mandatory order restoring possession was unjustified.

• VIJAY KUMAR versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 523

  Construing Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, the Supreme Court held that clauses (1) and (2) must be read together: a compulsorily retired employee is entitled to not less than two-thirds of full pension, and any reduction below full pension requires prior consultation with the Board of Directors, for which post facto approval is no substitute. The Field General Manager's order reducing the appellant's pension by one-third without such consultation was set aside.

• M/S TORINO LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 174

  The EPF authorities clubbed the appellant pharmaceutical company with a sister company run by the same family from adjoining plots, treating them as one establishment under the EPF Act from September 1995. Surveying the law on clubbing, the Supreme Court held that no single test is decisive, that separate registration of two juristic entities does not prevent clubbing under a beneficial statute, that the onus is on the employer to prove independence, and that the cumulative findings of common premises, management, finance, offices, security and contact details justified treating the two as one unit; the appeal was dismissed.

• PRADEEP BHARDWAJ versus PRIYA

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 534

  The husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty had been dismissed concurrently by the Family Court and the High Court. Noting that the parties had lived apart since October 2009 (about sixteen years), that mediation had failed and that the husband and his family had been acquitted in the cruelty case filed by the wife, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and enhanced the monthly maintenance for the wife and minor son to Rs. 15,000.

• JAYKISHOR CHATURVEDI & ETC. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 138

  Promoter-directors penalised by SEBI's Adjudicating Officer in 2014 for insider trading violations, whose penalties were affirmed by this Court in 2019, challenged recovery and attachment notices demanding interest at 12% per annum from the date of the adjudication orders. The Court held that under Section 28A of the SEBI Act read with Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, interest on an unpaid penalty is leviable by operation of law even if the adjudication order is silent on interest, that the adjudication order fixing a 45-day period for payment itself operates as the notice of demand because Section 156 of the Income Tax Act is not incorporated into the SEBI Act, and that interest therefore runs from the expiry of that 45-day period, Explanation 4 to Section 28A (2019) being merely clarificatory. The appeals were dismissed.

• G. MOHANDAS versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 541

  The Supreme Court declined to quash a vigilance prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC against a building owner accused of conspiring with municipal officials to obtain an unnecessary renovation permit and then raising a four-storeyed commercial building in a prohibited zone, holding that the chargesheet disclosed the ingredients of the offences and that the owner could not claim parity with the architect whose prosecution had been quashed.

• NEETHU B. @ NEETHU BABY MATHEW versus RAJESH KUMAR

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1053

  Review of a Supreme Court order confirming transfer of a child's permanent custody from the mother to the father was allowed under Article 137: the child's post-judgment deterioration in mental health, documented in clinical reports, was new evidence that could not have been produced earlier and bore directly on his welfare. Custody orders are interlocutory and may be moulded in the child's best interest; permanent custody was restored to the mother with structured visitation for the father.

• KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR versus STATE OF TAMILNADU

  15/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 984

  A death sentence for the murder of a young couple and rape of the woman at Suruli Falls, resting wholly on circumstantial evidence, was set aside and the appellant acquitted: the star witness's six-day silence was not the conduct of a reasonable man, the arrest had no recorded basis, the police confessions were unreliable, the recovered articles were never forensically linked to the crime, the DNA evidence failed for an unexplained 41-day delay and a broken chain of custody, and the test identification parade was vitiated because the witness had seen the accused and been told by the police that he was the culprit. The Court issued binding directions on the collection, transport, storage and chain-of-custody documentation of DNA samples.

• INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus M/S SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1

  IOCL stopped kerosene supplies to a three-partner dealer firm after the death of the majority partner because not all of his heirs had joined or declined to join the reconstituted firm. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's mandamus directing continued supply, holding that under the partnership deed and the dealership agreement the firm survived the death, Section 42 of the Partnership Act does not dissolve a firm of more than two partners whose deed provides otherwise, and IOCL's own guidelines do not require every heir to join the reconstituted firm.

• SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH ALIAS SHAILESH R. SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2161

  In a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) BNS arising from an oral financing arrangement between two media businesses, the High Court, instead of deciding the petition, referred the parties to mediation on condition that the accused first pay Rs. 25 lakh to the informant. The Supreme Court held that the FIR disclosed a purely civil money dispute with no element of criminality, that a High Court hearing a quashing petition must examine the FIR on the Bhajan Lal principles and either allow or reject it rather than help the complainant recover money, and quashed the FIR.

• M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 11

  Manufacturers of beer and IMFL who sold their goods to State Government liquor warehouses, from which retailers took supply, were held liable to entry tax under Section 3 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 for 2007-08. Although the warehouse model involved two independent transactions and not a mere supervisory role of the State, the manufacturers, being dealers under the VAT Act, had caused the entry of the goods into the local area by their sale to the warehouse; and the absence of a notification under Section 3B did not bar assessment and collection under Section 14.

• ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus NIRMALA DEVI

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 777

  Oustees whose land was acquired by HUDA in 1992 sued some 14 to 20 years later for mandatory injunctions under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to compel allotment of plots at the price fixed by the 1992 oustee policy, without having applied in the prescribed format with earnest money. The Supreme Court held that Brij Mohan does not lay down that oustees are always entitled to the rate at which the sector was first floated, that the suits were hopelessly time-barred, and that an oustee must perform his own obligation under the scheme before invoking Section 39; but, in view of HUDA's undertaking, it permitted the respondents to apply under the 2016 policy within four weeks.

• KUM. SHUBHA @ SHUBHASHANKAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 859

  Four accused, including the fiancee of the deceased, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for the 2003 murder of a software engineer two days after his engagement. The Supreme Court disbelieved the two eyewitnesses and the motive witnesses PW-8 and PW-11, but confirmed the convictions on circumstantial evidence: motive proved through PW-23, voluminous call detail records held admissible under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and showing a synchronised pattern of communications peaking before the murder and ceasing after it, recovery of the weapon and scooter under Section 27, deletion of messages, a false alibi and the unexplained conduct of the accused. Given the passage of two decades and the youth of the accused at the time, the Court permitted them to seek pardon from the Governor under Article 161 and suspended their sentences meanwhile.

• TORRENT POWER LIMITED versus U.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 693

  An individual petitioned the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 128 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to investigate a distribution licensee and its Agra franchisee, alleging transfer of the utility without approval under Section 17, impermissible urban franchising and breach of tariff orders through low input rates; the Commission held the petition maintainable in public interest and appointed an expert committee, and APTEL affirmed. The Court held that commissions, as creatures of statute, cannot entertain a matter on the sole ground of public interest, though a Section 128 petition by an affected person is maintainable; that none of the grounds met the statutory 'satisfaction' for an investigation; and that the Act gives no direct oversight of franchisees, who are agents regulated only through the licensee. APTEL's order was set aside.

• MANDEEP SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 34

  The State of Punjab's 2021 recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Government colleges through departmental selection committees of two State universities, on the basis of a single multiple-choice written test, was quashed as arbitrary: the posts were within the purview of the Public Service Commission and were not withdrawn by the procedure under the 1955 Regulations before the selection, and the 2010 UGC Regulations, adopted by the State by incorporation, prescribed a different selection method that was abandoned. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order and directed fresh recruitment under the 2018 UGC Regulations.

• ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED versus RAM BABU & ANOTHER

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 573

  A paint manufacturer whose products were counterfeited appealed to the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against the first appellate court's acquittal of the accused; the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the company was neither the complainant nor treated as a victim at trial. The Court held that the company is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC, that the proviso to Section 372 is a stand-alone provision not controlled by Section 378, and that the victim's right of appeal arises whenever a court acquits the accused, whether at trial or in first appeal; the appeal was restored for hearing on merits.

• SMT. ARIFA & ORS. versus ABHIMAN APARTMENT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1355

  A liberty reserved by the High Court while dismissing a second appeal to file a comprehensive suit for the reliefs refused by amendment does not create a fresh cause of action or save limitation, nor does it revive grounds concurrently rejected in the earlier litigation. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the fresh suit as barred by res judicata, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties.

• VIBHOR GARG versus NEHA

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 611

  In a husband's divorce petition the Family Court allowed him to prove telephone conversations with his wife that he had recorded without her knowledge, but the High Court excluded them as a breach of her right to privacy. The Supreme Court restored the Family Court's order, holding that a secretly recorded conversation is not inadmissible merely because it was obtained without consent if relevance, voice identification and accuracy are proved; that Section 122 of the Evidence Act bars only the spouse's own disclosure and expressly excepts suits between married persons; and that Section 122 protects the sanctity of marriage, not privacy, so the privacy objection does not arise in litigation between spouses, the exception being read in light of the right to a fair trial.

• VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE versus THE HEADMISTRESS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE, ANJI (MOTHI), TAH. AND DISTT. WARDHA & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 481

  The son of a teacher in a Government-aided school in Maharashtra who died in service claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that while teachers are entitled to gratuity, aided school teachers whose pay and service conditions are regulated by the State are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, whose scheme of death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension is, taken as a whole, more beneficial than the Act; the petitioner was directed to be paid DCRG under the Rules with 7% interest, without insisting on a legal heirship certificate.

• PANDURANGAN versus T. JAYARAMA CHETTIAR & ANR.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 488

  A plea of res judicata founded on an earlier ex parte decree cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, because it requires examination of the pleadings, issues and decision in the former suit rather than the plaint alone. The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of the plaint and restored the suit for trial.

• BINOD PATHAK & ORS. versus SHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 103

  The High Court allowed the defendants' second appeal solely because some defendants had died during the first appeal without their heirs being substituted, holding the first appeal abated under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC and that Rule 10A could not override it. The Supreme Court held that where the defendants' pleader never informed the court of the deaths as Order XXII Rule 10A requires, the defendants cannot take advantage of their own lapse to plead abatement; the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria governs Rule 10A, and the question is not whether the Rule is mandatory but how it is applied on the facts. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing of the second appeal.

• KATHYAYINI versus SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 463

  The High Court wrongly quashed a prosecution for conspiracy and cheating arising from an allegedly fabricated family tree and partition deed used to secure land-acquisition compensation, by relying on an untested statement of the Sub-Registrar and on the pendency of a civil partition suit. The Supreme Court held that a prima facie case existed, that genuineness of the documents must be tested at trial, and that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject is no ground to quash criminal proceedings.

• THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus NIRU @ NIHARIKA & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 474

  In an insurer's challenge to a motor accident compensation award to the widow and minor children of an engineer who died in a 1995 collision, the Court declined to reduce the multiplier of 13 on account of the widow's remarriage in 2002, held that the delay in the claim petition could not be attributed solely to the claimants so that interest at 9% would run from the date of filing, and rejected the contention that no interest should be paid on the future-prospects component, since the money is in fact received only after the period for which the multiplier is adopted. Both the High Court's orders were upheld.

• STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE versus B.T. RAMESH & ANR.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 202

  The High Court had quashed corruption and IPC proceedings against a retired BBMP Chief Engineer because the chargesheet was filed more than four years after the alleged offence, contrary to Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, and because no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained. The Supreme Court held that Rule 214 is a pension rule enabling withholding or withdrawal of pension and has no application to stifle criminal proceedings, that Section 197 CrPC protection extends to retired public servants so the quashing of IPC offences for want of sanction was correct, but that Section 19 of the PC Act, before its 2018 amendment, required sanction only for public servants in office when cognisance was taken; the PC Act proceedings were restored.

• M/S STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD -III

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 8 S.C.R. 70

  Enrolment, collection, processing and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells by a registered cord blood bank are 'health care services' by a clinical establishment exempt under Entry 2 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, even for the period before Entry 2A (Notification No. 4/2014-ST) specifically exempted cord blood banks; the 2014 notification is clarificatory though not retrospective. The service tax demand for 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014 was also time-barred, as the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked absent fraud, suppression or intent to evade, and the penalties were set aside.

• DHANASINGH PRABHU versus CHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 655

  The High Court quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the two partners of a firm because the cheque was drawn on the firm's account but the firm was neither served the statutory notice nor arraigned as an accused. The Court held that, unlike a company, a partnership firm is only a compendious name for its partners and has no legal personality apart from them, so the liability of partners under Section 141 is joint and several rather than vicarious; a complaint against the partners alone is maintainable, notice to the partners is construed as notice to the firm, and the complainant was permitted to arraign the firm as an additional accused. The complaint was restored.

• COMMUNIDADE OF TIVIM, TIVIM, BARDEZ GOA versus STATE OF GOA & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 497

  A Goan Communidade sought the Administrative Tribunal's permission under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades to compromise a pending tenancy appeal by dividing the tenanted land 60:40 with the declared tenants, each side taking ownership-like rights usable for any purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of permission, holding that the compromise would terminate a declared tenancy outside the modes in Section 9 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, bypass the Chapter IIA purchase procedure and the Section 18K bar on transfer, and permit non-agricultural use prohibited by Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, and was therefore an abuse of process.

• MADHUKAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 568

  Two cross-FIRs lodged on consecutive days between feuding sides, the second alleging rape and related offences, were quashed under Section 482 CrPC after the complainant in the rape FIR, since married, affirmed by affidavit that the dispute was settled and she did not support the prosecution. The Court held that, although quashing rape cases on settlement is ordinarily discouraged, the inherent power is not bound by a rigid formula and in these peculiar facts continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS versus BANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 505

  The Orissa High Court, on its judicial side, had struck down Rule 6(9) of its Senior Advocate designation rules, which allowed the Full Court to designate advocates suo motu, as contrary to the Indira Jaising guidelines, and had quashed a notification calling for fresh applications. Following the three-Judge Bench decision in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (NCT of Delhi), which reaffirmed the Full Court's power of suo motu designation subject to fairness and transparency and dispensed with the points-based assessment, the Court set aside the High Court's order, upheld the designations made in the meantime and continued the amended Rule 6(9) until fresh rules are framed.

• ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  14/07/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 593

  Appeals against the National Green Tribunal's dismissal of a challenge to the siting of a petrol pump were dismissed with costs because the appellants, while the appeals were pending, filed a writ petition in the High Court attacking the same no-objection certificate on overlapping grounds without informing the Supreme Court or seeking its leave, and the litigation appeared to subserve the business interest of one appellant.

• RAHIL & ANR. versus STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

  25/06/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 607

  The High Court had reversed the trial court's acquittal of the husband and son of the main accused in a murder prosecution resting on circumstantial evidence, presuming their presence in the house because they lived there and relying on uncertified call detail records to place the son near the scene. The Court held that an acquittal cannot be reversed on a speculative inference that all inmates of a house are always present in it, that CDR printouts without a Section 65-B(4) certificate are inadmissible where the defence objected at trial and the prosecution did not cure the defect, and that single-tower location data cannot in any case prove presence at a particular place beyond doubt. The convictions were set aside.

• AMLESH KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

  09/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 394

  While hearing a regular bail application, the High Court accepted the investigating officer's submission that a narco-analysis test would be conducted on all the accused. The Supreme Court held this contrary to Selvi and Articles 20(3) and 21: an involuntary narco-analysis test is impermissible, the report of even a voluntary test cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and an accused has no indefeasible right to undergo such a test, though he may volunteer for one at the stage of leading defence evidence subject to the court's scrutiny and the Selvi safeguards.

• DHANYA M versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  06/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 354

  The wife of a money-lender detained as a 'known goonda' under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 challenged the detention order affirmed by the High Court. The Court held that the detention order gave no reasons showing how the detenu's activities affected public order as distinct from law and order, and that where the detenu was on bail in all four cases and the State had not moved for cancellation of bail, preventive detention was not the appropriate remedy; the detention order and the High Court judgment were set aside.

• UNION OF INDIA versus M/S KAMAKHYA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.

  05/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 346

  The Supreme Court held that where the Railways raised demand notices for mis-declaration of goods, the case fell under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, which specifies no stage at which the enhanced charge must be levied, and not under Sections 73 or 78, which concern overloading and are confined to the pre-delivery stage. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court therefore erred in ordering refund on the ground that the demands were raised after delivery.

• M/S BALAJI TRADERS versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  05/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 364

  The Supreme Court held that delivery of property is not an ingredient of the offence under Section 387 IPC (putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion), which criminalises the process preceding extortion and is an aggravated form of Section 385, not of Section 384. The Allahabad High Court therefore erred in quashing a summoning order under Section 387 on the ground that no money had been handed over, and the complaint was restored.

• GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMADA) THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER (H) versus ANUPAM GARG ETC.

  04/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 380

  The Supreme Court held that, where allottees withdrew from a delayed GMADA housing scheme and were awarded refund of the entire deposit with 8% compound interest as stipulated in the Letter of Intent, the consumer fora could not additionally direct GMADA to pay the interest the allottees had paid to their banks on home loans. The interest awarded on the deposit is itself the compensation for deprivation of the investment; the loan interest could at most be a factor in computing compensation, not a separate head.

• GHANSHYAM SONI versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  04/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 331

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC lodged by a police-officer wife against her husband and in-laws, holding that the allegations were generic and unsupported by any medical record, witness or evidence of a dowry demand, so that no prima facie case was made out; it nonetheless held that the complaint was within limitation under Section 468 CrPC, since limitation is computed from the date of filing the complaint and not from the date the Magistrate takes cognizance.

• HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (BISCUIT DIVISION) & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  04/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 427

  The Supreme Court held that a Deputy Secretary's letter asking an employer to resubmit its closure application under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not an 'order' granting or refusing permission: the Deputy Secretary was not the appropriate Government (the power having been delegated to the Labour Minister, with no further delegation under Section 39), and the Minister's bare endorsement of an unidentified officer's file noting showed no application of mind. Since no order was communicated within 60 days, closure was deemed permitted under Section 25-O(3); the termination of the sole job-work contract also constituted compelling circumstances for closure.

• VAIBHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  04/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 407

  The Supreme Court acquitted a college student of murdering his friend, who died of a gunshot from the appellant's father's service pistol in the appellant's house, holding that the circumstantial case left unanswered who pulled the trigger, that the bullet's upward trajectory and the medical evidence were consistent with the appellant's defence of accidental self-inflicted firing, that the courts below had wrongly used the appellant's subsequent conduct and gaps in his explanation to relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, and that absence of motive weighed in his favour; the conviction under Section 201 IPC for cleaning the scene and removing the body was sustained.

• MACHHINDRANATH S/O KUNDLIK TARADE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. versus RAMCHANDRA GANGADHAR DHAMNE & ORS.

  02/06/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 307

  The Supreme Court dismissed a suit for possession and reconveyance of agricultural land that the plaintiff had sold while it was charged in favour of a co-operative society, holding that although Section 48(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 declares such alienations void, the provision protects the society alone and operates only at its instance, so the transaction is at best voidable and the defaulting member cannot invoke his own breach to undo his sale; the unregistered 'Ram Ram Patra' reconveyance document was also rejected.

• KAMLA NEHRU MEMORIAL TRUST & ANR. versus U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

  30/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 673

  A trust allotted 125 acres of industrial land by UPSIDC in 2003 paid only the reservation money, defaulted on the rescheduled instalments and the documents for the lease deed, and its allotment was cancelled in 2007. The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation: UPSIDC had not frustrated the contract since possession under the Manual follows registration of the lease deed, and the three communications of 2004, 2005 and 2006 were valid 'legal notices' satisfying Clause 3.04(vii) of the Manual. Invoking the public trust doctrine, the Court also annulled UPSIDC's subsequent allotment of the land to a paper mill and directed that future allotments, including of this land, follow a transparent, revenue-maximising process.

• CHETAN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  30/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 906

  The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of the appellant for the murder of his friend by gunshot, based on circumstantial evidence: the two were last seen together on a motorcycle on the night of 10.07.2006, the decomposed body was found three days later with death estimated at 3 to 4 days before post-mortem, a double-barrel gun with two spent cartridges bearing signs of discharge was recovered at the appellant's instance from his grandfather's house, ballistic evidence linked the pellets and wads in the skull to that gun, the deceased's gold chain was recovered from the appellant, and the appellant absconded and misled others about his whereabouts. The conviction under Section 404 IPC in respect of the mobile phone alone was set aside on benefit of doubt.

• MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. versus PANKAJ BABULAL KOTECHA & ORS.

  30/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 787

  The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court PIL judgment that had directed demolition of a municipal recreational park at Kandivali and restoration of the century-old Khajuria lake said to have existed there, holding that the public trust doctrine must be calibrated to the factual matrix and sustainable development, that the water body had degraded into a dumping ground, that the fifteen-year-old park now yields substantial ecological and social benefit, and that the belated PIL could not undo an entrenched fait accompli; compensatory directions were issued to the Corporation.

• RAKHI SADHUKHAN versus RAJA SADHUKHAN

  29/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 782

  The Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the Calcutta High Court to a divorced wife from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month, holding that the husband's disclosed income and past earnings showed capacity to pay more and that the wife was entitled to maintenance reflecting the marital standard of living and inflation; no mandatory support was directed for the parties' adult son.

• CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SEKH JAMIR HOSSAIN AND ORS.

  29/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1014

  The CBI challenged High Court orders granting bail to accused charged with a concerted post-election attack on a complainant's house in West Bengal in which his wife was disrobed and nearly sexually assaulted. The Supreme Court cancelled the bail: the allegations were grave enough to shake the conscience of the Court, the local police had refused to register the FIR, which was registered by the CBI only on the High Court's direction, and the accused's non-cooperation had stalled the trial, so no fair trial was possible while they remained at liberty.

• BINDU KAPUREA versus SUBHASHISH PANDA & ORS.

  28/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2764

  In contempt proceedings over the DDA's felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge for approach roads to CAPFIMS and SAARC University without this Court's permission, and its failure to disclose the felling when its application was heard on 04.03.2024, the Supreme Court held the disobedience wilful and the concealment criminal contempt, but, treating the episode as administrative misjudgement in pursuit of a genuine public purpose (a hospital for paramilitary personnel) and the roads as a fait accompli, closed the proceedings with directions for Committee-supervised compensatory afforestation, completion of the roads, an environmental fee and censure on responsible officials, and a possible levy on affluent private beneficiaries.

• ARIF MD. YEASIN JWADDER versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

  28/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 881

  An advocate's PIL alleging that 171 police encounters in Assam between May 2021 and August 2022 (56 deaths, 145 injured) violated the PUCL v. State of Maharashtra guidelines was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court as premature and vague. The Supreme Court set that aside: although the appellant had not conclusively proved violations and most instances were not shown to be non-compliant, the record was inconclusive on uniform magisterial inquiries and showed belated use of forensic reports, so the Article 21 stakes required independent verification. The Court entrusted the inquiry to the Assam Human Rights Commission, reviving its suo motu proceedings, with directions on public notice, victim participation, confidentiality, independent investigators, State cooperation and legal aid.

• CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

  28/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1179

  The Supreme Court upheld directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, issued in a PIL, requiring the Chandigarh Administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High Court (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) in alignment with the existing verandahs before Court Rooms 2 to 9, and to lay green paver blocks with tree plantation in the kutcha parking area. Neither direction violates paragraph 172 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines or the green-belt character of the land; contempt proceedings were kept in abeyance for twelve weeks.

• N.S. GNANESHWARAN ETC. versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  28/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 667

  The appellants, private individuals arrayed as accused in a bank-fraud prosecution under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought quashing after the Bank's dues were fully settled under a One Time Settlement and the recovery proceedings were closed. The High Court refused because the trial was at an advanced stage. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings: the commercial dispute stood fully resolved with no residual claim or public interest, and identical CBI cases on the same transactions had already been quashed with the State's SLPs dismissed.

• BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAG versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

  28/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 242

  The appellant sought quashing of an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging repeated sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage and refusal to marry on caste grounds. The High Court had only directed that no coercive steps be taken. The Supreme Court quashed both this FIR and the complainant's earlier FIR for cheating: the two FIRs over the same subject matter were irreconcilably contradictory, the later FIR alleged incidents pre-dating the earlier one that had gone unmentioned, undisputed chats showed the complainant's manipulative intent, and the caste allegation was an afterthought.

• AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  25/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 150

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 IPC alleging rape on a false promise of marriage, holding that the complainant's year-long consensual relationship with the accused, maintained while she was still married to another man, did not disclose consent vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC and that the prosecution fell within the Bhajan Lal categories of inherently improbable and malicious proceedings.

• OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL versus KAKIHO VILLAGE & ORS.

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2658

  In a dispute over State recognition of a new 'Sumi' village in Nagaland said to lie on the ancestral land of the appellant 'Zeliangrong' village, the Supreme Court held that the recognition procedure under the Office Memoranda of 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 was not shown to have been complied with, because the appellant's timely objection to the public notice was never decided on its merits, and that although the Cabinet's decision to keep recognition in abeyance pending the inter-district boundary dispute was not arbitrary when taken, the 2021 Cabinet Sub-Committee report showed the dispute had no nexus with the village; the State was directed to re-issue the public notice and decide all objections within six months.

• VINOD BIHARI LAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2448

  The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on a gang-chart built from five base FIRs for forgery, cheating and one assault, and the Allahabad High Court refused to quash. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings: the base FIRs did not disclose that the alleged offences were committed with the object of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantage as Section 2(b) read with Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules requires, the only other alleged gang member did not figure in three of the base FIRs, and the gang-chart had been approved by signatures on a pre-printed form without the joint meeting and recorded independent satisfaction mandated by Rules 5(3)(a), 16 and 17.

• AGNIRAJ & ORS. ETC. versus STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB-CID

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 856

  The Supreme Court acquitted eleven accused convicted of a triple murder arising from a panchayat election rivalry, holding that the first informant's account was exaggerated and doubtful, that a witness who stayed silent for 43 days and whose companion was never examined could not be believed, that a child witness examined on oath without preliminary questions and without a test identification parade had to be excluded, and that fingerprint evidence without a mahazar and unexhibited photographs failed; the Court also held that the Article 136 precedents on concurrent findings do not bar it from appreciating the evidence to see whether striking features were overlooked.

• SANJAY PRAKASH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2726

  Group-A officers of the CAPFs (CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, SSB) sought treatment as Organised Group A Services for all purposes, with consequential cadre review and amendment of recruitment rules to curb deputation of IPS officers up to Senior Administrative Grade. The Delhi High Court had held that Union of India v. Harananda declared CAPFs as OGAS only for grant of NFFU. The Supreme Court held that Harananda's declaration concerned the status of CAPFs as OGAS for all intents and purposes, that the DoPT OM of 12.07.2019 (overlooked by the High Court) had accepted that status for cadre review and related matters, and that all OGAS benefits should follow. It directed the overdue cadre review and review of recruitment rules within six months and a progressive reduction of deputation posts up to SAG within two years, while recognising IPS deputation as a policy matter.

• PETER AUGUSTINE versus K.V. XAVIER AND OTHERS

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1007

  The Supreme Court held that the Kerala High Court erred in remanding a title suit to the Trial Court a second time merely for appointment of another Court Commissioner, when the appeal could be decided by interpreting the sale deed, conveyance deed and settlement deed, all of which described the same area and boundaries. The appeal was allowed and the High Court was asked to decide the first appeal on merits within six months.

• THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA versus M.T. MANI AND ANOTHER

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1128

  A retired RBI employee who had declined four earlier options to switch from the Contributory Provident Fund to the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990, opted for pension under the last option offered by Administration Circular No. 1 of 14.09.2020, which paid pension prospectively from 01.07.2020 without arrears, and then claimed arrears from his retirement in 2014. The Kerala High Court's Division Bench allowed the claim as discriminatory. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's dismissal: the cut-off date was a valid policy decision founded on financial considerations, each option circular was a self-contained scheme, and the respondent could not accept the scheme's benefits while rejecting its no-arrears condition.

• SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM versus PRAKASAN & ORS.

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2185

  In execution of a 2003 decree for specific performance, the judgment-debtor's grandson, impleaded as her legal heir in 2008 without objection, applied in 2012 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for deletion of his name, claiming he was not an heir under Mohammedan law and was a protected tenant of the shop. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent rejection: having not objected under Order XXII Rule 4(2) when impleaded, nor sought revision, the impleadment order attained finality and the later application was barred by res judicata, which applies at successive stages of the same proceeding; the tenancy claim was unproved, and possession was implicit in the decree because exclusive possession lay with the contracting party. The appeal was dismissed with costs and possession ordered to be delivered within two months.

• JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2486

  The Supreme Court dismissed the Rajasthan Discoms' appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against APTEL's grant of change-in-law compensation and compounded carrying cost at LPS rates to Adani Power Rajasthan for Coal India's Evacuation Facility Charges notification of 19.12.2017. An appeal under Section 125 lies only on a substantial question of law as in Section 100 CPC; the only such question, the interplay of Articles 10.2.1 and 10.5 of the PPA, was answered by holding that adjustment runs from the date of the notification under Article 10.5.1(i), that Article 10.5.1(ii) applies only where a court, tribunal or governmental instrumentality changes the interpretation of law, and that a supplementary bill under Article 10.5.2 read with Article 8.8 is to be raised only after adjudication of the change-in-law claim.

• K. UMADEVI versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

  23/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2704

  The Supreme Court held that a Tamil Nadu government school teacher who had two children from a first marriage before entering service, both in the custody of her former husband, could not be denied maternity leave under FR 101(a) for the first child of her subsequent marriage. Reading the rule purposively in light of Article 21 (reproductive rights as a facet of personal liberty), Article 42, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, international conventions and Deepika Singh, the Court harmonised the State's two-child norm with the object of maternity benefit and directed that the leave be granted.

• M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 974

  A merchant exporter of soyabean meal was denied the 1% All Industry Rate customs duty drawback for periods before 20.09.2010 on the footing that CBEC Circular No. 35/2010-Cus., which confirmed that the customs component of drawback is available even where central excise rebate under Rules 18 or 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been taken, operated only prospectively. The Court held the Circular to be clarificatory and declaratory of the benefit already conferred by the drawback notifications since 2006, and therefore retrospective, and set aside the High Court's contrary judgment.

• IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 216

  Sequel to the Court's judgment of 20 August 2024 restoring the conviction of the accused under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) and (3) IPC for offences against a 14-year-old who later married him and bore his child. On the sentencing question deferred in that judgment, and after considering the reports of the expert committee it had appointed and interacting with the victim, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to direct that the accused, though convicted, will not undergo the statutory minimum sentence, because imprisoning him would make the victim, who had been failed by society, her family and the legal system, the worst sufferer. It directed the State to act as guardian of the victim and her child, with ongoing compliance reporting, and impleaded the Union to consider the amici's wider suggestions on adolescent welfare.

• STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2215

  State legislatures are competent under Entry 62 of List II to levy entertainment tax (or luxury tax) on DTH broadcasting service providers and cable television operators even though Parliament levies service tax on broadcasting under Entry 97 of List I: the two levies fall on distinct aspects of the same activity and there is no overlap in law. Purvi Communication was affirmed, the assessees' appeals were dismissed, Uttar Pradesh was held unable to tax DTH for the period before its 2009 amendment, and the Kerala High Court's striking down of luxury tax on cable operators with more than 7,500 connections was set aside.

• VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. versus MAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 190

  A landowner company sued to declare void sale deeds executed in July 2022 by its former attorney-holder after the power of attorney and an unregistered agreement to sell of 2014, allegedly given as security for a loan, had been revoked. The High Court in revision rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Supreme Court held that unregistered agreements to sell and powers of attorney confer no title or authority to convey, that the plaint raised triable issues of title and fraud, that a plaint cannot be rejected in part or where even one cause of action survives, and that the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred; the trial court's order dismissing the application was restored.

• KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 105

  A father sought habeas corpus for his son, arrested by the Andhra Pradesh CID in a liquor-policy case, contending that the written grounds of arrest served at the time of arrest were an eyewash lacking material particulars and so violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS. Distinguishing Vihaan Kumar, where no grounds had been supplied at all, the Court examined the grounds actually furnished, held that they conveyed sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the accusation and satisfied Article 22(1) as explained in Vihaan Kumar, and dismissed the appeal while leaving the accused free to seek regular bail.

• IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS versus

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1480

  Maharashtra sought a declaration that 86,409 hectares of 'Zudpi Jungle' lands in six Eastern Vidarbha districts, recorded as forest but long used for housing, agriculture by landless allottees and public and defence establishments, fall outside the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Court's order of 12.12.1996. Largely accepting the Central Empowered Committee's 2025 report, the Court held that Zudpi lands remain forest land, but, as a non-precedential exception grounded in the right to shelter and livelihood, the Directive Principles and sustainable development, directed the State to seek deletion of parcels allotted up to 12.12.1996 from the list of forest areas under Section 2 of the FC Act, to be approved without compensatory afforestation or NPV, with protection of fragmented parcels, removal of encroachments and transfer of over 7.76 lakh hectares for afforestation.

• CHANDRA BHAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 94

  Successful bidders for sand mining permits in Uttar Pradesh challenged demand notices requiring deposit of 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation Trust, contending the contribution was capped by Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 at a percentage of royalty. The Court held that Section 9B does not apply to minor minerals by virtue of Section 14, that Sections 15(4)(c) and 15A empower the State to fix the amount payable, and that Rule 10(2) of the 2017 Rules lets a State-prescribed amount prevail over the 10%-of-royalty default; the appeals were dismissed.

• STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, VISAKHAPATNAM versus ELURI SRINIVASA CHAKRAVARTHI AND OTHERS

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 988

  The CBI appealed against a High Court order affirming the discharge, under Section 239 CrPC, of eleven accused in a case alleging a conspiracy by a Cotton Corporation of India purchase officer, his son and others to sell hoarded cotton to the CCI at minimum support price through benami farmers, causing a loss of about Rs 21.19 crore. The Court set aside the discharge because the special court and the High Court had relied on correspondence between the CBI and the CCI summoned at the instance of the accused, which is impermissible at the charge-framing stage; the special court must decide the discharge applications afresh on the chargesheet and the Section 173 documents alone.

• HDFC BANK LIMITED versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2162

  The Bombay High Court had quashed a Section 138 NI Act complaint against a director of the borrower company for want of the averments required by Section 141 to fasten vicarious liability. The Supreme Court restored the proceedings, holding that the complaint need not parrot the words of Section 141(1); an averment that the directors were responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs, management and working, read with the other averments and annexed documents, is in substance the same as being in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, and the complainant is not required to plead the specific administrative role of each director.

• SAKHAWAT AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  22/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 139

  Appeal against concurrent convictions under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC for a 1981 night-time shooting and knife attack. The Court acquitted the appellants because three of the four eyewitnesses had admittedly sworn affidavits during the bail hearing stating the appellants were not the culprits, the investigating officer never recorded their further statements or controverted the affidavits, and the prosecution suppressed this material, making it unsafe to convict on the sole surviving eyewitness.

• DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  21/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1146

  Two teachers of the Air Force School, Bamrauli, run by the Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society, challenged Allahabad High Court judgments holding that the school is not 'State' under Article 12 and that their writ petitions over termination and disciplinary action were not maintainable. The two Judges differed. Oka, J. held that there was no evidence of government funding or pervasive IAF control, the Education Code is non-statutory, and the teachers' relationship with the school is a private contract without a public law element, so the appeals failed. Amanullah, J. held that the school performs the public function of imparting education under deep and pervasive control of serving IAF officers with funds traceable to the public exchequer, so it is an 'authority' amenable to Article 226 and within 'other authorities' in Article 12, and would have allowed the appeals.

• IN RE: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORTS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN FOREST SERVICE versus

  21/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1449

  Applications in the T.N. Godavarman proceedings challenged a Madhya Pradesh Government Order on writing Performance Appraisal Reports of Indian Forest Service officers, which required departmental reporting authorities to obtain notes from the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner and placed IAS officers in the appraisal channel. The Court held the G.O. violated its binding orders in the Santosh Bharti case (22 September 2000) and the subsequent order accepting the Central Empowered Committee's report: up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests the reporting and reviewing authorities must be the immediately superior officers within the Forest Department, and only for the PCCF may the reporting authority be an outsider to whom he reports. The G.O. was quashed and the State directed to reframe its rules within one month.

• PADMAN BIBHAR versus STATE OF ODISHA

  21/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1116

  Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC resting solely on evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased, with no recovery at his instance, no memorandum statement, an inconclusive chemical report and an unreliable motive, was set aside: 'last seen together' alone cannot sustain a murder conviction and suspicion cannot substitute for proof.

• PINKY MEENA versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR.

  21/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 79

  A probationer Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service was discharged after a Full Court resolution based on a vigilance inquiry into allegations that, while a government teacher, she pursued LL.B./B.Ed. and LL.M. degrees simultaneously with service, did not obtain a no-objection certificate, and failed to disclose her past government service in the interview checklist. The Court set aside the show cause notice and discharge order: the alleged misconduct predated her judicial service, she had resigned before the checklist was submitted so the omission was minor, her probation performance was unblemished, and the stigmatic discharge without a proper hearing violated natural justice.

• SHITAL FIBERS LIMITED versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

  20/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1248

  Three-Judge Bench reference arising from the split in ACIT v. Micro Labs Ltd on the meaning of Section 80-IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that sub-section (9) does not require the deduction allowed under Section 80-IA to be reduced from gross total income when computing a deduction under another provision of heading 'C' of Chapter VI-A (such as Section 80-HHC); it operates only at the stage of allowing the deduction, capping the aggregate of heading 'C' deductions at the profits and gains of the eligible business, approving the Bombay High Court in Associated Capsules and the view of Dipak Misra, J. in Micro Labs.

• S. JANAKI IYER versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  20/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 961

  A Kendriya Vidyalaya teacher dismissed for having got herself transferred under a fake transfer order challenged the dismissal, upheld by the CAT and the Bombay High Court, on grounds of a vague chargesheet, non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report and other documents, nine years' delay in the inquiry, non-compliance with Rule 15(2) CCS (CCA) Rules and absence of evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal: no prejudice was shown from any procedural lapse, the delay was explained, Rule 15(2) was complied with, and the purported signatory's denial of his signature was sufficient evidence on the preponderance-of-probability standard.

• ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  20/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1070

  Deciding eight issues framed in the long-running All India Judges Association proceedings on recruitment and promotion in the subordinate judiciary, the Court restored the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota for promotion to District Judge from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, reduced the qualifying service for that examination to three years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) with seven years' total service, introduced a 10 per cent LDCE quota for accelerated promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division), directed that LDCE vacancies be computed on cadre strength, required suitability rules for regular promotion, and reintroduced a minimum of three years' practice at the Bar (counted from provisional enrolment) for entry as Civil Judge (Junior Division), with one year's compulsory training.

• RAMJI PRASAD JAISWAL @ RAMJEE PRASAD JAISWAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

  19/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 582

  Three appellants convicted in a 1982 bank fraud case under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 appealed. The Court set aside the conviction of the third appellant because an inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 established that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed, and set aside the conviction of the other two because their examination under Section 313 CrPC consisted of four mechanical questions that did not put the incriminating evidence to them, a serious irregularity that could not be cured by remand more than four decades after the offence.

• SMT. SHAIFALI GUPTA versus SMT. VIDYA DEVI GUPTA & ORS.

  19/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 69

  Refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a family suit for partition of alleged joint Hindu family properties was upheld: whether the properties are held benami, or fall within the exceptions to a benami transaction under Section 2(9) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, is a question of fact to be decided on evidence and not on the plaint alone, and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 bars no suit. Special leave petitions by a defendant who had never sought rejection and by a subsequent purchaser were dismissed.

• RAVINDER SINGH SIDHU versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

  19/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2648

  Writ petition under Article 32 by the Managing Director of a company accused of running deposit schemes, facing 64 FIRs across 10 States, seeking consolidation of the FIRs. The Court declined the original prayer for transfer to one court (a similar prayer had been rejected in 2020) but, with the States' consent, directed that the FIRs in each State be merged with the earliest FIR of that State, to be tried by the Special Court where a State depositor-protection enactment is invoked.

• A.M. KULSHRESTHA versus UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

  19/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 42

  A charge sheet served on a bank officer twelve days before his superannuation, without receiving the Central Vigilance Commission's first-stage advice that the Bank had itself sought under Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations and had sworn it would await, was held mala fide and arbitrary. The disciplinary proceedings were quashed and the Bank was directed to release all retiral benefits, without back wages.

• /S PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  19/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2141

  An importer had furnished bank guarantees, under interim orders of the High Court, for the difference between customs duty under Section 14(1) and tariff-value duty under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. After the High Court dismissed its writ petitions, the department encashed the guarantees while the importer's appeals were pending in the Supreme Court, which later held the tariff notification unenforceable. The Court held that encashment of a bank guarantee furnished as security is not 'payment' of duty, so Section 27 of the Customs Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment do not apply to the return of the amounts, and directed refund with 6% interest.

• STATE OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, DAVANAGERE versus C B NAGARAJ

  19/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1037

  The State's appeal against the High Court's acquittal of a public servant convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was dismissed. The Court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and the only other witness to the demand incoherent, held that the chain of demand, acceptance and recovery was incomplete because the demand itself was not proved, and that the Section 20 presumption therefore had no application.

• GOPAL DIKSHIT versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

  18/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 14

  A householder's insurance claim for flood damage to his basement was repudiated on the ground that the loss was caused by seepage, a peril not named in the policy, and the NCDRC dismissed his complaint. The Court held, on the first survey report and the engineers' certificates, that the proximate cause was flooding from heavy rainfall and not seepage, rejected the unexplained second survey report as arbitrary, set aside the NCDRC order and remanded the matter solely for quantification of compensation.

• ROFIQUL HOQUE versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  18/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 569

  The appellant, declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Assam and unsuccessful before the High Court, argued that the authorities had been pedantic in discarding his voter-list and school-certificate evidence and that his subsequent inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC nullified the declaration. The Court held that the concurrent findings were not perverse given the Section 9 burden on the proceedee, and that under paragraph 3(2) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, as explained in Abdul Kuddus, a person already declared a foreigner could not be included in the NRC and such inclusion would not annul the Tribunal's declaration.

• HAKIM versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

  18/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 27

  Two appellants, a father and son, challenged concurrent convictions under Section 326A read with Section 34 IPC for an acid attack on a neighbour, and their life sentences. Applying the limited scope of interference with concurrent findings under Article 136, the Court upheld the convictions, rejecting pleas about the eye injury, non-recovery of the acid, delay in recording statements, the eyewitness's position, non-compliance with investigation SOPs and the first appellant's age. It reduced the first appellant's sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for parity with the co-accused who had played the same role, given his age of about 73 and serious ailments, but declined leniency to the second appellant, an advocate who poured the acid.

• SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI versus VIDHI RAWAL

  18/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 545

  The High Court had refused to entertain petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, reasoning that such proceedings are civil in nature. The Supreme Court held that although proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act are predominantly civil, the Magistrate is a criminal court under Section 6 CrPC and the second limb of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) empowers the High Court to quash Section 12(1) proceedings or orders under Sections 18 to 23 to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but that this power must be exercised with great restraint and only in cases of gross illegality or injustice.

• RAGHUNATH SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

  16/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2128

  The High Court, having quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on the basis of a compromise, later recalled that order under Section 482 CrPC because one party allegedly breached the compromise, and dismissed a review against the recall. The Supreme Court set aside the recall: Section 362 CrPC bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing its signed judgment or final order, inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to do what the Code prohibits, and breach of a compromise is a ground foreign to law for reviving a quashed FIR.

• VANASHAKTI versus UNION OF INDIA

  16/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2618

  Writ petitions and appeals challenging the MoEFCC notification of 14 March 2017 and Office Memorandum of 7 July 2021 which permitted environmental clearance (EC) to be granted to projects that had begun without prior EC. The Supreme Court held that ex post facto EC is alien to environmental jurisprudence and the EIA Notification 2006, that the 2021 OM in substance granted retrospective EC despite avoiding the words, and that both instruments violated Articles 14 and 21, the Environment (Protection) Act and binding precedent; they were struck down, with ECs already granted left undisturbed.

• THE STATE OF KERALA ETC. ETC. versus THE PRINCIPAL, KMCT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

  16/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2593

  Cross-appeals concerning a Kerala Government Order and Fee Regulatory Committee decision requiring self-financing medical colleges to remit Rs. 5 lakhs of each NRI student's fee to a State-held corpus fund for BPL scholarships. The Supreme Court held that neither paragraph 131 of P.A. Inamdar nor Sections 8A and 11 of the Kerala 2017 Act empower the Committee or the State to divert approved fees into a corpus fund without legislation, upheld the quashing of the GO, allowed the colleges to retain the amounts as trustees for subsidising BPL students, and refused refunds to NRI students.

• BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

  16/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 735

  Complainant's appeals against a High Court order granting regular bail to two accused in a murder case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had reversed the Sessions Court's reasoned refusal of bail with cryptic reasoning, and that the fact that the accused took the victim to hospital (where he was brought dead) had to be considered separately from who committed the offence. Bail was cancelled, the Sessions Court order restored and the accused directed to surrender.

• P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

  16/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1221

  Former public servants accused in the Andhra Pradesh liquor-policy case (Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) were refused anticipatory bail: the High Court had judiciously declined relief, custodial interrogation in corruption cases involving influential persons has value that a pre-arrest bail order would defeat, and a prima facie showing of political vendetta is only one relevant factor and does not by itself justify anticipatory bail. The Court disapproved the High Court's view that confessions of co-accused admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act can be looked into at the bail stage, and laid down how statements of accused persons under Section 161 CrPC may and may not be used at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.

• M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION versus NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2106

  The Court set aside a Division Bench judgment under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which had struck down an arbitral tribunal's pendente lite interest directions on the grounds that Section 31(7) recognises only two interest periods and that interest on principal plus pre-reference interest amounted to impermissible compound interest. Section 31(7)(a) gives the tribunal discretion to award interest for the whole or any part of the period from cause of action to award, to sub-divide that period, exclude a period of laches and apply different rates, and the 'sum' awarded on which post-award interest runs includes interest up to the award (Hyder Consulting), so neither reasoning was sustainable.

• POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED versus MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2062

  The High Court erred in admitting writ petitions by a State transmission utility against CERC tariff orders that, while not condoning the delay in commissioning inter-State transmission assets, gave the Central transmission utility liberty to claim compensation from the State utility whose downstream delay caused it. The CERC exercises both regulatory and adjudicatory functions under Section 79(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003; absence of a regulation under Section 178 does not disable it from filling a regulatory gap by orders between the parties, such orders are appealable to APTEL under Section 111, no Whirlpool exception applied, and the writ petitions were dismissed leaving the merits to APTEL.

• ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA versus DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2014

  In an appeal by a member of a seven-member receiver committee (including three advocates) appointed by the trial court to manage the Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, in a suit pending since 1999, the Court upheld the High Court's view that courts cannot run temples through receivers for decades under Order XL Rule 1 CPC and directed the trial court to appoint a receiver with administrative experience and a historical, religious and social background, preferably from the Vaishnav Sampradaya, rather than advocates. Exercising its plenary jurisdiction in the public interest, it also modified the High Court's PIL order on the Shri Banke Bihari Temple to permit the State to use the temple's fixed deposits to buy land for the proposed corridor, the land to be held in the name of the deity or trust.

• IN RE : ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS versus

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1047

  Suo motu proceedings taken up in 2019 on the rise in reported child rape cases, in which the Court had earlier directed the creation of centrally funded exclusive POCSO courts and prompt forensic reporting, were closed. Noting from the amicus's status chart that most States had set up exclusive courts but several still needed more, the Court reiterated that the statutory timelines for investigation and trial under the POCSO Act must be adhered to as far as possible.

• IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA versus

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1382

  Applications in the Godavarman forest matter concerning 11.89 hectares of reserved forest at Kondhwa Budruk, Pune, allotted by the Maharashtra Government in 1998 to a family and then sold with official permission to a housing society for multi-storeyed construction. The Supreme Court held that the land remained reserved forest since 1879, that its allotment without prior Central Government approval violated Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Court's 1996 directions, that desuetude did not apply, that the society was neither a bona fide purchaser nor entitled to alternate land, and that the Revenue Minister and Divisional Commissioner breached the public trust; the allotment, sale permission and environmental clearance were quashed and nationwide directions issued to return revenue-held forest lands to Forest Departments.

• M/S GAYATRI PROJECT LIMITED versus MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2534

  A 2011 arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of a contractor against a Madhya Pradesh State corporation was set aside by the Section 34 court and the High Court solely because the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 ought to have applied, though the corporation never objected to jurisdiction before the tribunal or in its original Section 34 petition. Reconciling Lion Engineering with L.G. Chaudhary (II), the Court held that a jurisdictional plea may be raised for the first time under Section 34 but is subject to deemed waiver under Section 4 read with Section 16(2) unless strong reasons are shown, that failure to raise the 1983 Act before the tribunal is not such a reason, and that an award already made cannot be annulled only on that ground. The Section 34 proceedings were restored for decision on the other grounds.

• V. S. R. MOHAN RAO versus K. S. R. MURTHY & ORS.

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 773

  The Court upheld a Special Court finding, affirmed by the High Court, that the appellant was a 'land grabber' under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in respect of 252 sq. yards falling in survey no. 9 though his sale deed described land in survey no. 10. Following Konda Lakshmana Bapuji, it held that 'land grabbing' carries both a broad and a narrow meaning, criminality in the trespass is not necessary, and the only intention required is that of illegally taking possession; once the applicant proves ownership prima facie, the onus under Section 10 shifts to the alleged grabber.

• VIRENDER PAL @ VIPIN versus STATE OF HARYANA

  15/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1054

  Appeal against conviction under Section 304-B IPC for the dowry death of the appellant's wife within about sixteen months of marriage. The Supreme Court held that the post-mortem showed death by ante-mortem injuries from mechanical violence, that consistent testimony of the deceased's father and brothers established dowry demands and harassment soon before death, and that the accused's divergent defences (accidental fall or suicide over a knee ailment) were unsubstantiated; the conviction and ten-year sentence were upheld.

• M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 431

  A Union of India money suit filed in August 2019 in the Commercial Court, Alipore without pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was kept in abeyance by the High Court with a direction to undergo mediation rather than rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Upholding that approach, the Court held that while Section 12A is mandatory from the date of the 2018 Amending Act, the consequence of rejection of the plaint declared in Patil Automation applies only to suits instituted on or after 20.08.2022; for earlier suits still pending, the court should keep the suit in abeyance and refer the parties to time-bound mediation when the defendant objects or a party wishes to mediate, and it also clarified the test for 'urgent interim relief'.

• MOHIT KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 499

  Two OBC candidates for Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector posts submitted caste certificates in the Central Government format rather than the State's Format-I required by clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification, and were treated as unreserved candidates. The Court held that the Board was not bound to accept the non-conforming certificates: the terms of an advertisement bind every aspirant equally, clause 5.4(4) was unambiguous about the consequence of non-compliance, and nothing prevented the candidates from obtaining a certificate in the prescribed format.

• NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 252

  In the NSEL payment-default matter, where a Committee appointed under Article 142 was executing decrees against defaulting trading members whose properties stood attached under the PMLA and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, the Court upheld the Committee's orders: secured creditors cannot claim priority under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act or Section 31B of the RDB Act over properties attached under the MPID Act, a validly enacted State law under List II which the Central banking statutes under List I cannot override without offending the federal structure, and properties attached under Section 4 of the MPID Act remain available for execution despite a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, there being no inconsistency between the two Acts.

• HANSURA BAI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 280

  Appeal by relatives of a man who died in police custody and of the sole eyewitness to the torture, against a High Court order refusing to transfer the investigation and refusing bail to the eyewitness. The Supreme Court held that, as the allegations were against the local police and no accused had been arrested for months, the investigation lacked credibility and had to be transferred to the CBI; it gave the eyewitness liberty to seek bail directly from the High Court and made senior State officials responsible for his safety.

• NAGARAJAN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 471

  In appeals by persons convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for offences committed in 2001 and 1985, the Court held that Section 20AA of that Act, read with the repeal-and-savings clause in Section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, excludes the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 CrPC for offences committed between 1976 and the 2006 repeal, and that the lighter penalties of the 2006 Act cannot be applied to mollify the sentence where the repealing statute expressly saves penalties incurred under the repealed Act. The sentences of imprisonment were nonetheless converted to fines, in the lead appeal because of a discrepancy between the public analyst's and the Central Food Laboratory's reports, and in the connected appeal by following the coordinate Bench decision in A.K. Sarkar & Co. on grounds of judicial comity.

• THE HP POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S BRUA HYDROWATT PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1360

  A generating company that signed a Connection Agreement with the State transmission licensee for a 66kV bay to be used jointly with two other generators was held solely liable to the licensee for the entire construction cost of the bay. The licensee was not a party to the generators' internal tripartite cost-sharing agreement and, for want of privity, could not recover proportionate shares from the other two generators; APTEL's contrary judgment was set aside and the State Commission's order restored.

• EBY CHERIAN versus JEREMA JOHN

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 202

  Pending a father's custody petition before the Family Court, the Court held that requiring an overseas-employed non-custodial parent to file a fresh interlocutory application for overnight access on every visit to India imposed an undue procedural burden on him and the child, and substituted a standing interim access schedule covering weekends, summer and festival vacations and video calls until the custody petition is decided.

• SHRICHAND RAJARAM KUKREJA AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 696

  An FIR under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC lodged by a sub-contractor against the directors of the main contractor over unpaid bills for sewerage plant work, and the chargesheet filed on it, were quashed. The allegations, taken at face value, disclosed only a commercial dispute over the balance due under a contract after admitted part payment, the forgery allegation was unsubstantiated by the inconclusive handwriting report, and the High Court's direction for a wide investigation into the appellants' finances rested on conjecture not supported by the Section 173(2) report.

• LAL MOHD. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 741

  An FIR under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act, registered against the appellants more than six months after two FIRs for a single incident of communal violence in which they had already been arrested and bailed, was quashed. A single incident with no subsequent criminal act, no material showing an organised structure or pattern of anti-social activity, and a gang chart prepared days after a relative's election nomination did not meet the thresholds of 'gang' and 'gangster' in Sections 2(b) and 2(c), and the belated invocation bore the hallmarks of a colourable exercise of power.

• NOBLE RESOURCES AND TRADING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ANDAGRO SERVICES PVT. LTD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  14/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1983

  An exporter imported crude degummed soyabean oil duty-free against a duty free credit entitlement certificate under customs exemption notification No. 53/2003, which excluded 'agricultural and dairy products'; customs demanded duty relying on a Board circular extending the exclusion to all products of agricultural origin including crude edible oil. The Supreme Court held that an administrative circular cannot enlarge the exclusionary clause of a statutory exemption notification, that extraction of crude degummed soyabean oil from soyabean is manufacture producing a distinct commodity, and that the oil is not an agricultural product; the exemption was therefore available.

• COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1316

  Appeals by the Competition Commission of India and the informant against the COMPAT's order setting aside a finding that Schott Glass India abused its dominant position in the market for neutral borosilicate glass tubing through volume and functional rebates, a long-term supply agreement with a related converter, tying of clear and amber tubes and refusal to supply. The Supreme Court held that although Schott India was dominant, none of the practices was discriminatory, exclusionary or a tie, that an effects-based analysis showing appreciable adverse effect on competition is an essential part of every Section 4 inquiry and was absent, and that the denial of cross-examination of adverse witnesses vitiated the proceedings.

• THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. versus DR. PASUPULETI NIRMALA HANUMANTHA RAO CHARITABLE TRUST

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1

  The State allotted about 3 acres of government land to a charitable trust in 2001 on payment of market value, subject to conditions including use only for the allotted purpose and resumption on breach; a trustee later executed a GPA concealing the allotment and a residential colony was carved out and plots sold. Reversing the High Court, which had treated the transaction as a sale and held the conditions void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court held that it was a conditional allotment under a statutory scheme (the Telangana Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975, G.O.Ms. No.635 and Board Standing Order 24), that the trust knew and admitted the conditions, that those Rules are not eclipsed by Section 10, and that cutting the colony was a fraud on the statute.

• TUKESH SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 266

  Eight accused convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for a double murder were acquitted because none of the injured eyewitnesses identified any accused in Court by ascribing a role, the material omissions in their police statements amounted to contradictions under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC, and their versions differed. An eyewitness who claims to know the accused must identify them in the dock; without that the prosecution cannot link the deposition to the persons on trial.

• JITENDER @ KALLA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1933

  On a reference arising from concerns recorded in Jitender @ Kalla about the regime for designating Senior Advocates laid down in Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2, a three-Judge Bench held that the 100-point assessment by a Permanent Committee (paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1) has not achieved its objective and shall not be implemented: participation of members of the Bar in the actual decision-making is contrary to Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, points for years of practice are not a rational criterion, a brief interview cannot assess suitability and offends the dignity of the profession, and the point system is subjective with no marks for integrity. The decision to designate must be that of the Full Court; applications may continue as consent; individual Judges cannot recommend candidates; High Courts are to frame Rules within four months.

• VIJAYA BANK & ANR. versus PRASHANT B NARNAWARE

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 240

  A public sector bank's appointment letter required a senior manager to serve a minimum of three years or pay Rs. 2 lakhs as liquidated damages; the High Court quashed the clause. The Supreme Court held that a restrictive covenant operating during the subsistence of employment is not a restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Contract Act and that, tested against the unequal bargaining power inherent in standard form employment contracts, a minimum service term with reasonable liquidated damages is not opposed to public policy under Section 23.

• HANUMANTHARAJU B (DEAD) BY LR. versus M AKRAM PASHA & ANR.

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1023

  In a motor-accident injury claim by a CRPF Sub-Inspector who was later discharged on medical grounds, the Court held that the High Court erred in deducting his pension from his salary to compute loss of earnings, in denying future prospects, and in preferring the Medical Board's 61.94% disability assessment over the unchallenged 78% assessment of the Tribunal-appointed Commissioner without reasons. Recomputing with the full salary, 30% future prospects, multiplier 14 and 78% disability, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 67,36,084 with 7% simple interest.

• M/S HARCHARAN DASS GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA

  13/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 422

  Following Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods, the Court held that the MSMED Act, 2006 overrides both the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the parties' own arbitration agreement, and that under Section 18(4) the Facilitation Council where the supplier is located has jurisdiction over a buyer anywhere in India. The Karnataka High Court's order holding that the Delhi Arbitration Centre lacked jurisdiction because the contract fixed the seat at Bengaluru was set aside and the Delhi arbitration restored.

• TUSHAR HIMATLAL JANI versus JASBIR SINGH VIJAN & ORS.

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 414

  The Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had restored an interim injunction restraining the owner of a 22,000 sq ft Mumbai property from dispossessing a person claiming tenancy rights over 550 sq ft under a family settlement. The claimant had no prima facie case while his tenancy claim remained pending, and the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoured the owner whose redevelopment was stalled; to balance equities the owner was directed to reserve one unit of about 550 sq ft in the developed property as security.

• THIRUNAGALINGAM versus LINGESWARAN & ANR.

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 253

  After the defendants' applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree for specific performance had failed finally (the Supreme Court having dismissed their SLPs on the ground that the delay was not properly explained), they filed a first appeal under Section 96(2) CPC with a 1116-day delay, which the first appellate court refused to condone but the High Court in revision condoned relying on N. Mohan v. R. Madhu. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order: N. Mohan was distinguishable because the defendants here had been duly served and had filed a written statement, and reiterating grounds for delay already held insufficient in the earlier round, merely under a different provision, is an abuse of process.

• NDA SECURITIES LTD. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 360

  During an incomplete investigation into a share purchase procured by an impersonating caller, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC ordered release on superdari of Rs.15.90 lakh of sale proceeds withheld by the BSE to the seller company, whose role was still under investigation and which the chargesheet named as the main beneficiary. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its inherent jurisdiction by effectively giving the seller a clean chit while the main accused was absconding; the orders of the Magistrate and the revisional court declining release were restored and the money is to stay with the BSE during the trial.

• JAWALA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD & ANR. versus HARESH

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 193

  In a miscellaneous application arising from the Court's 2018 order substituting an alternate apartment (No. 6503) for the one originally allotted to the respondent flat purchaser and alienated by the developer in breach of an NCDRC stay, the Court quantified what remained payable by the respondent after he had deposited the balance sale consideration and taken possession. Declining to decide each contested head, and weighing the developer's defaults against the fact that the balance consideration had remained with the purchaser, it fixed a lump sum of Rs.1,40,71,000 in lieu of all interest, taxes and other charges up to the date of possession.

• OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURE versus IRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LTD.

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 395

  While appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable 'excepted matters' under the contract. The Court held that Section 11(6A), which remains in force because its omission by the 2019 Amendment Act has not been notified, confines the referral court to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement; having found one, the High Court could not bisect the claims into arbitrable and non-arbitrable parts, and pleas of non-arbitrability are for the arbitral tribunal.

• P. SHANTHI PUGAZHENTHI versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPE/CBI/ACB/CHENNAI

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 372

  The appellant, wife of a public servant found to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period, was convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for abetting him, several of the assets standing in her name. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding on the authority of P. Nallammal that a person who keeps a public servant's disproportionate wealth in his or her own name abets the offence under Section 13(1)(e), and that it is immaterial that the appellant has since ceased to be the co-accused's wife.

• VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI versus AKASH TRIPATHI & ORS.

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 402

  Employees of dissolved electricity co-operative societies absorbed into the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board were held entitled to pension from the Board, the Court invoking Article 142 to avoid discrimination between similarly placed employees after a Full Bench of the High Court had denied pension. However, under Rules 3(p), 12(2) and 13(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, service rendered in the societies before absorption does not count as qualifying service, so pension runs from the date of absorption.

• RAJESH CHADDHA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 382

  The appellant husband's conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, affirmed in appeal and in revision by the High Court, was set aside. The complainant's allegations of dowry harassment were vague and omnibus, without date, time, place or any specific instance, the alleged assault and miscarriage were unsupported by any medical evidence, the only evidence was the testimony of the complainant and her father, and the FIR was lodged after the husband had filed for divorce. A cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof of guilt, and the High Court in revision ought to have examined whether the conviction was sustainable on the record.

• DEEP SHIKHA & ANR. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 365

  In a motor accident death claim, the Court held that a married daughter who fails to prove financial dependence on her deceased mother is a legal representative entitled only to the no-fault compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but that the deceased's aged mother, who lived with her and had no independent income, was a dependent whose claim the High Court wrongly rejected. Applying Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, the Court awarded the mother Rs 19,22,356.

• HARPREET SINGH TALWAR @ KABIR TALWAR versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT TH. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

  12/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 291

  Regular bail was refused to an accused alleged to have coordinated the import of heroin concealed as talc through a proxy firm as part of a transnational smuggling conspiracy charged under the NDPS Act, UAPA and IPC. Although no contraband was recovered from his consignment, the material met the prima facie threshold under Section 43D(5) UAPA, key witnesses remained to be examined amid a real risk of witness tampering, and custody since August 2022 alone did not warrant relaxation under Article 21; liberty was given to renew the plea after six months or on substantial progress of the trial.

• KUSHAL KUMAR AGARWAL versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  09/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 730

  A complaint by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA filed after 1 July 2024 is governed by Section 223 of the BNSS, whose first proviso bars a Magistrate from taking cognizance without first giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. As the Special Judge admittedly took cognizance without hearing the appellant, the order taking cognizance was set aside on that ground alone and the appellant was directed to appear before the Special Court for that hearing.

• TATA MOHAN RAO versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.

  09/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1375

  A Tehsildar, convicted of contempt by the High Court for demolishing dwellings on the subject land and evicting the occupants the night after the High Court had specifically restrained him, and sentenced to two months' simple imprisonment with a fine, appealed. The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction, holding that no one is above the law and disobedience of court orders attacks the foundation of the rule of law, but modified the sentence so that his family would not suffer the dismissal from service that imprisonment would entail: reversion from Deputy Collector to Tehsildar with seniority counted only from 31.10.2023, and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.

• K. MANGAYARKARASI & ANR. versus N.J. SUNDARESAN & ANR.

  09/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1199

  The Court declined to interfere with the reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of a suit for injunction and damages over the use of a trademark, where the defendants relied on assignment deeds containing an arbitration clause that the plaintiffs alleged were fabricated. Disputes arising from assignment or licence of a trademark are subordinate rights in personam and arbitrable, allegations of fraud do not oust the arbitral tribunal, and on a Section 8 application the court must refer the parties to arbitration without any discretion.

• WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. versus ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

  09/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1911

  In an appeal from a Single Judge's order in a defamation suit by ANI against Wikimedia, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, holding prima facie that a Wikipedia article and talk page commenting on the Single Judge's order and on the Bench's own observations amounted to interference in court proceedings, violation of the sub judice principle and bordered on contempt, directed Wikimedia to take down the pages within 36 hours. The Supreme Court set aside that direction as disproportionate: courts must remain open to debate and criticism even on sub judice matters, postponement of publication is permissible only on the Sahara tests of real and substantial risk, necessity and proportionality, and it is not the court's duty to tell the media to delete content or take it down.

• WARIS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  08/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 842

  In a death-sentence case under the IPC and the POCSO Act, the trial court appointed a legal aid defence counsel for the indigent accused and, on the same day, recorded the complete deposition and cross-examination of the star prosecution witness, the child victim's mother. Holding that failure to give an appointed legal aid counsel reasonable time to prepare vitiates the proceedings as a mistrial, the Court exercised powers under Sections 408 and 432 BNSS (Sections 367 and 391 CrPC) and remitted the matter for further cross-examination of that witness under witness-protection and other safeguards, keeping the appeal pending.

• C.T. KOCHOUSEPH versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC.

  08/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 310

  On a reference, a three-Judge Bench held that purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the pari materia Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is attracted when a dealer buys taxable goods from a seller exempted from payment of sales tax by notification and then consumes them in manufacture, disposes of them otherwise than by sale in the State, or despatches them outside the State otherwise than by inter-State sale. Exemption affects only payability, not taxability; Sections 5A and 7A are independent charging provisions whose nature as a tax on purchase is unchanged by the conditions attached, and their constitutional validity was upheld following M.K. Kandaswami, Hotel Balaji and Devi Dass, Goodyear not laying down correct law.

• RENUKA PRASAD versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

  08/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 160

  The Court restored the acquittal of six accused in a contract-killing case in which 71 of 87 prosecution witnesses, including the eyewitness son of the deceased, turned hostile. The High Court had convicted them on the testimony of the investigating officers, which merely repeated the witnesses' Section 161 CrPC statements and the accused's voluntary statements; such reliance violates Section 162 CrPC and Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, recoveries under Section 27 were not connected to the crime or to the alleged assailants, and a Section 27 disclosure cannot be used against co-accused under Section 30.

• PARITALA SUDHAKAR versus STATE OF TELANGANA

  08/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 180

  A Revenue Inspector's conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs.2,000 to prepare a drought-compensation report was set aside. The prosecution evidence was materially contradictory on how the tainted notes came to be placed in the bag on the appellant's motorcycle and whether he was present, the hand-wash test was negative, the complainant's wife who was present deposed to no demand, and a prior altercation was disbelieved without reasons; demand being unproved, the presumption under Section 20 did not arise and benefit of doubt was given.

• UMASHANKAR YADAV & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.

  08/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1306

  Members of an anti-trafficking organisation who accompanied labour officers on a brick-kiln inspection and took the labourers and children away to the police station before their statements were recorded were chargesheeted under Sections 186 and 353 IPC, and the High Court declined to quash. The Court held that the uncontroverted allegations disclosed no assault or criminal force on a public servant and no intention to obstruct, that the prosecution bore the marks of malice, and that in any event an FIR for the non-cognizable Section 186 offence without a Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) CrPC, and cognizance of it on a police report contrary to Section 195 CrPC, were impermissible; the prosecution was quashed.

• MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. versus M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.

  07/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2515

  Writ petitioners sought to restrain the State industrial corporation from dispossessing them of 53 acres claimed under registered sale deeds from a society whose own claim rested on an unregistered 1982 agreement of sale, 'validated' in 2006. Restoring the Single Judge's dismissal, the Court held that an agreement of sale or GPA transaction conveys no title (Suraj Lamp), that the validated agreement differed materially from the one earlier sued upon and smacked of fraud, and that a writ against dispossession requires proof of actual physical possession, which interim orders in earlier writ petitions cannot supply. All findings are prima facie; the parties may pursue civil or statutory remedies.

• P. NALLAMMAL versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICE, DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU

  07/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1854

  Split verdict on the conviction of a public servant's wife under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetting his acquisition of disproportionate assets. Dhulia J. would uphold the concurrent conviction: repeated registration of properties in her name during the check period, when she had no income of her own, showed intentional aid. Amanullah J. would acquit: name-lending by a spouse, without proof that she knew the funds were ill-gotten, does not satisfy Section 107 IPC and presuming her guilt would reverse the burden of proof. Both judges dismissed the appeals against the attachment order and against the High Court's administrative order relisting the criminal appeal; the papers of the conviction appeal go to the Chief Justice of India.

• RAJUMON T.M. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  07/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1279

  A sepoy invalided out with schizophrenia after about nine years' service was denied disability pension on a Medical Board opinion that the disease was a constitutional personality disorder. The Court held that under Regulation 423(d) of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces the Medical Board must record reasons for its opinion, that an opinion devoid of reasons cannot sustain discharge or denial of pension, and, since the Board's form was blank on history and reasons, granted disability pension with arrears limited to three years rather than remitting the matter after 27 years.

• M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR. versus M/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  07/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1263

  The Commercial Court refused an ex parte ad interim injunction against encashment of a bank guarantee sought in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within a Section 9 arbitration petition; the High Court, under Article 227, stayed encashment until disposal of the Section 9 petition. The Supreme Court declined to decide the questions of law raised (maintainability of the Article 227 petition in view of Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act, and interference with an unconditional bank guarantee), leaving them open, because the High Court's order was only an interim measure protecting both sides, the arbitration was under way, and the guarantee was being kept alive; it directed the Commercial Court to decide the Section 9 petition within eight weeks.

• TATA STEEL LTD. versus RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

  07/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 814

  The NCLAT condoned the delay in an appeal under Section 61 IBC against approval of a resolution plan by treating the 30-day period as expiring on the Monday after a Sunday. The Court held that limitation runs from the date the NCLT pronounced its order, that Section 4 of the Limitation Act extends only the prescribed 30-day period and not the 15-day condonable period, and that the NCLAT has no power to condone delay beyond 45 days; the appeal filed on the 46th and 47th day was time-barred and the condonation order was set aside.

• RAMKIRAT MUNILAL GOUD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 513

  A three-Judge Bench set aside the conviction and death sentence of a watchman for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a child aged under four, in a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the 'last seen' witnesses, whose statements were recorded only after the accused's arrest despite their names appearing in the spot panchnama, had been created by padding; that the extra-judicial confession was contradicted by the witness's own Section 164 statement; that recoveries made days after the police had already searched the chawl were doubtful and forensically neutral; that the soil-comparison report was neither proved through the expert nor conclusive; and that the prosecution's withholding of the forensic reports of other watchmen invited an adverse inference. The chain of circumstances being broken, the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released.

• SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDA versus CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANOTHER

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 7 S.C.R. 55

  In appeals concerning six disputed questions in CLAT 2025, the Supreme Court modified the Delhi High Court's directions, ordering that marks be given for two options in one question, that the answer key be corrected in another, and that three questions be deleted, while deprecating the casual manner in which the Consortium of National Law Universities framed the paper and reiterating that courts interfere in academic matters only when academicians act in a way that harms the career prospects of lakhs of students.

• ARABIAN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 798

  The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order refusing to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the insured had signed a full and final discharge voucher, holding that whether the voucher was signed under economic duress and whether the balance claim survives are questions for the arbitral tribunal, and itself appointed a sole arbitrator in view of the lapse of time.

• A. RAJA versus D. KUMAR

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1809

  The Kerala High Court had declared void the appellant's election from the Scheduled Caste-reserved Devikulam constituency, finding that he was not a Hindu Parayan of Kerala and had been baptised a Christian. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an election petitioner must plead and prove such a charge beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence of conversion was unreliable and mere observance of rituals is not professing another religion, that a caste or community certificate issued under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, a complete code, cannot be assailed in an election petition, and that the words in any trial in Section 10 of that Act do not extend to an election petition.

• TAHIR V. ISANI versus MADAN WAMAN CHODANKAR, (SINCE DECEASED) NOW THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS.

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2810

  The appellant, who bought the property from a purchaser of the original owner (a stranger to the suit), objected under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 CPC to execution of an ex parte ejectment decree obtained by the tenant against his partners. The High Court closed the enquiry treating him as a transferee pendente lite barred by Rule 102. The Supreme Court held that Rule 102 applies only to a person who traces title from the judgment-debtor by a transfer after institution of the suit; a purchaser from a third party may object even if the purchase was pendente lite, and the enquiry was ordered to continue.

• MOHAMMED ASARUDEEN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 707

  In an NIA-prosecuted UAPA trial, the Special Court on an omnibus application allowed the identity of fifteen witnesses and their Section 161 CrPC statements to be withheld until their examination-in-chief, and the High Court went further by barring supply of the statements even after examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court set aside both orders, holding that Section 44(2) UAPA (and the identical Section 17(2) NIA Act), being an exception to the accused's normal entitlement to witness statements, requires a recorded satisfaction based on material that the life of each individual witness is in danger, followed by a reasoned choice of protective measures; omnibus applications and blanket orders are impermissible, and the accused has a right of hearing on such applications.

• MOHIT SURESH HARCHANDRAI & ORS. versus HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

  06/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 764

  Cross-appeals over the per-square-foot rate of mesne profits payable by a public sector undertaking that remained in occupation of Harchandrai House, Mumbai, after an eviction decree. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's uniform rate of Rs 160 per sq. ft. per month, held that a Government or PSU tenant is entitled to no special consideration, reduced the interest to 6% simple per annum payable within three months, and requested the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to examine the pendency of landlord-tenant disputes.

• RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK versus GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR

  05/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 303

  The High Court reversed an acquittal and restored the appellant's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without dealing with the First Appellate Court's finding that the complainant was an unlicensed money-lender under the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001, which was a valid defence. Since the cheque amount and compensation had already been paid, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to compound the offence and acquit the appellant.

• HARJINDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

  05/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 168

  The Trial Court summoned respondent no. 2 under Section 319 CrPC to face trial for abetment of suicide on the sworn testimony of the complainant (PW1); the High Court set that aside under Section 482 CrPC, relying on alibi documents gathered during investigation. The Supreme Court held that Section 319 is triggered by evidence surfacing in court, that an untested alibi is a defence for trial and cannot be treated as conclusive at the summoning stage, and that the investigating officer's opinion does not bind the trial court; the summoning order was revived.

• SAROJ SALKAN versus HUMA SINGH & ORS.

  05/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 210

  The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and without any application by the defendants, of a daughter's suit for partition of her late father's properties, holding that the rule empowers a court on its own motion to dismiss a suit on the plaintiff's admissions, that the plaintiff could not go behind unchallenged consent decrees of 1977 and 1978 recognising her father and brother as owners, and that those decrees reflected a partition before 20 December 2004 so that the proviso to amended Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 excluded her claim.

• GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  05/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 307

  The High Court had dismissed the appellants' application to quash an FIR without issuing notice and without recording any reason. The Supreme Court held that a court declining even to issue notice must give reasons, or else issue notice and decide on merits after hearing both sides; the unreasoned dismissal violated natural justice and was set aside with a remand.

• SHUBHKARAN SINGH versus ABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.

  04/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 601

  The Supreme Court dismissed special leave petitions against orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and a review petition, holding that the power to recall a witness under that rule belongs to the court for clarifying evidence and cannot be invoked by a party to examine, cross-examine or re-examine a witness or to fill gaps in its case.

• THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus SMT. HONNAMMA & ORS.

  04/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 141

  A coolie travelling on a trailer attached to an insured tractor died when the trailer toppled due to the driver's negligence; the Tribunal had exonerated the insurer because the trailer and employee risk were not covered, but the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 13,28,940 and fastened liability on the insurer. The Supreme Court held that the insured tractor was the root cause of the accident so the insurer was liable despite the trailer not being separately insured, but, applying C M Jaya, the insurer's exclusive liability could not exceed the higher of the policy cover or the statutory limit (and not less than Rs. 9,50,000), with liberty to recover any excess from the owner.

• POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED versus CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.

  04/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 123

  Powergrid claimed de-capitalisation of three inter-connecting transformers in its Rihand I transmission system that burnt out in 2006 and additional capitalisation of the transformers diverted to replace them; the CERC and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity rejected the claims and held the net cost had to be met from Powergrid's self-insurance reserve. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Regulation 53 of the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2004 does not cover replacement of damaged transformers (which is operation and maintenance, not additional works, and the assets were not old), that the loss was covered by the self-insurance policy because fire was the proximate cause of the damage, and that the question of a revised availability certificate therefore did not arise.

• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus JITA LUHA

  02/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2799

  In a batch of State appeals against an Orissa High Court direction that compassionate-appointment applications filed before 17.02.2020 be considered under the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 rather than the 2020 Rules, the Supreme Court maintained the High Court's order, noting that the State's Amendment Rules notified on 04.04.2025 now require pending applications relating to deaths before the 2020 Rules to be dealt with under the rules prevailing on the date of death, and issued time-bound directions for processing the respondents' claims.

• KABIR PAHARIA versus NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND OTHERS

  02/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 653

  A Scheduled Caste candidate with benchmark disability (congenital absence of several fingers and toes) who ranked 176 in the SC-PwBD category in NEET-UG 2024 was declared ineligible for MBBS under NMC norms by successive medical boards, and the High Court upheld that. After a fresh AIIMS board, constituted on the Supreme Court's direction, found he performed all clinical skills satisfactorily except a minor difficulty in donning gloves, the Court held the denial of admission grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16, directed his admission at AIIMS in the 2025-26 session without re-taking NEET, and ordered the NMC to revise its guidelines within two months.

• ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED versus SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

  02/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1565

  The Supreme Court held that an arbitral tribunal has the power, on its own accord and in exercise of its competence under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement as a party to the arbitration, even where the non-signatory was not before the referral court under Section 11 and no notice under Section 21 was served on it, and dismissed the appeal of a holding company that had been joined to a counter-claim on the basis of the group of companies doctrine.

• DR. VIMAL SUKUMAR versus D. LAWRENCE & ORS.

  02/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1731

  Interlocutory appeals in four suits over the Church of South India: a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held the Special Synod meeting of 07.03.2022 not duly convened, declared the electoral college flawed, set aside the election of all Synod office bearers and appointed administrators. The Supreme Court set aside those orders and restored the Single Judge's prima facie findings: the Special Synod was duly convened; the constitutional amendments (including raising the clergy retirement age to 70) were not validly ratified by two-thirds of the diocesan councils and remain stayed, while the bye-law amendments were valid; the Moderator's election was invalid and a retired Judge will conduct a fresh election; the other office bearers' elections stand subject to the suits; and leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC, obtainable at any stage, is not a precondition for interim relief.

• M/S NARESH KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 718

  Batch of appeals and transferred cases on Punjab VAT. In the first group the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's view (following Amrit Banaspati) that the 2013 amendment to Section 29 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, extending the assessment period from three to six years with retrospective reach and validating the Commissioner's earlier extension orders, was valid; the appeals were dismissed with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy within three months without objection on limitation. In the second group, where the Revenue relied on State of Punjab v. Nokia India, the Court declined to examine Nokia's correctness, directed payment of principal tax dues only without interest or penalty, confined Nokia's binding effect to the Punjab and Chandigarh enactments for the relevant years, and re-transferred the Andhra Pradesh matters to that High Court.

• SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN versus HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 100

  Three contemnors convicted by the Madras High Court of criminal contempt for creating and producing fake High Court stay orders before a Court Amin executing a decree, and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment, appealed. The Supreme Court held the findings of guilt were based on cogent material and proved beyond reasonable doubt, that formal framing of charges is not essential in summary contempt proceedings so long as the contemnor knows the allegation, and that the action was not barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 because initiation is reckoned from the Single Judge's order of 05.09.2018 directing the matter to the contempt Bench, within a year of the contempt, even though notice issued only in 2022 after the file went missing. Convictions affirmed; sentence reduced to one month.

• SANTOSH DEVI versus SUNDER

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 156

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of three courts dismissing as time-barred a suit to set aside a registered sale deed to the extent of a half share, holding that a plaintiff who relies on fraud to escape limitation must plead its particulars as Order VII Rule 6 CPC requires, and that an alleged fraud in the sale transaction itself does not attract Section 17 of the Limitation Act unless the plaintiff was kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by that fraud.

• R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1778

  Directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police in Tamil Nadu challenged the placement of in-service (constabulary) candidates, selected against a 20% quota within the direct recruitment quota, en bloc above open-market recruits who had scored higher marks; this preference rested first on unnotified Government Orders of 1995, 1996 and 2009 and finally on a 2017 amendment to Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 made retrospective from 13.07.1995. The Supreme Court held that executive instructions cannot supplant statutory rules, struck down the 2017 seniority amendment and quashed the Government Order as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 while leaving the 20% reservation itself undisturbed, and directed that all gradation lists from 1995 be recast on the basis of marks, protecting promotions already made.

• M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOLKATA

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1891

  Coal India's subsidiary imported P&H shovel spares under a purchase order requiring, in addition to 100% of the FOB value payable to the US supplier, payment of 8% of FOB to the supplier's Indian agent (Voltas) as engineering and technical service charges. The Supreme Court upheld the customs authorities and CESTAT: the product support services were pre-importation activities directly relatable to the import and a condition of sale, so the charges were includible in the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and were not excluded by the Note to Rule 4.

• AMAN BHATIA versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 64

  A licensed stamp vendor was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding Rs 12 for a Rs 10 stamp paper. The Supreme Court held that licensed stamp vendors are public servants under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act, since the discount they receive under the Delhi Province Stamp Rules, 1934 is remuneration by the Government for performing a public duty, but set aside the conviction because the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• K.R. SURESH versus R. POORNIMA & ORS.

  01/05/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 22

  A purchaser whose suit for specific performance had been dismissed concurrently sought only the refund of Rs 20,00,000 paid as 'advance' under the agreement of sale. The Court held that, whatever its label, the sum was in substance earnest money given to bind the contract, adjustable against the price and liable to forfeiture on the purchaser's default; since time was of the essence and the balance was not paid within four months, the vendors were justified in forfeiting it. Forfeiture of earnest money is not a penalty attracting Section 74 of the Contract Act, and the clause was reciprocal rather than one-sided. Under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, refund of earnest money must be specifically claimed in the plaint or by amendment, which may be sought at any stage including appeal, but cannot be granted suo motu on a general prayer for other reliefs.

• PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  30/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2851

  Writ petitions under Article 32 by acid-attack survivors with facial and eye disfigurement and by a person with 100% blindness complained that digital KYC processes, which establish a 'live photograph' through blinking, head movement or face positioning, exclude persons with disabilities from banking, telecom and other essential services. The Court held that accessibility is integral to Article 21, that the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty, and that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 confers a statutory right to accessibility and reasonable accommodation in the KYC process. It issued twenty directions, including alternative modes of verifying liveness beyond eye-blinking, acceptance of thumb-impression images and paper-based KYC, accessibility audits and human review of rejected KYC applications.

• PAVUL YESU DHASAN versus THE REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

  30/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2549

  A police Inspector challenged a State Human Rights Commission order, upheld by the High Court, directing compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to a complainant (recoverable from him) for refusing to register an FIR and abusing the complainant's mother. The Supreme Court held that a citizen who comes to a police station to report an offence is entitled to be treated with dignity under Article 21, so the refusal and abusive conduct did violate human rights under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and dismissed the appeal.

• RAJU @ UMAKANT versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  30/04/2025 · [2025] 6 S.C.R. 1

  Appeal against concurrent convictions for abduction, wrongful confinement and gang rape under Sections 366, 342 and 376(2)(g) IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court upheld the IPC convictions on the prosecutrix's trustworthy sole testimony, holding that under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) an act of rape by one member of a group acting with common intention renders all liable, and that Section 114A of the Evidence Act raised a presumption of absence of consent. It set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act because there was no evidence that the victim's caste identity was one of the grounds for the offence, and reduced the life sentence for gang rape to ten years to match the co-accused.

• GAYATRI BALASAMY versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

  30/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2080

  A five-Judge Bench answered a reference on whether courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can modify an arbitral award, revisiting Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem. The majority (Sanjiv Khanna CJI) held that the power to set aside includes a limited power to modify: by severing an invalid, separable part of the award; by correcting clerical, computational or typographical errors apparent on the face of the record; by modifying post-award interest in some circumstances; and, with great caution, under Article 142. Kinnari Mullick was disapproved insofar as it required a written request under Section 34(4). Viswanathan J. dissented in part: Section 34 courts cannot modify an award or its interest (the remedy is remand under Section 34(4)) and Article 142 should not be so used; he agreed only on severance and correction of clerical errors.

• SHENBAGAVALLI AND ORS. versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT AND ANR.

  30/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2451

  The relatives of the deceased's wife were chargesheeted under Section 306 IPC on the strength of a suicide note describing a confrontation on 10.11.2013, about a month before the suicide on 09.12.2013, with no contact in between. The Supreme Court held that abetment requires a positive act of instigation or aid proximate to the suicide and visible mens rea; insulting words a month earlier do not suffice, so the proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.

• KANIZ AHMED versus SABUDDIN & ORS.

  30/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2467

  The petitioner challenged Calcutta High Court orders in a public interest litigation directing eviction of occupants and demolition of unauthorised floors by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with police assistance, and the dismissal of her review. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's approach, refused the petitioner's request for a chance to seek regularisation, reiterated that unauthorised construction must be demolished and that courts must not engage in judicial regularisation, and dismissed the special leave petitions.

• VISA COKE LIMITED versus M/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1950

  An operational creditor's Section 9 IBC petition was rejected by the NCLT and NCLAT because the Section 8 demand notice in Form 3 was addressed to the corporate debtor's Director, CFO and Manager-Commercial rather than to the company itself. The Supreme Court held that a demand notice addressed to key managerial personnel in their official capacity and delivered at the corporate debtor's registered office, whose subject and body demanded the debt from the corporate debtor, complies with Section 8 read with Rule 5 of the Adjudicating Authority Rules and amounts to deemed service; a procedural irregularity causing no prejudice cannot defeat a substantive right. The orders were set aside and the petition remanded to the NCLT for decision on merits, including the date of default and the plea of novation.

• K. VALARMATHI & ORS. versus KUMARESAN

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2461

  The High Court cannot, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, itself reject a plaint. Rejection of a plaint is governed by Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial court and is a deemed decree appealable under Section 96; by entertaining a prayer for rejection under Article 227 the High Court usurped the trial court's original jurisdiction and deprived the plaintiffs of their right of appeal. The order rejecting the plaint as barred by the Benami Act was set aside without any opinion on the merits.

• SHARDHAMMA & ANR. versus THE DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2045

  Purchasers of land originally granted to a Scheduled Caste grantee in 1946-47 challenged orders restoring the land under the Karnataka PTCL Act on an application filed in 1992 in respect of a 1969 sale. The Court held that although Section 5 of the PTCL Act prescribes no limitation, such an application must be made within a reasonable time and this one, filed over two decades after the sale, was barred by delay and laches; that the Saguvalli Chit itself stipulated a ten-year non-alienation period which the 1969 sale did not breach; and that the applicant, not being a descendant of the grantee, had no locus. The restoration orders and the High Court's judgments were set aside.

• FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHA versus SUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1943

  After a writ petition about condonation of delay in a Panchayat revision was disposed of on the respondent's statement that he would provide a 3-metre access, the High Court allowed the respondent's 'Application for Speaking to the Minutes' and modified the disposal order to tie the access to a plan marked 'X', and dismissed the appellant's review. The Supreme Court set aside both orders and restored the application to be decided afresh after hearing both sides, within the limited scope of such applications, without expressing any view on the merits.

• S.D. JAYAPRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1976

  Data Entry Operators engaged on contract between 1996 and 1999 and regularised prospectively in 2015 sought to have their contractual service counted for pension. Applying Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as interpreted in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, the Supreme Court held that the period of contractual service before regularisation must be counted towards pensionary benefits through the option mechanism in Rule 17, and directed the Union of India to indicate the mode and manner of exercising the option.

• RENUKA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1936

  The wife appealed against a High Court order quashing the criminal case under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC against her husband, after a coordinate bench had earlier refused to quash the same case against his siblings. The Court held that the High Court had impermissibly conducted a mini trial by weighing the FIR allegations against the wound certificate, that uncertainty about each accused's exact role was no ground to quash where constructive liability was alleged, that pendency of matrimonial proceedings does not by itself make a cruelty complaint malicious, and that the judge's failure to refer to and distinguish the earlier coordinate-bench order breached judicial discipline. The quashing order was set aside and the proceedings revived.

• SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA versus SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2073

  The Supreme Court restored the appointment of an Assistant Teacher whose TET certificate described him as MBC while he competed in the recruitment as BC, holding that there was no manipulation or undue advantage and that a discrepancy that does not affect eligibility cannot found a writ petition when the recruiting agency itself raised no objection.

• RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1983

  A writ petition under Article 32 and a civil appeal challenged Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which fix the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district, state and national commissions by the value of goods or services paid as consideration rather than by the compensation claimed. The Court upheld the provisions: Parliament may prescribe pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, consideration is an intelligible basis of classification because it is integral to contract formation and to the definition of 'consumer', and the classification has a rational nexus with creating a hierarchy of remedies and curbing inflated claims. Concerns about the working of the scheme were matters for performance audit, and the Central Consumer Protection Council and Central Consumer Protection Authority were directed to review and advise on the statute's working.

• ARATHY RAMACHANDRAN versus BIJAY RAJ MENON

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2063

  Interim custody dispute between a mother working from home in Thiruvananthapuram and a father employed in Singapore. The High Court, under Article 227, had granted the father 15 days' custody of both children (a daughter aged about eight and a son aged about three) every month. Applying the principle that the child's welfare is paramount, and after interacting in camera with the daughter, the Supreme Court found the arrangement neither feasible nor conducive to the children's well-being and reversed it, substituting custody of the daughter on alternate weekends, four hours' supervised interim custody of the son on one of those days, twice-weekly video calls, and directing the Family Court to expedite the guardianship petition.

• P. KUMARAKURUBARAN versus P. NARAYANAN & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2006

  The High Court, in revision, rejected the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation, reversing the trial court which had held that limitation required trial. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's order, holding that where the plaint specifically pleads the date on which the plaintiff learnt of the impugned sale deed, limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be decided at the threshold, and that the High Court ought not to have interfered under Section 115 CPC in the absence of any jurisdictional error.

• SRI MALAKAPPA & ORS. versus THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2058

  Claimants' appeal against the High Court's modification of a motor accident compensation award for the death of a 35-year-old woman riding pillion. The Court affirmed the finding of rash and negligent driving, held that the deceased's husband, having no specified employment, could not be assumed to be wholly non-dependent so the family was one of four and the deduction for personal expenses was 1/4, applied 40% future prospects under Pranay Sethi, extended loss of consortium to the two children, restored the proven medical expenses and disallowed a separate head for love and affection, re-determining the compensation at Rs 17,84,766.

• KAMAL DEV PRASAD versus MAHESH FORGE

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2053

  An employee operating a forging machine lost phalanges of four fingers of his right, working hand; the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 assessed 100% loss of earning capacity but the High Court reduced it to the Schedule I aggregate of 34%. The Supreme Court held that the scheduled percentages for individual finger injuries are not an inflexible ceiling where several injuries in one accident together destroy the functionality of the operational hand, assessed the loss of earning capacity at 50%, and restored interest and a proportionate penalty.

• PUNIT BERIWALA versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2421

  The Delhi High Court had quashed an FIR under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC against two members of an HUF who had signed as witnesses a 2004 receipt-cum-agreement to sell executed by a family member describing himself as Karta, when (as later revealed by a 2021 sale deed) one of them was the real Karta. The Supreme Court held that at the quashing stage the complaint must be taken as true, and so read it disclosed cognizable offences: the gravamen was their knowing participation in the misrepresentation, not mere attestation. The pendency of a civil suit, the handing over of 'paper' possession and delay were no grounds to quash, there being no limitation for offences punishable with over three years' imprisonment and the limitation period in any event running from knowledge. Cross-FIRs about the same transaction call for comprehensive investigation. FIR revived.

• STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER versus MISS BHAVNA TIWARI & ORS.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2687

  In a NEET-PG 2017-18 seat-blocking case the Allahabad High Court had awarded Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each of two candidates who, having accepted seats in the first two rounds, were excluded from the mop-up round, and had directed the State to reform its admission procedure. The Supreme Court held the compensation arbitrary and excessive, since the exclusion followed the then-prevailing procedure and this Court's directions and both candidates completed their courses; it substituted Rs. 1 lakh each towards litigation expenses, otherwise left the High Court's order undisturbed in view of the reforms since adopted by the State and the National Medical Commission, and issued ten directions to curb seat blocking, including a nationally synchronised counselling calendar, fee disclosure, upgrade windows, penalties, Aadhaar-based seat tracking and third-party oversight under the NMC.

• JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. versus RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR. ETC.

  29/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2028

  Rajasthan distribution licensees appealed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against an APTEL judgment setting aside the State Commission's order of 1 December 2016 determining the cross-subsidy surcharge (CSS) for open access consumers on the basis of the tariff fixed for FY 2015-16 by the order of 22 September 2016. The Supreme Court held that neither the Act nor the Rajasthan Tariff Regulations, 2014 require the CSS to be determined simultaneously with the tariff; under Regulation 90 the CSS is computed from the prevailing tariff, so the Commission's separate determination was valid. The APTEL judgment was set aside and the Commission's order restored for the period until the next tariff order of 2 November 2017.

• CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED versus SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1846

  The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's restoration of an arbitral award that had sustained an employer's deduction of liquidated damages for delayed completion of a construction contract, holding that the Single Judge, by reading the extension-of-time clause as excluding liquidated damages, had substituted his own plausible interpretation for the arbitrator's and so travelled beyond the grounds in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

• K.P. TAMILMARAN versus THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1865

  Eleven accused, including a Sub-Inspector and an Inspector of police, challenged the Madras High Court's affirmation of their convictions for the 2003 honour-killing of a young inter-caste couple who were forcibly poisoned before villagers. The Court held that the evidence of witnesses cross-examined by the prosecution under s.154 Evidence Act is not wiped off the record, that an eyewitness omitted from the chargesheet was rightly summoned later as a prosecution witness under s.311 CrPC, and that the two police officers who knew of the deaths yet registered no FIR for nine days, one of whom then fabricated a confession to implicate the victim's Dalit relatives, were rightly convicted under ss.217/218 IPC and ss.3(2)(i)/4 of the SC/ST Act. Appeals dismissed; Rs.5 lakh additional compensation awarded.

• GBJ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SRIHARAN SRIPATHMANATHAN & ORS.

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2444

  The Supreme Court, having itself invited improved sealed bids for a secured asset auctioned under the SARFAESI Act after the High Court had entertained a higher third-party offer, confirmed the sale to the higher bidder, fixed 18% interest on the refunded deposit of the original auction purchaser, and left all other questions, including the quantum of the debt, open.

• M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - II

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1792

  Re-classification of Benzene and Toluene from sub-heading 2902.00 to 2707.10 and 2707.20 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the resulting differential duty demand for September 1990 to December 1992, rested on chemical test reports of which only a gist was given in the show-cause notices. The Supreme Court held this breached Rule 56(2) and (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and natural justice, since a manufacturer can seek a re-test within 90 days only on receiving the report; belated sampling after approval of the classification list under Rule 173B compounded the doubt. Assessments for January and February 1993 were also not provisional: Rule 9B requires a written order of the proper officer and a bond, a Superintendent's endorsement on RT-12 returns does not suffice, and a later order of 18.10.1993 could not operate retrospectively. All three appeals allowed.

• RAVISH SINGH RANA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2722

  FIR under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC quashed. Where two adults lived together as a live-in couple in rented accommodation for over two years, a presumption arises that the physical relationship was based on valid consent; a later refusal to marry does not convert it into rape on a false promise of marriage, particularly where the FIR does not allege that physical relations were established only because of the promise and an undisputed settlement agreement of 19.11.2023 records that the parties loved each other. The allegations of assault and abuse lacked material particulars.

• NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus KAMLESH AND OTHERS.

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2594

  The dependants of a 43-year-old Haryana Government employee killed in a motor accident were also entitled to financial assistance under the Haryana Compensation Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, and the High Court deducted half of that assistance from the Motor Vehicles Act compensation. The Court held that it was bound by the three-Judge decision in Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, under which the pay and allowances payable under the 2006 Rules are deducted from the loss-of-income component (but not from consortium or other conventional heads), disagreed with the two-Judge decision in Krishna v. Tek Chand, and held that Sebastiani Lakra had not diluted Shashi Sharma. Compensation was recomputed at Rs.7,86,119 with no refund of amounts already paid.

• CHUNNI BAI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  28/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1816

  A mother convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing her daughters aged five and three with an iron crowbar. That she caused the deaths was proved by an eyewitness, corroboration, recovery of the blood-stained weapon and medical evidence. But her Section 313 CrPC plea of acting under an 'invisible power', the total absence of motive in a loving, normal household, her remorse, her not fleeing, and an unexamined police statement that she had recently been babbling and taken to a psychiatrist raised reasonable doubt about intention to cause death. Without medical evidence Section 84 IPC could not found an acquittal, but the conviction was altered to Section 304 Part II with sentence of the period undergone. Trial courts should use Section 165 of the Evidence Act to question witnesses when such inexplicable circumstances or pleas of even temporary unsoundness of mind arise.

• CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SURENDRA PATWA & ORS

  25/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1771

  In a batch of appeals by the CBI and lender banks, the Supreme Court held that High Courts erred in quashing FIRs and criminal proceedings merely because the banks' administrative action of classifying borrower accounts as fraud under the RBI Master Directions on Frauds had been set aside for breach of natural justice; administrative action and criminal proceedings stand on different footings, no hearing is required before an FIR is registered, and the banks remain free to proceed afresh after hearing the borrowers.

• SHAKUNTLA DEVI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  25/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1914

  A mother-in-law convicted by the Trial Court under ss.304B and 498A IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was acquitted of those charges by the High Court but convicted under s.306 IPC for abetting her daughter-in-law's suicide by poison and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The Court affirmed: the deceased's 17-year-old brother, who was staying in the house, gave a natural and candid account of the appellant abusing the deceased twice on the day of her death against a background of persistent dowry-related torture, the prosecution's restraint in accusing the appellant alone lent it credibility, the ingredients of s.306 were proved, and the sentence appropriately reflected the appellant's age.

• OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WEL. ASON versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

  25/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2397

  In proceedings arising from a 1996 Article 32 petition by allottees of the Okhla Enclave colony at Faridabad, where a single-member Special Committee (Justice Vikramjit Sen, retd.) had finalised eligible allottees, the Court disposed of a batch of interlocutory applications. It referred late claimants to the Special Committee, modified its order of 03.10.2019 so that general-category allottees held ineligible for multiple plots within one family may join the second round of scrutiny, required 480 members of the appellant association who never submitted to scrutiny to appear before the Scrutiny Committee, refused to review the Committee's final list, deferred part-payment NPNL claimants to a second phase, and directed the State of Haryana on the plotted-area share, a fresh layout plan and encroachments.

• THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & OTHERS versus S. LALITHA & OTHERS

  24/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1734

  A Doordarshan employee who had accepted second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme in 2010 and 2015 made a representation in October 2016 claiming the second upgradation under the earlier ACP Scheme due in March 2009, and moved the Central Administrative Tribunal within weeks of its rejection. The Supreme Court held the original application time-barred: under Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 a belated, non-statutory representation on a stale claim does not postpone the cause of action, and limitation is reckoned from the accrual of the cause of action and, where no order is passed on a representation, one year from the expiry of six months from it. Though the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not deciding maintainability, the Court, under Article 142, declined to interfere or direct any refund from the respondent, who had retired in 2018.

• M/S CHITHRA WOODS MANORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus SHAJI AUGUSTINE

  24/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2707

  The Supreme Court held a licensee of a resort property guilty of civil contempt for wilfully disobeying its interim order directing payment of use and occupation charges and arrears, rejecting the plea of penury raised for the first time after prolonged non-compliance, and sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine, suspended for 30 days to allow him to purge the contempt.

• MURLIDHAR AGGARWAL (D.) THR. HIS LR. ATUL KUMAR AGGARWAL versus MAHENDRA PRATAP KAKAN (D.) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

  24/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1753

  A landlord sought release of a cinema building, let in 1952 on a ten-year lease, under s.21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority ordered eviction in 1983 on bona fide need and comparative hardship, but the Appellate Authority reversed and the High Court affirmed. The Court held that the Appellate Authority's reasons for dislodging the bona fide-need finding were untenable, that after the landlord's death his son could prosecute the application on his own need under s.21(7), that the tenant family's other businesses and Rule 16(2)(c) did not neutralise the landlord's need, and that the tenant's failure in decades of litigation to seek alternative accommodation weighed against him; appeal allowed and eviction restored with time until 31.12.2025.

• DASHRATH versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  24/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2536

  Conviction of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 affirmed: sanction was not vitiated merely because the sanctioning authority approved a draft order; investigation by an Inspector of Police was valid under a Maharashtra Government Order of 19.04.1989 issued under the first proviso to Section 17, which has the force of law and is judicially noticeable; the demand was proved. Article 142 cannot be used to reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum, and a prison-term waiver is available only in rare, extraordinary cases on unimpeachable evidence. Considering the 25-year-old incident and the appellant's advanced age, the sentence under Section 7 was altered from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment.

• RAJU NARYANA SWAMY versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1723

  The Supreme Court dismissed an IAS officer's challenge to the rejection of his review application against non-empanelment for promotion to the Chief Secretary grade. Applying the principles in Badrinath, the Court held that the Review Committee could consider the entire service record; adverse entries prior to the 2016 promotion were weak material but a continuing post-promotion trend of indiscipline, including a year of unauthorised absence in 2019-20, justified the decision, which was neither mala fide nor Wednesbury unreasonable.

• HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS. versus HABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2320

  A plaintiff who is neither the executant of a sale deed nor a person claiming through the executant is not obliged to sue for its cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; it is enough to seek a declaration of title, and the proviso to Section 34 does not bar such a suit for want of a prayer for cancellation or a declaration that the deed is not binding. The High Court, having concurred with both courts below that the plaintiff's registered gift deed of 1958 was valid, erred in dismissing his suit merely because he had not sought cancellation of a 1997 sale deed executed by persons with no title; the trial court's decree was restored.

• MUPPIDI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1715

  The husband's sister-in-law, her husband and her father-in-law, who lived at Hyderabad while the complainant lived at Guntur, had been arraigned in a dowry-related criminal case on allegations that they visited Guntur, taunted her and instigated the husband and his parents to demand more dowry. Applying Geeta Mehrotra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana, the Court quashed the case against them because the allegations were omnibus and general, without any specific date or act of physical torture.

• DURGA PRASAD versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1572

  The Supreme Court held that, where the High Court had quashed a penalty of reduction in rank imposed on a retired police officer for alleged dereliction during the 1984 Delhi riots because the disciplinary authority's disagreement note pre-judged his guilt, it ought not to have granted liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note: after a lapse of about 40 years, the officer's retirement and advanced age, and a detailed inquiry report of exoneration that the cryptic dissent note did not answer, the Court put a quietus to the proceedings and granted full consequential benefits.

• RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS. versus PRASHANT GARG & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2364

  A suit filed in 2003 to cancel two registered sale deeds of 1992, recover possession and restrain the purchasers was barred by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963: cancellation was the primary relief, possession only ancillary, and the right to sue first accrued in June 1992 when the plaintiffs knew of the sales. The deeds were not void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act since the pending suit was collusive, and the purchasers from a person mutated as owner since 1956 were protected under Section 41; the will founding the plaintiffs' title was not proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act nor presumable under the Uttar Pradesh Section 90A; and the first appellate court could not decree possession without any declaration or cancellation. The trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

• STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SANJAY KUMAR

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1708

  The State's appeals against the High Court's acquittal of the accused of kidnapping and rape of a 14-year-old prosecutrix and of a co-accused under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC were dismissed. The prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC placed the rape on the night of 31 March 2012 at the co-accused's house, while in court she said it occurred on 30 March 2012 at another house; the accused was not with her on the later night and the owner of the house where the rape allegedly occurred did not support the prosecution. The High Court's view was a plausible one, so interference with the acquittal was not warranted.

• PRAMILA DEVI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1695

  The Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court judgment that had quashed a cognizance order under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC and the SC/ST Act for not disclosing the prima facie material against the accused and remitted the matter for a fresh order. Following Bhushan Kumar and Rakhi Mishra, the Court held that an order taking cognizance or issuing process need not record detailed reasons; it is enough that the Magistrate applied his mind to the case diary and record and found a prima facie case. The appellants were left free to seek discharge at the stage of framing of charge.

• SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA (MOMIN) versus SHIA IMAMI ISMAILI MOMIN JAMAT SAMAJ & ORS

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1921

  The Supreme Court affirmed a Gujarat High Court Larger Bench ruling that a party on record who disputes the existence or validity of a compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC must first apply to the trial court under the proviso to that rule; no direct first appeal lies against the consent decree in view of Section 96(3), Order XLIII Rule 1A creates no independent right of appeal, and appeals from order under the deleted Order XLIII Rule 1(m) are incompetent since 1976. The appellant's appeals from orders against two consent decrees were rightly dismissed, with liberty to invoke the proviso.

• BIJENDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1550

  The Supreme Court set aside Armed Forces Tribunal orders denying the disability element of disability pension to a soldier invalided out with a seizure disorder assessed below 20%, holding that where no disease was noted at entry the disability is presumed attributable to military service unless the employer rebuts it with reasons, and that a disability leading to invalidment must be assumed to be above 20% and attracts 50% disability pension.

• SRI SHRIKANTH NS & ORS. versus K. MUNIVENKATAPPA & ANR.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1543

  In a regular appeal against a trial court's rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the First Appellate Court cannot allow an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC directing a defendant (the Tehsildar) to produce a 1939-40 mutation register extract. Order XI Rule 14 operates during the pendency of a suit; once the plaint stood rejected and the evidence stage never arrived, the appellate court was confined to the contents of the plaint. The Supreme Court's earlier observation in a criminal SLP that the civil court's determination of the sale deed's validity would not be prejudiced did not enlarge the appellate court's powers. The order on production was set aside; the order permitting additional grounds in the appeal was affirmed.

• PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1622

  Two candidates selected in the 2003 Civil Judge (Class-II) recruitment in Chhattisgarh were appointed only on 08.07.2013, pursuant to a High Court order of 02.05.2012 which directed that their seniority be reckoned from the date of appointment, and claimed seniority over the batches appointed in 2006, 2008 and 2012. The Court declined to revisit the 2012 order, which had attained finality on dismissal of the State's SLP, but held that the right to appointment accrued on 02.05.2012 and that the State's delay in implementing the order could not prejudice the appellants; they were directed to be shown senior to the officers appointed on 10.07.2012.

• RAJAN CHADHA & ANR. versus SANJAY ARORA

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1603

  Once a Single Judge of the High Court had held the respondent guilty of contempt and granted time to purge it, a successor Single Judge on change of roster could not revisit that finding and hold that no contempt was committed; doing so amounted to sitting in appeal over a coordinate Bench. The Supreme Court set aside the later order and remitted the matter to the stage after the finding of guilt.

• SIVAKUMAR versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1688

  The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery against an HDFC officer arising from a SARFAESI auction sale of property that had already been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The appellant was not the authorised officer when the auction was held and the sale certificate issued in 2012; he became Manager only in November 2014 and had no role in the transaction, so continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

• STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS versus DR. MOOL RAJ KOTWAL

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2347

  The Supreme Court held that a Sikkim government servant who has availed leave encashment of the maximum 300 days on superannuation under Rule 36 of the Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982 cannot claim leave encashment a second time on being relieved after re-employment. Rule 32, which applies the Leave Rules to re-employed servants as if newly entered in service, governs grant of leave during re-employment and does not revive the 300-day encashment; Rules 32 and 36 operate in different spheres. The State's clarificatory memorandum and cancellation of the second sanction were upheld.

• X ETC. versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1909

  The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court order that had quashed FIRs under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act against a school computer teacher accused of touching female students' hands in the computer lab, asking invasive questions and sending obscene images. The High Court had conducted a mini trial on preliminary statements and wrongly read Section 7 as requiring physical contact of a particular kind; the allegations prima facie fell within 'any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact', and the matter was restored for trial with protective directions.

• MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1662

  The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a CID constable after disciplinary proceedings, holding that the State's failure to produce the departmental file despite a court order attracted an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, that the charges were vague and the appellant was denied cross-examination of the key witness and the complainant was never examined, and that the finding on the principal charge could not survive his acquittal on substantially identical charges; reinstatement being impossible, lump-sum compensation of Rs. 30 lakh with costs was awarded.

• RAMYASH @ LAL BAHADUR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1630

  The Allahabad High Court, having dismissed the accused's appeals and affirmed their convictions under s.302 IPC by judgment dated 21.05.2018, later allowed a 'correction application' under s.362 CrPC, replaced the last five paragraphs, converted the convictions to s.304 Part II IPC and reduced the sentences. The Court held that s.362 bars a court from altering or reviewing its signed judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, that substituting new reasoning and a different conviction is not such a correction, and that inherent power cannot be used to do what s.362 prohibits. The complainant's appeals were allowed and the impugned order quashed, with liberty to the accused to challenge the original judgment.

• RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR. versus M. MANJULA & ORS.

  23/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1522

  The father and brother of a deceased realtor challenged a Karnataka High Court order under Article 226 directing the CBI to conduct further investigation into his death, which the local police had closed as suicide and an SIT had ended with a 'B' report that the Magistrate rejected. The Court held that the appellants could not question the Magistrate's direction to register the FIR after withdrawing their s.482 CrPC petition against it, that a prospective accused has no right to be heard on or to challenge a direction for further investigation, and that on the facts the High Court rightly entrusted the investigation to the CBI; appeals dismissed with an eight-month timeline.

• S.C. NARANG versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2553

  The Chairman of the managing committee of a school had been summoned under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 after a nursery child was allegedly sexually assaulted by a classmate, on the footing that CCTV guidelines had not been implemented. The Court set the summons aside: Section 75 reaches only a person who has the actual charge of, or control over, the victim child, and control over the management of an institution is not control over every child studying in it.

• RAMANUJ KUMAR versus PRIYANKA

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1502

  The husband's petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act had been dismissed by the Family Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court, finding that the parties had lived apart for over eleven years, that mediation had failed and that neither wished to revive the marriage, dissolved it under Article 142 of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, while granting the wife visitation rights of two days a month with the daughter living with the husband, without deciding custody.

• CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus RAMESH CHANDER DIWAN

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1476

  An engineer appointed by the Government of Punjab, sent on deputation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and then to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, was prosecuted by the CBI for IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act offences without sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court upheld his discharge for the IPC offences: a deputationist who is neither absorbed nor divested of his status by any valid order remains a public servant under clause (a) of the Twelfth description in Section 21 IPC, removable only by the parent Government, so prior sanction was required. Liberty to seek sanction under Section 218 BNSS was refused because pending proceedings continue under the repealed CrPC.

• NIDHI BHARGAVA & ORS. A1: NIDHI BHARGAVA A2: MANUJ BHARGAVA A3: ANUJ BHARGAVA versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. R1: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER R2: K. L. BHARGAVA R3: ANIL KUMAR KUKREJA

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1468

  In a motor accident death claim the High Court had cut the Tribunal's award from Rs 31,41,000 to Rs 16,97,370 by excluding the deceased's income tax return for assessment year 2008-09 because it was filed after the accident. The Court restored the Tribunal's award: a return covers the financial year it relates to, which here ended before the accident, and the date of filing is irrelevant; income tax returns are reliable statutory evidence of income and the Tribunal has discretion to average returns of different years or rely on one of them.

• AEJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1507

  Appeals by the complainant and the State against the High Court's acquittal of the accused, who had been sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC for burning his wife and three daughters, were dismissed. The child eyewitness's testimony was unsafe because the trial judge administered the oath without any preliminary examination of his competence and major contradictions with his police statement were proved; the dying declarations had to be excluded because they were never put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and a remand to cure that defect 14 years after the incident would be unjust. The unexplained burn injuries of the accused and the co-accused added to the doubt, and the High Court's view was a possible one.

• CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHER versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2306

  The conviction of the deceased's mother-in-law and husband under Section 498A IPC, resting on concurrent findings of fact, was maintained, and the prayer to substitute imprisonment with fine was rejected because Section 498A makes fine additional, not alternative, to imprisonment. However, both the trial court and the High Court had omitted to consider probation. Holding that where the circumstances in Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are attracted a court has a mandatory duty to consider release on probation and to record reasons if it declines, the Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the question of probation after obtaining a probation officer's report.

• M/S J N REAL ESTATE versus SHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2663

  The Supreme Court restored a trial court order impleading, under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, a purchaser claiming title under a probated will and a registered sale deed as a defendant in a suit for specific performance and injunction over the same property. The High Court, under Article 227, had set aside the impleadment by doubting the genuineness of the purchaser's transaction; the Supreme Court held that genuineness is for trial, that a person who is not a necessary party may still be a proper party whose presence enables effective adjudication, and that the plaintiff had not opposed the impleadment.

• ANGADI CHANDRANNA versus SHANKAR & ORS.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1417

  The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court second-appeal judgment that had restored a partition decree in favour of the sons and daughters of the vendor, holding that the High Court re-appreciated evidence without any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and misidentified the suit property. Property that a coparcener obtains on partition becomes his self-acquired property; the suit land, bought by the father from his brother with a loan, was his self-acquired property, which he could validly sell, and the doctrine of blending did not arise.

• BARLA RAM REDDY versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2284

  In cross-appeals over compensation for land in Narsingi and Poppalguda villages acquired in 2005-06 for Hyderabad's Outer Ring Road, the Court held that the High Court erred in fixing market value at Rs 1,35,00,000 per acre on the strength of the post-notification auction of developed 'Golden Mile' plots. Relying instead on the only pre-notification sale deeds of adjoining land (Rs 31,00,000 per acre in early 2004) escalated at 20% per year compounded, the Court fixed market value at Rs 44,64,000 per acre and directed that interest be paid at the rates in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rather than 12%.

• IN RE: COMPENSATION AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS versus NA

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1613

  In a suo motu writ petition prompted by a retired District Judge's email about large compensation amounts under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 lying unclaimed with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts, the Court, noting that few States appear to have framed rules under Section 176 of the 1988 Act, directed all High Courts to issue practice directions or rules requiring claimants' identification and bank details, direct bank transfer of compensation, fixed-deposit investment of deposited amounts, a dashboard of undisbursed amounts, and a drive with the Legal Services Authorities to trace claimants.

• KANCHHU versus PRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1490

  The High Court, under Article 227, had condoned a delay of about seven years in seeking recall of the dismissal of a writ petition, restored it and then set aside a 1991 ex parte decree because the trial court had not considered the written statement, without examining whether the defendants had shown sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court set that order aside, holding that the defendants had never explained their absence and that a defendant set ex parte has only the limited right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to have pure questions of law decided; the decree could not be faulted for not acting on an unproved written statement.

• MD. FIROZ AHMAD KHALID versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1444

  A Muslim member of a State Bar Council elected to the State Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995 ceases to be a member of the Board when his tenure in the Bar Council ends. Although Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) expressly mentions only members who cease to be Members of Parliament or of the State Legislative Assembly, reading Section 14 as a whole, including the provisos to Section 14(2), shows that eligibility for all three elected categories hinges on holding the underlying position, so the Explanation applies by implication to Bar Council members as well. The Division Bench's contrary view was set aside and the Bombay High Court's decision in Asif Shaukat Qureshi was held not to be good law.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, LUCKNOW versus RAM PRAKASH SINGH

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 275

  A retired Assistant Engineer was penalised with a pension cut and recovery after an enquiry in which no witness was examined, no document was proved, the enquiry report was never furnished to him, and the proceedings ran beyond the time fixed by the State Public Services Tribunal without any extension. Upholding the Tribunal and the High Court, the Court held that such an enquiry cannot support punishment; that after B. Karunakar furnishing the enquiry report is mandatory, so an employee never given the report need not prove prejudice unless he waived the right and the employer must justify the omission; that extension must be obtained before continuing beyond a court-fixed time; and that, given the lapse of time, no further opportunity to re-hold the enquiry was warranted.

• AMRUDDIN ANSARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus AFAJAL ALI & ORS.

  22/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2650

  Where a suit is dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 2 or 3 CPC and the plaintiff's application under Order IX Rule 4 to set aside the dismissal is rejected, a fresh suit on the same cause of action is still maintainable: the two remedies under Rule 4 are not mutually exclusive, Rule 4 contains no bar like that in Rule 9, and a dismissal for default is neither a decree nor an adjudication and so cannot operate as res judicata. The petition against the High Court's decree restoring the trial court's decree in the fresh suit was dismissed.

• ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF versus AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1350

  A flat purchasers' society obtained a certificate of deemed conveyance of an entire plot under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, subject to executing a permanent lease of one portion (the 'Arun plot') to the appellant HUF, which claimed that portion under a 1987 deed of dissolution. Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the competent authority's proceedings under Section 11(3) are summary and quasi-judicial, that it must record reasons but cannot finally decide title (a civil suit remains open), that writ courts should interfere only if the order is manifestly illegal, and that the registering officer under Section 11(5) cannot sit in appeal over the certificate; the dissolution deed itself contemplated conveyance of the whole plot to the society with a perpetual lease back to the appellant.

• SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1398

  Under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the market value of land being acquired must be determined as on the date of the notification under Section 11. The High Court erred in fixing 1 January 2014, the date of commencement of the Act, as the valuation date for a portion of the appellant's land that the State admittedly used for a canal without any acquisition and for which no Section 11 notification has yet been issued.

• SACHIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2500

  In an appeal filed only by the convict against his conviction and sentence, the High Court cannot, while affirming the conviction, enhance the sentence, whether by invoking Section 386(b) CrPC or by exercising suo motu revisional power under Section 401, and cannot remit the case to the trial court for enhancement, when no appeal or revision for enhancement has been filed by the State, the complainant or the victim. Applying the principle that no appellant may be left worse off by his own appeal (no reformatio in peius), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders that led to a POCSO convict's seven-year sentence being enhanced to life imprisonment and, under Article 142, ordered his release since he had already served over eleven years.

• MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANR. versus GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1409

  The appellants' 2003 suit to declare a compromise decree in their grandfather's partition suit null and void and to seek partition of 7 acres was dismissed by the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed: the land was joint family property bought from family funds, the appellants' interest was represented by their father, and in any event a compromise decree cannot be challenged by a fresh suit (Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC), the only remedy being a recall application before the court that passed it.

• LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED versus PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2811

  Cross-appeals by L&T and Puri Construction against the Delhi High Court Division Bench's Section 37 judgment were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the arbitral findings that the Supplementary Agreement was a non-starter for non-fulfilment of its conditions precedent and was tainted by economic coercion, that the Development Agreement was not novated and that L&T committed fundamental breach by abandoning the project; it also upheld the setting aside of the monetary awards (Rs. 35 crore, Rs. 75 crore, Rs. 5 crore and the Rs. 50 crore indemnity) as unsupported by evidence or contrary to Section 73 of the Contract Act. Bound by M. Hakeem, an award cannot be modified under Section 34 or 37; the costs direction was rightly severed and PCL left to pursue its remedy. The Court deprecated prolix arguments in Section 34/37 proceedings and called for time limits on oral submissions.

• ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED) versus ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1373

  The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award passed by an MSME Facilitation Council after NCLT approval of the corporate debtor's resolution plan, on an operational creditor's claim that was not part of the plan, is a nullity: on approval under Section 31 IBC all claims not included in the plan stand extinguished, lifting of the moratorium does not revive them, and the Council lacked jurisdiction. Such an award can be objected to under Section 47 CPC at the execution stage without a Section 34 challenge under the Arbitration Act, and the execution proceedings were quashed.

• SACHIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2497

  Short order under Article 142. The High Court's judgment and orders, and the Special Court's consequent order sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment in a POCSO case, were set aside as erroneous. Since the appellant had already served over eleven years against the original seven-year sentence, the Court restored the original sentence and ordered his immediate release instead of remanding the pending appeal.

• SANJAY COLARO versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

  21/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2558

  Concurrent conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for a fatal road accident was not interfered with, but the six-month sentence of simple imprisonment was set aside by extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in lieu of which the appellant was directed to pay Rs 10,00,000 as compensation to the ten surviving legal heirs of the deceased, with the District Legal Services Authority directed to assist in disbursement.

• SUBHASH AGGARWAL versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

  17/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1320

  Conviction of a father under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for shooting his son was upheld on circumstantial evidence. The medical and ballistic evidence showed a close-range but non-contact chest wound that could not have been self-inflicted; gunshot residue was found on the right hand of the right-handed accused; his attempt to pass the death off as suicide by screwdriver and his false Section 313 explanation supplied further links. In a circumstantial case, total absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused but cannot by itself result in acquittal where the chain of circumstances is complete.

• ANKIT MISHRA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

  17/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1312

  The de facto complainant challenged the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused with a long criminal history in a case under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 IPC. Applying the principles on cancellation of bail from Deepak Yadav, the Court held that the High Court's order suffered from no fundamental error of law since it had considered the accused's antecedents and the offences were non-heinous and triable by a Magistrate; the appeal was dismissed with a condition of monthly reporting to the police station.

• AJAY RAJ SHETTY versus DIRECTOR & ANR.

  17/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1299

  The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 85 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for the company's failure to deposit ESI contributions deducted from employees' wages, holding on the concurrent findings that he was described as General Manager in the company's records and fell within the definition of 'principal employer' in Section 2(17) as a managing agent. The six-month sentence and fine of Rs. 5,000 were not reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

• SHAHED KAMAL & ORS. versus M/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  17/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1275

  Homebuyers who erected a banner listing, in temperate language, their grievances against the developer (non-formation of the society, defects, poor maintenance) did not commit defamation. Their protest fell within the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC (imputation made in good faith for protection of one's interests) and was protected by Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c); the complaint under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC and the summons were quashed.

• DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE versus RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.

  17/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 835

  The Supreme Court held that dealing in Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, 1985, is an offence under Section 8(c) of the Act, that the three-Judge Bench decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta operates retrospectively to all pending cases without offending Article 20(1), though acquittals that have attained finality are not to be disturbed, and that a trial court cannot delete a charge or discharge an accused under Section 216 CrPC once charges are framed. Orders transferring the cases to the Metropolitan Magistrate under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were set aside and the accused directed to be tried by the Special Judge.

• RIKHAB BIRANI & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1334

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR, chargesheet and summoning order under Sections 420, 406, 354, 504 and 506 IPC arising from a failed oral agreement to sell a godown, holding that a breach of contract is not cheating unless dishonest intention existed when the agreement was made, that the chargesheet merely reproduced the FIR without the particulars required by Section 173(2) CrPC, and that cognizance was taken despite two earlier orders finding the dispute civil. Costs of Rs 50,000 were imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh for repeatedly turning civil wrongs into criminal prosecutions.

• ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. versus M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 243

  Neither service of a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor joinder in the Section 11 application is a prerequisite for an arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over a person. The tribunal's jurisdiction flows from the arbitration agreement, so the proper inquiry under Section 16 is whether the person is a party to that agreement under Section 7, including as a non-signatory bound by conduct (Cox and Kings). The LLP created by the LLP Agreement and its CEO designated under that agreement were held to be parties to the arbitration clause and were directed to be impleaded; the orders of the arbitral tribunal and the High Court holding otherwise were set aside.

• KAMAL & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2736

  Quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A and 114 IPC lodged fourteen years into the marriage and three days after service of summons in the husband's divorce petition. The Court quashed the proceedings against the husband's parents, against whom the allegations were only of unspecified taunts and withholding household money, but allowed the case to proceed against the husband, against whom physical and mental torture was alleged.

• NAFEES AHMAD & ANR. versus SOINUDDIN & ORS.

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1403

  The High Court had remitted a first appeal on the ground that the first appellate court failed to frame points for determination under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, treating the Rule as mandatory. The Supreme Court disagreed: non-compliance with Rule 31 does not by itself vitiate the judgment if there is substantial compliance, and the Rule requires the particulars only where the appellant actually raised points for determination.

• IRWAN KOUR versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 806

  Personnel released from the Indian Military Nursing Service qualify as 'ex-servicemen' under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, because the IMNS is constituted by the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943 as part of the armed forces of the Union; the Central Rules of 1979 and Kendriya Sainik Board clarifications do not govern State reservations. The High Court's direction to appoint respondent no. 4 was upheld, while the appellant's existing appointment was protected.

• STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus COMBINED TRADERS

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 816

  Sub-rule (20) of Rule 17 of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957, which empowered the assessing authority to cancel declaration forms (Form C) obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, is ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The form of declaration under Section 8(4) is prescribed by the Central Government under Section 13(1)(d); the Central Registration and Turnover Rules contain no power to cancel Form C; and a State rule under Section 13(3) providing for such cancellation is inconsistent with them.

• N. ESWARANATHAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

  16/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 128

  After a convict's first SLP against his conviction was dismissed with a direction to surrender, his Advocate-on-Record filed a second SLP against the same High Court judgment with incorrect statements and again sought exemption from surrender. Bela M. Trivedi J. held that the AOR, the assisting advocate and the petitioner had misused the process of law and obstructed the administration of justice, directed removal of the AOR from the register for one month and costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the assisting advocate, and dismissed the SLP; Satish Chandra Sharma J. agreed on the misconduct but would accept the unconditional apologies with a warning, and the Bench referred the divergence to the Chief Justice of India.

• SUSHILA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 161

  A complaint under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the husband's mother, brothers, sister and sister-in-law was quashed: the only incident attributed to them was alleged to have occurred in August 2015, more than three years after the marriage had been dissolved by an ex parte divorce decree of 31.05.2012, and there was no specific allegation against them for the period when the spouses lived together.

• JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. versus M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1646

  The requirement in Order XX Rule 1 CPC, as amended for commercial courts, that copies of the judgment be issued to the parties is directory, not mandatory: the sixty-day limitation for an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 runs from pronouncement, and a party cannot wait indefinitely for a copy it never asked for. The High Court's refusal to condone a 301-day delay by a State undertaking that applied for a certified copy only eight months after pronouncement was upheld.

• S.C. GARG versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 627

  A cheating prosecution under Section 420 IPC against the Managing Director of a company was quashed because the allegation on which it rested (that the complainant had already paid the seven dishonoured cheques by demand drafts and the company fraudulently encashed four cheques again) was precisely the defence that the complainant had raised and lost, up to the Sessions Court, in the earlier Section 138 NI Act proceedings in which he was convicted. The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to criminal proceedings (Pritam Singh, a three-Judge Bench, binds; Devendra and Muskan Enterprises are distinguishable as decided at the Section 482 stage without adjudication on merits). Further, the company was not arraigned as an accused and no specific allegation was made against the Managing Director, so he could not be prosecuted vicariously for an IPC offence.

• SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL versus M/S HALDIA STEELS LIMITED & ANR

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2473

  The High Court's revisional order setting aside the Magistrate's acceptance of a police closure report and directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was quashed. The complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust over an advance for supply of manganese ore was found to be a civil dispute arising from breach of an MOU for transfer of a mining lease, filed after an unexplained delay of about six years and on a false premise; the Magistrate's order accepting the closure report and rejecting the protest petition was restored.

• JANSHRUTI (PEOPLE’S VOICE) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2730

  A writ petition under Article 32 seeking gender-neutral domestic-violence legislation and a declaration on the constitutionality of Section 498A IPC (now Section 84 BNS) was dismissed. The Court held that courts do not interfere with legislative policy unless the provision lacks a rational basis or violates the Constitution, and that occasional misuse of a penal provision does not make it unconstitutional.

• CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED versus INOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 765

  Whether proprietary engineering drawings of cryogenic semi-trailers are 'artistic works' protected by the Copyright Act, 1957 or 'designs' whose copyright ceases under Section 15(2) once applied to articles reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Supreme Court laid down a two-pronged test for the Section 15(2) interface: first, whether the work is purely an artistic work or a design derived from it and industrially applied; second, if copyright protection is unavailable, whether on the 'functional utility' test the work qualifies for design protection at all. The High Court's restoration of the suit was upheld and the Commercial Court directed to try the matter and decide the interim injunction application within fixed time.

• THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION versus B. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 94

  A suit for bare permanent injunction filed by holders of an agreement to sell, executed by third parties who were not impleaded, against a charitable educational institution in admitted possession since 1905, was held liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act an agreement to sell creates no interest in the property; it gives only personal rights against the vendor (and the limited shield of Section 53A), so the plaintiffs had no locus or enforceable right against a third party in possession, no declaration of title was sought though title was in dispute, and the cause of action was fictitious. Noting the claimed cash payment of Rs. 75 lakh, the Court issued directions requiring courts and Sub-Registrars to report cash transactions of Rs. 2 lakh and above to the Income Tax authorities for verification under Section 269ST.

• SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 217

  A three-Judge Bench dismissed a writ petition under Article 32 by retired employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation who sought pension under the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999, repealed by notification dated 02.12.2004 with a saving only for those who had retired before that date. The same claim, and the same grounds, had been decided against similarly situated employees by this Court in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, which was held not to be per incuriam. A judgment of the Supreme Court rendered under Article 136 cannot be challenged directly or collaterally under Article 32; the remedy is review and thereafter a curative petition.

• RAJENDHIRAN versus MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.**

  15/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 829

  The Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment dated 03.01.2024 for want of service on the respondents, reheard the appeal and allowed it. The Madras High Court in second appeal had exceeded the scope of Section 100 CPC by reversing concurrent findings that an oral partition and a will were not proved, relying only on two sale deeds and a mortgage deed relating to different land.

• PINKI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

  14/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 522

  On appeals by parents of trafficked children, the Supreme Court set aside all the Allahabad High Court orders releasing thirteen accused in an organised inter-state child-trafficking racket (Sections 363, 311 and 370(5) IPC) on bail. The High Court had dealt with the applications callously, relying on non-naming in the FIR, disclosure by co-accused, non-recovery of the victim from the particular accused, parity and 'bail is the rule', ignoring the gravity of the offence, the prima facie material and the risk of repetition and absconding; many accused absconded. The Court directed surrender, committal, day-to-day trial within six months, special prosecutors, victim protection and compensation, and issued nationwide directions to State Governments and High Courts on child-trafficking trials.

• MRS. VARSHATAI W/O. SH. SANJAY BAGADE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.

  14/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 625

  The Supreme Court upheld the display of the name of Municipal Council, Patur in Urdu below Marathi on its signboard, holding that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 makes Marathi the official language of local authorities but contains no prohibition on using an additional language, particularly one in the Eighth Schedule; the Court also held that after the 2018 amendment of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965 only the Chief Officer can move the Collector against a Council resolution, and observed at length that language belongs to a community and region, not to a religion.

• R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER versus RAJMANI AND OTHERS

  09/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 734

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order which, in second appeal, had remanded a suit for fresh trial on limitation merely because the courts below had not framed a separate issue on it, although both had found the suit, filed seventeen years after the decree sought to be set aside, to be barred by limitation. Under Section 100 CPC the High Court must itself decide the substantial questions it frames; failure to frame a separate issue is not fatal where the parties went to trial knowing the point was in dispute and no prejudice was caused, and under Section 3 of the Limitation Act the court is bound to consider limitation even if not pleaded.

• NEHA ENTERPRISES versus COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 475

  A dealer whose sales to manufacturer-exporters were exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (by the notifications of 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010, against Form-E) is not entitled to input tax credit on the purchase tax paid on those goods, because Section 13(7) expressly bars input tax credit where the dealer's sale of the goods is exempt under Section 7(c). The Court declined to read the State's policy of encouraging exporters into the statute against its clear words and affirmed the reversal of the credit.

• SAKSHI ARHA versus THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 714

  A three-Judge Bench, hearing appeals referred after a split verdict, dismissed the claims of OBC-NCL and MBC-NCL candidates for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Examination 2021 who were excluded from the reserved-category interview list because their non-creamy-layer certificates had not been issued by the application deadline. Where the rules and advertisement fix no cut-off, eligibility is judged as on the last date for applications; the High Court's subsequent notice fixing 31.08.2021 and permitting older certificates with an affidavit mirrored the State circulars under which such certificates are valid for one year, extendable to three with an affidavit.

• PRABHJOT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 193

  Where a fresh advertisement (No. 14 of 11.12.2020) issued after the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 reserved the sole 'SC Sports' post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for women, that reservation could not be undone midway through the recruitment on the strength of a roster issued on 29.01.2021, after the last date for applications, or on the Chief Secretary's later affidavit that the reservation was a mistake. Applying the rule in K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's remand and restored the Single Judge's order, so that the appellant, the only qualified 'SC Sports (Women)' candidate, is entitled to the DSP post.

• M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIAL versus A. GNANASEKARAN ETC

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2612

  The Supreme Court held that the complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a 'victim' within Section 2(wa) CrPC, having suffered economic loss by reason of the deemed offence, and may therefore appeal against an acquittal as of right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4). Following Lokur J.'s view in Mallikarjun Kodagali, the Court held a victim's right of appeal is unconditional whether or not he is also the complainant, set aside the High Court's refusal of special leave and granted liberty to file appeals under the proviso within four months.

• THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 985

  On the State of Tamil Nadu's Article 32 petition against the Governor's inaction on, withholding of assent to, and later reservation for the President of ten Bills re-passed by the State Legislature, the Supreme Court held that Article 200 gives the Governor only three options, that withholding assent is tied to the first proviso so that no pocket or absolute veto exists, that a Bill repassed after reconsideration cannot ordinarily be reserved and must be assented to, that the Governor acts on ministerial advice save in narrow exceptions, and that action under Articles 200 and 201 is judicially reviewable. It prescribed time-limits for the Governor and the President, declared B.K. Pavitra per incuriam in part, set aside the reservation of the ten Bills and the President's consequential action, and under Article 142 deemed the Bills assented to on 18.11.2023.

• SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE versus ADITYA SARDA

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 485

  In a batch of sixteen appeals by the SFIO arising from its complaint against the Adarsh Group accused for fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Supreme Court set aside High Court orders granting anticipatory bail to accused who had evaded bailable and non-bailable warrants and against whom proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC had been initiated. Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy, especially in serious economic offences; an accused who conceals himself after warrants or proclamation is ordinarily not entitled to it, and the orders ignored the mandatory twin conditions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act. Three appeals were dismissed where no non-bailable warrant had issued or the Special Court itself had granted anticipatory bail.

• SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

  08/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2606

  A registered gift deed of 1967, recorded in the revenue records in 1969, could not be branded a benami transaction two decades later merely because a 1989 amendment to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was given retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred in remitting the ceiling proceedings for fresh examination, since no two views were possible on the undisputed facts, and restored the Tribunal's order setting aside the Revenue Officer's redetermination of surplus land.

• ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS versus LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & OTHERS

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 58

  The Supreme Court held that an agreement of 16.08.1967 by which the first defendant gave her hotel business to the plaintiff 'on conducting basis' was, on its plain terms, an agreement for conducting the business and not a leave and licence of the premises, so the plaintiff could not claim to be a deemed tenant under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. Oral evidence to vary the written agreement was barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, and the Court also deprecated prolix pleadings and urged trial courts to use Order 6 Rule 16 CPC.

• RAKESH KUMAR VERMA versus HDFC BANK LTD.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 78

  Two former HDFC Bank employees sued in Patna and Delhi to challenge their terminations, although their appointment letter and employment agreement provided that courts in Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a private employment contract is as binding as in any other contract, provided it does not absolutely bar legal proceedings (Section 28, Contract Act), the chosen court otherwise has jurisdiction under the CPC, and the clause clearly selects that court; the Delhi High Court's contrary view in Vishal Gupta v. L&T Finance was disapproved. The plaints were ordered to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation in Mumbai, the Patna High Court having erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.

• STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 608

  The Supreme Court restored an FIR under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a disproportionate-assets case which the Karnataka High Court had quashed for want of a preliminary enquiry by the Superintendent of Police. The second proviso to Section 17 requires only an order of an officer not below the rank of SP before investigation; a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable but not mandatory, and where the SP's order rests on a detailed source report the requirement can be relaxed.

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA versus RAM KISHORI GUPTA & ANR.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2789

  Once SEBI's order of 31.07.2014 under Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, passed on show-cause notices of 2012 against Vital Communications Ltd and connected entities, attained finality and was fully worked out, SEBI could not reopen the same cause of action four years later and pass a fresh disgorgement order on the same notices; the later order was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, principles that bind quasi-judicial and administrative authorities and from which Section 15U(1) gives SEBI no exemption. Equally, the Securities Appellate Tribunal's order of 30.04.2013 rejecting the two investors' claim for compensation from SEBI had attained finality, so the Tribunal could not later direct SEBI to compensate them. The Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,00,000 costs to each of the entities found guilty of fraud was set aside.

• NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 616

  The Supreme Court directed the Maharashtra Police Department to hand over, within four months and with arrears of rent, two flats in Mumbai it had occupied since 1940 without any written requisition order or lease, setting aside the High Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground that the owners should file a suit; the Court held that the alternative-remedy rule is one of discretion, not compulsion, and relegating the owners to a suit after 84 years of occupation would add insult to injury.

• THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GOPU & ANR.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 169

  The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court order that had entertained, about ten years out of time, an appeal for enhancement of motor accident compensation filed by the deceased's children after they attained majority. The legal-disability exemption in Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to suits and applications for execution of a decree, not to appeals, and Section 5 did not assist where the children had been represented throughout the original claim by their father as natural guardian.

• NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND ORS.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 603

  The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in deducting only 50% of the ex gratia financial assistance payable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 while computing Motor Vehicles Act compensation; following the three-Judge Bench decision in Shashi Sharma, the amount received or receivable under those Rules towards pay and allowances must be excluded in full, though no recovery was ordered of sums already paid.

• M/S CHATHA SERVICE STATION versus LALMATI DEVI & ORS.

  07/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 435

  The Supreme Court upheld a 'pay and recover' direction against the owner of an oil tanker whose driver held a transport vehicle licence but lacked the endorsement under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. The absence of the Rule 9 training endorsement is not a venial or technical breach, because the prescribed syllabus covers defensive and advanced driving skills and not merely product safety, and a training certificate produced for the first time in appeal was rightly refused under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

• BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

  06/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 425

  A former judicial officer, then posted as ACJM, was chargesheeted under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC on a complaint that he had sexual relations with a litigant on a promise to marry her after her divorce, and his discharge plea was rejected by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the complainant, who knew from the outset that the appellant was married though separated and who accepted financial support, made a reasoned choice to sustain the relationship, so no misconception of fact or false pretext of marriage arose; there was no material of fraudulent inducement or threat, and the proceedings were terminated at the stage of charge as an abuse of process.

• JASPAL SINGH KAURAL versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

  06/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 23

  The Sessions Court discharged the appellant of offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC on a complaint that he had sexual relations with the complainant on a promise to marry her after both obtained divorces, but the High Court in revision set aside the discharge. The Supreme Court restored the discharge, holding that a relationship sustained consensually for years by a married woman who understood the consequences, where the accused had acted in furtherance of his promise, discloses neither a false promise from the inception nor criminal intimidation, and that the High Court exceeded the narrow limits of revisional jurisdiction; the criminal proceedings were terminated.

• RAJIV GHOSH versus SATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

  06/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 458

  The son of a deceased tenant, who had admitted in his written statement that his father was the sole tenant, that the plaintiff was the owner and that rent was paid till May 2021, was decreed in eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC because the five-year statutory tenancy of a dependent heir under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 had expired. The Supreme Court held that the admissions were clear and unequivocal, that the trial court and High Court rightly passed a decree on admission, and that the plea that the 1997 Act did not apply could not be raised for the first time, the defendant having himself invoked Section 7 of that Act.

• SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. versus M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

  06/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 33

  A marine voyage policy for a barge's maiden voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata (16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013) carried a special condition that the voyage should commence and complete before monsoon sets in; the insurer repudiated the claim after the vessel ran aground, and the NCDRC dismissed the complaint for want of good faith. The Supreme Court held that the condition, though not ambiguous, could never have been complied with on a voyage the insurer knew spanned both coasts during the foul-weather period, that a strict reading would leave the assured without remedy and produce an absurdity, and that the condition was non-material and impliedly waived; the repudiation on that ground was set aside and the matter remanded to the NCDRC to quantify the sum payable.

• K. GOPI versus THE SUB-REGISTRAR & ORS.

  06/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 47

  A Sub-Registrar in Tamil Nadu refused to register a sale deed because the vendor had not produced proof of title, relying on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which bars registration unless the presentant produces the previous original title deed and a recent encumbrance certificate. The Supreme Court held that under the Registration Act, 1908 the registering officer has no adjudicatory power over the executant's title and must register a document once execution is admitted and procedural requirements, stamp duty and fees are complied with; neither Section 69 nor the State-inserted Sections 22-A and 22-B authorise refusal for want of title documents. Rule 55A(i) was declared ultra vires the Act and the appellant was permitted to re-lodge the sale deed.

• KOUSIK DAS & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

  04/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 695

  The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court misread Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand by imposing a blanket ban on recruiting teachers holding the 18-month D.El.Ed. (ODL) from NIOS: teachers who were in service on 10 August 2017 and completed that programme before 1 April 2019 under the NCTE's one-time recognition order are valid diploma holders, at par with holders of the two-year D.El.Ed., for applying to other institutions and for promotion.

• SOUMEN PAUL & ORS. versus SHRABANI NAYEK & ORS.

  04/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 651

  Candidates of the delayed 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. batch were allowed by the Board and a Single Judge to participate in the West Bengal primary assistant teacher recruitment, but a Division Bench held them ineligible for lacking the qualification on the date of the notification of 29.09.2022. The Supreme Court held that Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules only incorporates the NCTE qualifications prevailing on the date of the recruitment notification and prescribes no cut-off date, that the actual recruitment notification was the one dated 21.10.2022, which expressly admitted appearing candidates and was never challenged, and directed the recruitment to proceed, also invoking Article 142.

• G.V. ADHIMOOLAM & ORS. versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  04/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2484

  The complainant alleged that in 2013 he had transferred Rs.1.5 crore to his elder brother's spinning mill company and paid Rs.20 lakh in cash to be made a partner in his niece's family's Nissan car dealership, was never inducted, and was abused, threatened and restrained when he went to their house in May 2019 to demand his money back. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Sections 420, 342, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC, holding that on the complainant's own version none of the accused had induced him to part with money, the six-year unexplained delay showed the criminal process was being used as a recovery device after the civil limitation had lapsed, the uncorroborated cash payment claim had no sanctity, and the May 2019 incident at the accused's own house, reported only after the accused had complained against the complainant, did not disclose the alleged offences.

• A. RAJENDRA versus GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS.

  04/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 681

  Appeals to the NCLAT against two NCLT orders of 20.07.2023 were filed on 28.08.2023 without any application for condonation of delay, with an assertion that they were within time, and the appellant had never applied for certified copies. The Supreme Court upheld the NCLAT's refusal to condone the delay, holding that limitation under Section 61(2) IBC runs from the date of pronouncement, that the 15-day extension under the proviso is strictly circumscribed and requires sufficient cause, that the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for the time taken to obtain a certified copy is available only where a copy was applied for, and that the mandatory requirement of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules to annex a certified copy cannot be dispensed with as of right.

• SANGITA SINHA versus BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND ORS.

  03/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 551

  A buyer who had sued for specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell, after the seller had written cancelling the agreement and refunding most of the advance, encashed the seller's demand drafts during the pendency of the suit without protest. The Supreme Court held that this conduct showed she was not continuously willing to perform the contract, that her encashment amounted to acceptance of the seller's repudiation so the agreement stood cancelled, that without a prayer for a declaration that the cancellation was bad the suit for specific performance was not maintainable, and that her failure to disclose the cancellation letter and refund in the plaint was suppression of a material fact. The decree of specific performance was set aside and the consequent sale deed declared void.

• RAM KISHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  03/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2563

  Landowners of village Dharuhera, whose lands were acquired by a Section 4 notification of 12.12.2008 for Institutional Sector 5A, challenged the High Court's confirmation of compensation at Rs. 55,71,010 per acre. The Supreme Court held that the award for the adjoining Malpura-Kapriwas acquisition (finally fixed by this Court in BESCO at Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre) could safely be taken as the base value with de-escalation for the 17-month gap and a deduction for change-of-land-use charges, and fixed compensation at Rs. 1,18,37,668 per acre with statutory benefits; eleven connected appeals were held directly covered by BESCO and Habitat Estates.

• STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus BAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE) AND OTHERS

  03/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2237

  The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court's en bloc cancellation of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission's 2016 selection of about 25,000 Assistant Teachers (Classes IX-X and XI-XII) and Group C and D non-teaching staff, finding that large-scale OMR manipulation, rank-jumping, out-of-panel and post-expiry appointments, destruction of the OMR sheets and a cover-up had vitiated the process beyond the possibility of segregating tainted from untainted candidates; it modified the consequential directions, excusing untainted appointees from refunding salaries, allowing them to return to their earlier posts, and protecting disabled candidates until a fresh selection is completed.

• JOGESWAR SAHOO & ORS. versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, CUTTACK & ORS.

  03/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 13

  The Supreme Court set aside orders directing retired Stenographers and a Personal Assistant of the District Judiciary, Cuttack, to refund arrears paid to them in 2017 on a retrospective promotion, holding that excess payments made without fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, on an interpretation later found erroneous, cannot be recovered from non-gazetted employees years later and after their retirement, particularly without a hearing.

• NARESH KUMAR SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  02/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2742

  The Supreme Court quashed the 2005 termination of a school clerk in Bihar, appointed in 1989 pursuant to a public advertisement, on an unsubstantiated allegation that his appointment order was forged. The reasons in the termination order were contrary to the record, fraud had neither been pleaded with its ingredients nor enquired into, and the State's repeated failure to produce the appointment records warranted an adverse inference.

• UCO BANK & ANR. versus VIJAY KUMAR HANDA

  02/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 389

  A bank clerk found guilty of gross misconduct was dismissed, but the appellate authority modified the penalty to removal from service with entitlement to terminal benefits for the service rendered. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to process his pension, holding that the appellate order had attained finality once the Labour Court award substituting a lesser penalty was set aside, and that under the binding decision in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool an employee otherwise eligible under the Pension Regulations who is removed with superannuation benefits under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement is entitled to pension notwithstanding Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.

• M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY versus M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO)

  02/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 401

  An arbitral award of about Rs.51.33 crore was signed and received by the award-debtor on 09.04.2022 and its application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed on 11.07.2022. The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation under Section 34(3) is three calendar months, not 90 days; that Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act applies so the date of receipt of the award is excluded; and that the period therefore ended on 09.07.2022, a second Saturday when the court was closed, so under Section 4 of the Limitation Act the application filed on the next working day was within time and no condonation was needed. The High Court's order so holding, and its interim stay of execution, were upheld.

• KASHMIRI LAL SHARMA versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR.

  02/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 446

  An electrician with 60 per cent locomotor disability was retired at 58 on 30.09.2018 and denied the benefit of a Himachal Pradesh Office Memorandum of 29.03.2013 that raised the retirement age to 60 for visually impaired employees; the OM was withdrawn on 04.11.2019. The Supreme Court held, following State of Punjab v. Bhupinder Singh, that the benefit could not be confined to the visually impaired and extended to all benchmark disabilities specified in the 1995 and 2016 Acts, but that the OM was validly withdrawn and no right had vested in the appellant by then; he was therefore entitled to continue in service only till 04.11.2019 with full wages from 01.10.2018 and consequential pensionary benefits.

• NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST & ANR. versus CLIFFORD D SOUZA ETC. ETC.

  02/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 177

  The Supreme Court held that where a port licensee, in reply to a demand for arrears of revised licence fee made within three years, objected only that payment should await the outcome of its pending intra-court appeal, that reply was an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Explanation (a)) which extended limitation, so recovery proceedings under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were not time-barred; the port's writ petitions were restored to be decided after the pending appeals on retrospective revision of the tariff.

• STATE (NCT) OF DELHI versus RAJEEV SHARMA

  02/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 617

  The accused, arrested for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 120B IPC, was granted default bail by the High Court after the chargesheet was not filed within sixty days. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the words 'imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC refer to offences carrying a minimum sentence of ten years, so that an offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, punishable with up to fourteen years but with no minimum, attracts the sixty-day period under clause (ii), as held by the three-Judge Bench majority in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam.

• VINAY AGGARWAL versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 497

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had transferred the investigation of an FIR (impersonation of an IB officer and extortion) from the Haryana police to the CBI at the behest of the complainant, holding that the vague and unsubstantiated allegations against the local police did not meet the exceptional-case threshold for directing a CBI investigation.

• M/S FERRO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 529

  In an arbitration governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Supreme Court held that a works-contract clause stating that the contractor shall not be entitled to claim interest on any payment, arrears or balance found due to him does not amount to an express bar on the arbitrator's power to award pendente lite interest, and restored pendente lite interest (at 9% instead of the 15% awarded) that the District Judge and High Court had set aside.

• MAUKAM SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 336

  The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for killing an elderly man by a blow to the head with the reverse side of an axe during an armed intrusion into his house, rejecting the plea that the fatal injury could have been caused by a fall and that the offence was at most culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.

• THE MANAGEMENT OF WORTH TRUST versus THE SECRETARY, WORTH TRUST WORKERS UNION

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 360

  A charitable trust running factories that manufacture automobile and industrial machinery parts, staffed largely by leprosy-cured and differently abled workmen, resisted a bonus claim on the ground that it was exempt under Section 32(v)(a) and (c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 as an institution like the Indian Red Cross Society or one established not for profit. The Supreme Court held that the trust, which severed its Red Cross links in 1989 and has run profit-generating commercial factories since 1985, is not exempt, and that workmen employed in its factories are entitled to statutory bonus; ex-gratia payments cannot substitute for it.

• I.K. MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2753

  In a five-decade-old dispute over the price of shares in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. (now Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.) sold by the appellants to the State of Rajasthan in 1973, the only surviving question was the rate of interest on the enhanced valuation of Rs.640 per share. The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of any agreement on interest, Section 34 CPC governs; the sale was a commercial transaction, so post-decree interest may exceed 6%, but compounding with monthly or quarterly rests is outside Section 34. The High Court's 5% simple interest was modified to 6% simple interest from 8 July 1975 till decree and 9% from decree till realisation, payable within two months.

• JOMON K.K. versus SHAJIMON P. & ORS. ETC.

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 369

  A candidate holding a Syrang's licence but not a current Lascar's licence was not eligible for direct recruitment as Boat Lascar in the Kerala State Water Transport Department, because Rule 6 of the Special Rules of 1975 and the advertisement made a current Lascar's licence an essential qualification which a letter of the Director of Ports could not dilute; his non-joinder before the Tribunal did not help him since he did not promptly challenge the Tribunal's order, and relief under Article 142 was refused because his entry was through an illegal process.

• SHRI. MASAIDEVI VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SEVA SANSTHA MARYADIT WAREWADI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 409

  A Scrutiny Committee constituted under Maharashtra Government Resolutions rejected proposals to register new primary agricultural credit co-operative societies as not economically viable; the Minister for Co-operatives allowed the promoters' appeals under Section 152 and directed registration, relaxing the Rs. 5 lakh share-capital requirement on an undertaking. The Bombay High Court set the State's orders aside and the Supreme Court affirmed: economic viability is a statutory pre-requisite under the proviso to Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the State cannot in appeal depart from eligibility criteria it has itself laid down by Government Resolution, and the objector's lack of locus does not prevent a court from correcting a patently illegal order.

• SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS. versus SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 521

  Grandchildren of one of four brothers sued in 2023 for partition of property that revenue records showed had been orally partitioned among the brothers in 1968, and parts of which family members had sold by registered sale deeds in 1978. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation and disclosing no cause of action; the High Court remanded, finding triable issues. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's order, holding that registration of the 1978 sale deeds gave constructive notice to the plaintiffs' predecessors, that the plaint did not plead when the plaintiffs learnt of the sale deeds, and that a suit filed after 55 years, which on a meaningful reading of the plaint was hopelessly barred, could be nipped in the bud under Order VII Rule 11.

• ASHOK SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 504

  The High Court in revision had set aside concurrent findings convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the complainant had not proved his bank details, the withdrawal of the Rs.22 lakh loan or when he obtained the cheque. The Supreme Court held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise and the complainant need not prove his financial capacity at the threshold unless the accused raises that objection and supports it with evidence; the accused's story of a lost cheque, intimated to police only in 2011, did not rebut the presumption, and the complaint was maintainable against the partner who signed the cheque for the firm. The conviction was restored but the sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.32 lakh payable to the complainant within four months.

• THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS. versus CH. BHASKARA CHARY

  01/04/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 543

  A power distribution company challenged High Court directions requiring it to consider an ex-casual labourer for appointment as Lower Division Clerk on par with two candidates placed below him in the list. The Supreme Court rejected the company's contention that the list was merely a list of eligible candidates and not a seniority list, upheld the direction to reconsider, but left the company free to examine its other objections (genuineness of the service certificate, absence of vacancies) while passing fresh orders within six weeks.

• KISHORE CHHABRA versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 327

  A landowner's claim to have his acquired land released on the ground of discrimination and a running factory failed because he held no Change of Land Use certificate, a statutory prerequisite under the 1963 Act, and because the State had already spent heavily on sector development; the Court nevertheless rejected the State's pleas of delay and res judicata and, under Article 142 and on the special facts of continued physical possession, directed that compensation be computed under the 2013 Act as on its commencement date.

• PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED) versus 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 344

  In the DHFL insolvency, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's modification of the approved resolution plan and restored the NCLT's approval, holding that the clause by which the successful resolution applicant ascribed a notional value of INR 1 to Section 66 (fraudulent trading) applications and retained any recoveries from them, while recoveries under Sections 43, 45, 47, 49 and 50 went to the creditors, was a commercial bargain within the CoC's wisdom that the NCLAT could not disturb under Section 61(3); it also dismissed the appeals of fixed deposit and NCD holders claiming full repayment under the NHB Act and RBI Act, and the appeals of the ex-promoters whose board had been superseded by the RBI.

• SATBIR SINGH versus RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1

  The Sessions Judge had summoned four persons as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on the strength of the injured complainant's examination-in-chief in a trial for a knife attack after a volleyball quarrel; the High Court set that order aside in revision, relying on police enquiry reports and the absence of medical corroboration. The Supreme Court restored the summoning order against the two respondents still before it, holding that the Sessions Judge's satisfaction, formed on the Hardeep Singh standard, was a plausible conclusion that did not warrant revisional interference, and that police reports exonerating the respondents could not conclusively establish their non-involvement.

• THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETY (AISSMS) AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342

  Teachers in private unaided engineering colleges who lacked a Ph.D. claimed placement in the Rs 37400-67000 pay band with AGP Rs 9000 and re-designation as Associate Professor under clause (ix) of the AICTE notification of 05.03.2010. The Supreme Court held that 'incumbent Assistant Professors' in that clause means only those who hold the essential qualification (Ph.D. at appointment, or acquired within seven years under the 2000 and 2005 notifications) or who were appointed before 15.03.2000 when Ph.D. was not mandatory; teachers appointed after that date who never acquired a Ph.D. are not entitled to the higher scale or designation.

• RAMAYANA ISPAT PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 436

  Captive power producers and large industrial consumers challenged the RERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016, which reduce contracted demand by the quantum scheduled through open access, penalise deviations in drawal and injection, require day-ahead 24-hour scheduling for short-term inter-state open access, and apply deviation pricing to captive generators. Affirming two Rajasthan High Court judgments, the Supreme Court held that the State Commission has jurisdiction under Sections 42, 86(1)(c) and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 over the intra-state aspects of open access even where power is sourced from another State, that open access under Sections 9 and 42 is not absolute and may be conditioned for grid discipline, and that the regulations are neither ultra vires, arbitrary nor discriminatory.

• M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD. versus DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(3), MUMBAI & ORS.

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331

  The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, having rejected a housing society's first application for unilateral deemed conveyance with liberty to re-apply only after legal complications were resolved by a civil court, could not entertain a second application for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights filed within a month without those complications being resolved; the Supreme Court held that res judicata binds quasi-judicial authorities and that the unchallenged first order had attained finality.

• RAKESH BHANOT versus M/S. GURDAS AGRO PVT. LTD

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 573

  Accused in cheque-dishonour prosecutions under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sought a stay of trial on the ground that their personal-insolvency applications under Section 94 IBC had triggered the interim moratorium under Section 96. The Supreme Court held that the moratorium under Sections 96 and 101 IBC, like that under Section 14, stays only civil proceedings 'in respect of any debt' and does not bar criminal prosecution for dishonour of cheques, so the refusal of the trial courts and High Courts to stay the proceedings was correct.

• AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 488

  A Tehsildar was chargesheeted in 2011 for a land settlement order he had passed in 1997 in exercise of quasi-judicial powers, the charge being that the settlement was illegal and indicative of dishonesty. The Supreme Court held that the charge amounted to no more than an allegation of a wrong order, with no material of extraneous influence or gratification, and so fell outside the categories in K.K. Dhawan that permit disciplinary action for quasi-judicial orders; it further held that unexplained inordinate delay in initiating proceedings, where the department knew of the alleged misconduct, itself justified quashing the chargesheet.

• ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  31/03/2025 · [2025] 5 S.C.R. 205

  The Prayagraj Development Authority demolished the appellants' residential structures under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 after merely affixing the show-cause notice and demolition order on the premises and bulldozing the buildings within 24 hours of the only communication actually served by registered post. The Supreme Court held that the demolition was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the right to shelter under Article 21, since service by affixation under Section 43(1)(d) is permissible only after genuine repeated efforts at personal service fail and the appellants were denied the statutory appeal under Section 27(2); the Authority was ordered to pay Rs 10 lakh costs in each appeal.

• AKHILESH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  28/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1431

  The Supreme Court restored a Trial Court order summoning two persons under Section 319 CrPC who were named in the FIR but dropped from the chargesheet, holding that the High Court erred in setting it aside by giving undue weight to Section 161 CrPC statements when two eyewitnesses had deposed to the respondents' presence at the spot.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus RUKMA KESH MISHRA

  28/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254

  The Jharkhand High Court quashed a civil servant's dismissal, ordered after a departmental inquiry and Cabinet approval, solely because the charge-sheet had not been separately approved by the Chief Minister, relying on B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar. The Supreme Court reversed: those decisions turned on rules expressly specifying who issues the charge-sheet, whereas Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules specified no such authority; a long line of precedent holds that Article 311(1) does not require the appointing or disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings or issue the charge-sheet unless the applicable rules so provide; and in any event the Chief Minister's approval of the proposal, which included the draft charge-sheet, amounted to approval of the charge-sheet.

• GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

  28/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1350

  Imported oil declared as Base Oil was classified by Customs as High Speed Diesel (a prohibited import) on the strength of three laboratory reports that tested only some of the 21 parameters of IS 1460:2005 and an expert who gave evasive answers on flash point. The Supreme Court held that classification under the Customs Tariff Act must follow the General Rules for Interpretation, in particular the 'most akin' test of Rule 4, and not a bare preponderance-of-probability standard; since neither the reports nor the expert ever said the samples were HSD, the evidence was inconclusive and the appellants were given the benefit of doubt.

• IMRAN PRATAPGADHI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR

  28/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309

  An FIR was registered against a Member of the Rajya Sabha under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for posting a video of a mass wedding with a poem recited in the background; the Gujarat High Court refused to quash it because the investigation was at a nascent stage. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR: on a plain reading the poem concerned no religion, caste or community and preached meeting injustice with love, so no offence was attracted. It held that for word-based offences punishable with less than seven years the police should normally hold a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS to protect Article 19(1)(a), that the effect of words is judged by the standard of reasonable, strong-minded persons, and that a nascent investigation is no absolute bar to quashing.

• MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus VINCENT DANIEL AND OTHERS

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1277

  Land acquired for a National Highway under the 2013 Act was valued by the arbitrator (Commissioner) at the Stamp Act circle rate; the acquiring corporation sought a 'theory of deduction' cut for development costs. The Supreme Court held that Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act makes the highest of the three statutory criteria the market value, that the theory of deduction and belting are relevant only when the Collector compares exemplar sales under clause (b) or exercises the reasoned discretion to adjust values under Explanation 4, and that a State development corporation cannot complain about circle rates fixed by its own State. The award at the circle rate was upheld, though the High Court's reasoning was disapproved.

• ASLAM ALIAS IMRAN versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226

  The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for a 1994 knife attack, upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was set aside. The Supreme Court found that the four witnesses relied on by the prosecution were either hearsay, interested, contradicted by each other, or had behaved unnaturally (no bloodstains despite carrying the injured, no report to a police station a five-minute walk away, statements recorded 45 days later), and that previous enmity left open the possibility of false implication; the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

• HIRALAL MOTILAL PARIKH (DECEASED THROUGH LRS) versus SPL. LAQ OFFICER & ANR.

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1519

  In a land acquisition compensation appeal, the Supreme Court enhanced the market value of non-agricultural land acquired for the Gujarat Housing Board from Rs. 53 to Rs. 107 per square metre, holding that a genuine sale deed of an adjoining plot executed within a month after the Section 4 notification and a pre-notification Collector's allotment of adjacent land at Rs. 65 per square metre were reliable exemplars, subject to a 30 per cent deduction for development.

• M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED versus PRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS.

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1200

  Chhattisgarh commercial tax authorities who raised sales tax, VAT and entry tax demands for a pre-CIRP period against a company whose resolution plan had been approved under Section 31 IBC, after the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra (in which the petitioner's own case was decided) had been brought to their notice, acted contemptuously; the demand notices and consequent proceedings were quashed, but no action was taken against the officers on their unconditional apology and the benefit of doubt.

• RAMESH KUMARAN & ANR. versus STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1245

  Two advocates practising at Kodaikanal had lodged cross-FIRs against each other over a 2017 scuffle, each alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. After the second respondent tendered an unconditional apology on oath and the first appellant, having first threatened to commit suicide if his own FIR were quashed, apologised and gave an undertaking, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash the second respondent's FIR entirely and the first appellant's FIR as against the second respondent, to give quietus to a dispute between members of the same Bar.

• SAMTOLA DEVI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235

  Elderly parents sought eviction of their eldest son from a portion of the family house under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; the Maintenance Tribunal declined eviction but confined the son to one room and a shop with a police check every ten days, the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction, and the High Court restored the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court held that the Act confers no express power of eviction, that under S. Vanitha and Urmila Dixit a Tribunal 'may' order eviction only where necessary and expedient to protect the senior citizen, and that eviction was unwarranted here because the Appellate Tribunal gave no such reasons, the son's suits claiming a one-sixth share and challenging the gift and sale deeds were pending, and the father had in any event transferred the property to his daughters and son-in-law.

• R. SHASHIREKHA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217

  The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of an FIR under Section 306 IPC against the business partners of a man who died by suicide, because the allegations, even taken at face value, showed no proximate act of instigation and were an afterthought raised 39 days after the death; but it set aside the quashing of the Section 420 IPC charge, since the High Court had given no reasons why the material collected in investigation did not disclose cheating.

• SHEIKH JAVEED AHMAD & ANR. versus STATE OF J&K & ORS.

  27/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1503

  The High Court, in a PIL, had set aside the appointments of two doctors as Assistant Professors in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at SKIMS, Srinagar, because they lacked the two-year diploma on which their appointment had been conditioned. The Supreme Court held that the High Court proceeded on a mistaken view of fact: SKIMS itself, as sponsor, had undertaken to arrange the diploma and could not do so because the course was discontinued, the appellants completed the AIIMS short-term training recommended by the AIIMS head of department, and the competent authority relaxed the condition. The appointments were restored with reinstatement and continuity of service but without back wages.

• YADWINDER SINGH versus LAKHI ALIAS LAKHWINDER SINGH & ANR. ETC.

  26/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1407

  The High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's summons under Section 319 CrPC to persons named by eye-witnesses as present at a murder, merely because a Special Investigation Team had found no evidence against them. A SIT's findings do not fetter the court's power under Section 319; where eye-witnesses depose to the presence of the proposed accused, summoning them is the course best suited to unravelling the truth, and all defences remain open to them at trial. The summons were restored.

• STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY-I DEPARTMENT versus G. EASWARAN

  26/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1174

  After a public servant's discharge application in a disproportionate-assets prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was dismissed by the Special Court and that dismissal affirmed in revision, the Madras High Court quashed the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on virtually the same grounds, assessing the likelihood of conviction and holding the sanction invalid and belated. The Supreme Court set this aside: inherent power cannot be used to revisit concluded findings of a prima facie case without any change in circumstances, the High Court asked the wrong question (whether conviction would result rather than whether there was sufficient ground to proceed), and the validity of or delay in sanction is to be tested at trial, not in a quashing petition.

• REKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.

  26/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1189

  A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed because the complainant credit society suppressed, in the complaint and in its statement on oath under Section 200 CrPC, two letters by which the accused had replied to the demand notice and sought the documents relied upon in it; setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is an abuse of the process of law.

• J. GANAPATHA AND OTHERS versus M/S N. SELVARAJALOU CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS

  25/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1150

  The Supreme Court upheld concurrent judgments of the Madras High Court which, after finding that the plaintiff Trust had no title to the suit land but that the testatrix had acquired it in a 1962 court auction, moulded the relief by decreeing the suit in favour of a trustee in his capacity as executor of her will and setting aside the 1992 sale deeds in favour of the appellants; moulding of relief to shorten litigation after a full trial warranted no interference under Article 136.

• THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. versus K.C. DEVAKI

  25/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1133

  A Staff Nurse whose cadre was changed to First Division Assistant on medical grounds at her own request, on her written consent to rank below the last person in the new cadre, later claimed seniority from her original 1979 appointment; the Tribunal and the High Court upheld her claim. The Court held that a transfer at the employee's request, even on medical grounds under Rule 16(a)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, is not a transfer in public interest, and under the first proviso to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 the transferee ranks below all officers already in the new cadre. Seniority runs from 1989. Appeal allowed.

• AKSHAY GUPTA & ANR. versus ICICI BANK LIMITED & ORS.

  25/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1122

  Four appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by flat buyers whose consumer complaints against the lender bank's loan recall notices had been rejected by the NCDRC were disposed of on a settlement between the borrowers, the builder and the bank, recorded in the Court's orders of 23.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 and fully complied with. No question of law was decided; the Court issued closing directions on the loan records, possession, acknowledgment of payment and withdrawal of pending recovery and RERA proceedings.

• SRIKRISHNA KANTA SINGH versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

  25/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1113

  A pillion rider who lost both legs in a 1999 collision between a scooter and a trailer was awarded Rs 7,50,000 with 40% attributed to the scooter driver's contributory negligence. Held: the FIR, chargesheet and the unchallenged testimony of the claimant established the trailer driver's negligence on a preponderance of probabilities; a learner's licence or a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer does not by itself prove negligence, and the High Court could not rely on an untested written statement. The finding of contributory negligence was set aside and compensation enhanced to the full claim of Rs 16,00,000 with 7% interest from the date of the award, payable by the insurer of the trailer.

• N.P. SASEENDRAN versus N.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

  24/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 957

  A registered deed of 1985 by which a father conveyed property to his daughter 'in consideration of love and affection', reserving to himself and then his wife a life interest in the income and a limited right to mortgage up to Rs. 2,000, while permitting the daughter to build, pay taxes and obtain a purchase certificate from then on, is a gift by way of settlement vesting title in praesenti, not a Will. Reservation of a life interest or postponement of possession does not make a deed testamentary; delivery of possession is not essential to a gift, and the daughter's receipt and registration of the deed proved acceptance. The father's unilateral cancellation deed and the later sale to his son were therefore void, and the High Court's decree in the daughter's favour was affirmed.

• A. JOHN KENNEDY ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC.

  24/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1437

  In petitions by displaced tea-estate workers of the former Bombay Burma Trading Corporation estate at Singampatti, now within the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, the Supreme Court took up the question of forest restoration that the Madras High Court had left inconclusive and, as an interim measure, directed the Central Empowered Committee to survey the entire Agasthyamalai landscape for encroachments and non-forestry activities and to recommend restoration measures within twelve weeks; the workers' rehabilitation claims were deferred.

• FIROZ KHAN AKBARKHAN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  24/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 933

  A three-Judge Bench upheld a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a knife killing in a market the morning after a quarrel. The eye-witnesses were consistent, the two to three days' delay in recording their statements under Section 161 CrPC was explained by riots in the area and delay in recording statements is not by itself fatal, the informant's examination as a defence witness rather than a prosecution witness was immaterial, and the plea of a heat-of-the-moment killing failed because the appellant had brought the knife with him. The appellant, having served over 14 years, was given liberty to apply afresh for premature release under the remission policy in force at the time of his conviction or a more beneficial one.

• AMIT KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  24/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1579

  Where the parents and brother of two Scheduled Caste students of IIT Delhi, found hanging in their hostel rooms, complained of caste-based harassment and foul play but the police merely held an inquest under Section 174 CrPC and closed the matter, the Supreme Court held that an inquest cannot substitute for registration of an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence, directed registration of FIRs and investigation by an officer not below the rank of ACP, and constituted a National Task Force to address students' mental health and prevent suicides in higher educational institutions.

• YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.

  24/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1011

  Plaintiffs who held land since a 1970 registered purchase from a court-auction buyer, with a pattadar passbook and land revenue receipts, were dispossessed by the State in 1995 for a DIET building on the plea that it was assigned land liable to resumption; the High Court reversed the decree in their favour. The Court held that the State, which produced no D-Form patta or record of assignment, had not rebutted the presumption of ownership arising from over twenty years' possession under Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Section 110 of the Evidence Act), that the pattadar passbook vested 'property' within Article 300-A, and that public authorities must respond to Section 80 CPC notices. As the construction was complete, Rs 70 lakhs compensation was directed instead of restoration of possession.

• JOTHIRAGAWAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  24/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 951

  The Supreme Court quashed a prosecution for rape under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the complainant's own First Information Statement and police statement showed a relationship between two adult close relatives, disclosed no promise of marriage preceding the first act of intercourse, and made mutually destructive allegations of coercion and induced consent; letting the trial continue would be an abuse of process.

• INDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  21/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 915

  The High Court condoned a delay of 1537 days by the State in filing a second appeal against a decree declaring the appellant owner of land that the State claimed, and held, as government land in its possession. The Court declined to interfere: while the State gets no special indulgence in matters of limitation and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, a case whose merits require examination should not be scuttled on limitation, and the title dispute between a private party and the State over land in public use deserved a hearing on merits. Appeal dismissed, with condonation made subject to the State paying Rs 50,000 costs within a month.

• DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  21/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 904

  The Supreme Court restored the acquittal of six villagers whom the High Court had convicted as members of an unlawful assembly in a 2002 riot, holding that their mere presence at, or arrest from, the scene of a night-time riot on a public street in their own village, without any overt act, weapon or incriminating recovery, could not establish membership of the unlawful assembly, particularly in an appeal against acquittal.

• SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  21/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 897

  A conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a death caused in a quarrel between cousins over a common field boundary was altered to Section 304 Part I. The Court found the death homicidal and the appellant responsible, but held that the assault with a stick and the blunt side of an axe during a sudden fight near the accused's house, without premeditation, undue advantage or cruelty, attracted Exception 4 to Section 300. Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (6 years 10 months).

• VAIBHAV GOEL & ANR. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

  20/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 841

  Income tax demands for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 raised against the corporate debtor after the NCLT approved the resolution plan, where no claim for those years had been filed before the Resolution Professional, are invalid and unenforceable. Under Section 31(1) of the IBC as explained in Ghanashyam Mishra, statutory dues not forming part of an approved plan stand extinguished; the NCLAT erred in brushing aside that binding decision and the NCLT erred in dismissing the application as frivolous without reasons and with costs.

• M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED versus SNEHASIS NANDA

  20/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 866

  The Supreme Court set aside an NCDRC order directing a housing finance company to pay a flat seller Rs.13,20,000 as the unpaid balance of sale consideration, holding that the seller had no privity of contract with the financier, whose loan was to the buyer, and so was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the burden of proving the alleged tripartite agreement lay on the complainant; the financier's liability could in no case exceed the loan it sanctioned; the complaint was filed about ten years after the cause of action without any order condoning delay; and the buyer was a necessary party who had not been joined.

• INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (ICSSR) versus NEETU GAUR & ORS.

  20/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 850

  The High Court erred in directing the ICSSR to release withheld grant-in-aid so that employees of the Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID) could be paid, on the footing that ICSSR had 'deep and pervasive' control over CRRID. ICSSR's grants are discretionary under its Grant-in-Aid Rules and may be stopped for violation of conditions; one or two nominees on a twelve-member governing body and funding alone do not amount to deep and pervasive control; CRRID is not an Article 12 authority; and there is no employer-employee relationship between ICSSR and CRRID's staff, so the liability to pay salaries rests on CRRID, which was directed to pay the withheld salaries from its own resources.

• SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  19/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 821

  On applications by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association seeking modification of a direction restricting the marking of advocates' appearances, the Supreme Court held that advocates have no indefeasible right to have their appearance recorded without due authorisation, that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article 145 have statutory force and cannot be overridden by practice, and modified its earlier direction so that Court Masters record only the arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate and one assisting advocate, as the Note to Form No. 30 requires.

• CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

  19/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 129

  Candidates holding Master's degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology were wrongly disqualified from selection as Food Safety Officers in Jharkhand on the ground that the advertisement and Rule 2.1.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 required a graduate degree in those subjects. Under Section 37 read with Section 91(2)(b) of the FSS Act, 2006 only the Central Government may prescribe FSO qualifications; 'degree' as defined in Section 22(3) of the UGC Act includes Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate degrees, and the specific mention of a Master's degree in Chemistry sets the minimum only for that subject. The appellants were held qualified and allowed to rejoin the 2016 recruitment from the interview stage.

• SUNITA & ORS. versus VINOD SINGH & ORS.

  19/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 811

  In a motor accident death claim for a 45-year-old woman who received a family pension and worked as a homemaker, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,96,761 to Rs.13,82,500: monthly income taken at Rs.7,000 (family pension plus notional homemaker wages), 25% future prospects added, multiplier 14 applied on the post-mortem age, a 1/4th deduction made, and consortium awarded to each of the five claimants.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHYAMLAL & ORS.

  19/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 144

  The State's appeal against the High Court's conversion of the respondents' conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, and release on the sentence undergone with fine, was dismissed. The medical evidence (post-mortem recording death by asphyxia with cause not ascertainable; the doctor's evidence that the injuries were simple) left a serious doubt whether the injuries caused the death fifteen days later, so no interference was warranted; the Court added a postscript urging High Courts to prioritise old criminal appeals where the accused are on bail.

• STATE (CBI) versus MOHD. SALIM ZARGAR @ FAYAZ & ORS.

  19/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 156

  The CBI's appeals under Section 19 of the TADA Act against the acquittal of the accused in the 1990 kidnapping and murder of the Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University and his Personal Secretary (and, in the connected appeal, of the General Manager of HMT Watch Factory) were dismissed. The eye-witnesses could not identify the accused and the AK-47 was never recovered, so the case rested entirely on confessions recorded by an SP under Section 15 of TADA; these were vitiated by recording in a BSF camp and Joint Interrogation Centres on the day of production with no time for reflection, no question-and-answer record of voluntariness, a memorandum silent on place and time, and no authorisation, and one confession was also barred by issue estoppel having been rejected in an earlier trial.

• TR. A. BABU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

  18/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 926

  Order on an appeal confined to sentence. The appellant (A-4), convicted with his wife (a former Minister) of conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct over grant-in-aid of Rs. 15,45,000 sanctioned to trusts running non-existent schools for disabled children, did not challenge his conviction. Affirming the findings of guilt, the Court entertained the appeal only on quantum of sentence and released him on bail against his voluntary undertaking to deposit an enhanced fine of Rs. 5 crores, to be used for childcare institutions in Tamil Nadu.

• STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS versus AALAMGIR & OTHERS

  18/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1460

  A large batch of State of Haryana appeals against Punjab and Haryana High Court orders that had granted relief to landowners and subsequent purchasers under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by following Pune Municipal Corporation, since overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Without examining the merits, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the writ petitions for fresh decision on the facts of each case in the light of Indore Development Authority, continued status quo orders, reserved liberty to the landowners to challenge the validity of the acquisitions and to raise equities arising from subsequent developments, and condoned delay in the SLPs on a graded scale of costs.

• DISORTHO S.A.S. versus MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED

  18/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1555

  On a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a Colombian distributor against an Indian company, where the agreement chose Indian law and the courts of Gujarat but provided for conciliation and arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota with the award to conform to Colombian law, the Supreme Court held that Indian law governs the arbitration agreement, that Bogota was only the venue and no seat had been chosen, that Indian courts retain supervisory and appointment jurisdiction, and appointed a sole arbitrator with the parties' consent.

• YOGESH KUMAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

  18/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 890

  Stenographers appointed in excess of the advertised posts had worked for eight years without pay; after the termination was upheld, this Court had reserved liberty to seek salary in an appropriate civil action. The High Court refused a writ petition for salary on the ground that only a civil court could grant it. Held: a writ court under Article 226 should not be hyper-technical where the facts are undisputed; the State and High Court must act as model litigants. Appeal allowed; salary with 6% interest and costs of Rs 1 lakh directed.

• SAJITHABAI AND ORS. versus THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS.

  18/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 789

  Draftsmen of the Kerala Water Authority holding both diploma and degree qualifications were promoted to Assistant Engineer under the 40% promotion (diploma) quota of the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, and were later shown senior to directly recruited Assistant Engineers for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer under the degree quota. The High Court held they could not switch quotas. Held: the 1966 Rules and the Special Rules, 1960 govern two distinct services; Rule 4(b) of the 1960 Rules has no bearing on how a person became an Assistant Engineer, and once in that feeder post every officer, however appointed, may opt for the degree or diploma quota if qualified. Appeals allowed.

• KIRAN RAJU PENUMACHA versus TEJUSWINI CHOWDHURY

  17/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 802

  After a mutual-consent divorce decree gave the mother permanent custody of the minor son and the father weekend interim custody, the father filed an execution petition for its enforcement while the mother sought modification of the custody terms. The High Court set aside the Family Court's order executing the decree and remanded both petitions for fresh decision. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the remand, holding that in a matter concerning a minor child the court acts as parens patriae and must consider the execution and modification petitions together, but directed interim supervised Sunday visitation for the father and a time-bound decision by the Family Court.

• PARMINDER SINGH versus HONEY GOYAL AND OTHERS

  17/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 50

  A 21-year-old veterinary student rendered quadriplegic (100% permanent disability) in a motor accident sought enhancement of the Rs.15,25,600 awarded by the High Court. The Supreme Court raised his notional income from Rs.5,600 to Rs.7,500 per month (the High Court figure being below the minimum wage for unskilled workers), added 40% future prospects, and awarded or enhanced attendant charges, special diet, pain and suffering, physiotherapy, future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects, fixing total compensation at Rs.36,84,000 payable by the insurer directly into the claimant's bank account. The Court also issued general directions that motor accident compensation be transferred directly to claimants' bank accounts instead of being deposited with the Tribunal.

• STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus CHATRA

  17/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 95

  A three-year-old girl was found unconscious and bleeding in 1986 after the accused, to whose care she had been entrusted, allegedly raped her. The Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 376 IPC in 1987; the High Court acquitted him in 2013 in a six-page judgment relying on the child's silence in court, a discrepancy between the FIR and the complainant's deposition, and the absence of semen. The Supreme Court restored the conviction: the High Court as first appellate court had not independently assessed the evidence; a traumatised child's silence cannot benefit the accused and conviction may rest on medical and circumstantial evidence; the discrepancy was never put to the witness and was not material; and the medical evidence of injuries to the victim and to the accused pointed to the accused.

• RANJIT SARKAR versus RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS

  17/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1448

  A complaint under Section 304A IPC alleging medical negligence was dismissed for default by the Magistrate during the Covid period while the High Court's stay of the proceedings was in force; a High Court judge then observed that the proper course under Section 256 CrPC was an acquittal, and when the Sessions Judge in revision restored the complaint, another High Court judge quashed that order as sitting in appeal over the earlier observation. The Supreme Court held that an acquittal under Section 256 CrPC follows only where the complainant is absent on a day appointed for the appearance of the accused (or an adjourned hearing) and the accused are present, not on a date fixed for showing cause; that the dismissal was itself without jurisdiction given the stay and the High Court's Covid SoP; and restored the complaint and the accused's pending quashing petition.

• BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus MUTHYALA SAIBABA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY & ANR.

  17/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 120

  A retired bank employee who missed the 30 October 2010 deadline fixed by a circular for opting into the Bank of India (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 applied four months late, pleading a short hospitalisation. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition; the Division Bench allowed his appeal because the scheme was beneficial. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal: a beneficial policy with a time limit cannot be availed at the subject's convenience, wide publicity had been given, no legal right was denied so no mandamus could issue, and writ courts do not act on sympathy or come to the aid of the indolent.

• VISHNOO MITTAL versus M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 41

  Cheques drawn by the appellant as director of a company were dishonoured on 7 July 2018; a moratorium under Section 14 IBC was declared and an interim resolution professional appointed on 25 July 2018; the demand notice under Section 138 NI Act was issued on 6 August 2018 and a complaint followed. The High Court refused to quash the complaint, relying on P. Mohan Raj. The Supreme Court quashed it: the cause of action under Section 138 arises only on non-payment within fifteen days of the notice, which here fell after the moratorium, by when the director's powers stood suspended under Section 17 IBC and he had no capacity to pay; P. Mohan Raj, where the cause of action predated the moratorium, was distinguishable.

• THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION versus NAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 516

  Residents of Auroville complained to the National Green Tribunal that the Foundation was felling trees in the Darkali area to build the Crown Road under its approved Master Plan. The Tribunal found the area was not a forest and needed no Forest (Conservation) Act clearance, yet, invoking the precautionary principle, directed a fresh township plan and environmental clearance, halted construction and appointed a joint committee to review the road alignment. The Supreme Court set aside the orders as without jurisdiction: under Sections 14 and 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act the Tribunal can act only on a substantial question relating to environment arising from implementation of a Schedule I enactment, none of which was alleged or shown, and it could not interfere with a Master Plan approved by the competent authority in 2001 and protected by Section 27 of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.

• PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH SHARMA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 71

  A retired IAS officer prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for laundering proceeds of alleged land-allotment frauds and bribes committed while he was Collector sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC, contending that the predicate offences predated the PMLA or their inclusion in its Schedule and that the amounts fell below the Rs.30 lakh threshold for Part B offences. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: money laundering under Section 3 PMLA is a continuing offence subsisting as long as proceeds of crime are possessed, used, concealed or projected as untainted (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary), the material prima facie showed dealings in proceeds of crime well after the Act came into force, the threshold is judged on the entire financial trail and was far exceeded, and such economic offences call for a trial rather than discharge.

• PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH SHARMA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 32

  A retired IAS officer facing successive FIRs over land allotments made while he was Collector of Kachchh sought a mandamus compelling the State to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering any further FIR against him. The Supreme Court, applying Lalita Kumari, held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC once the information discloses a cognizable offence, that allegations of corruption and abuse of office fall in that category, and that no blanket direction for a pre-FIR inquiry or hearing can be issued; the appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to his remedies under Section 482 CrPC, bail and other proceedings.

• GANGUBAI RAGHUNATH AYARE versus GANGARAM SAKHARAM DHURI (D) THR. LRS AND ORS.

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 184

  A daughter of the deceased owner sued for administration of his estate, a declaration that the sale deed of 10 January 1969 by her brother (who claimed the whole property under an unproved relinquishment deed) in favour of the second defendant was void, and possession of the half portion sold. The Trial Court held the administration suit not maintainable but declared the sale void and decreed possession; the High Court reversed, holding the sale valid to the extent of the brother's undivided share and that no possession decree could be passed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court: a co-owner's sale of more than his share is valid to the extent of his one-fifth share, and relief in the nature of partition cannot be granted in an administration suit held non-maintainable without the necessary parties; it protected the plaintiff's possession until partition and directed status quo.

• SHIVALEELA AND OTHERS A1: SHIVALEELA A2: KUMARI KAVYA A3: KUMARI PURNIMA A4: KUMARI SHRAVYA A5: MASTER VEERESH A6: K. H. M. SHIVAMURTHAIAH versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS R1: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. R2: SRI. GIRISH B. R3: DR. BASAVARAJA

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 63

  Motor accident claim by the dependants of a 32-year-old agriculturist who also ran milk-vending and tractor-hiring businesses. The MACT had assessed his notional income at Rs.10,000 per month and the High Court reduced it to Rs.8,000; the Supreme Court held that both courts ignored the evidence of a Rs.4,20,000 agricultural loan, banana-crop sales of over Rs.5,00,000 in a few months, a family tractor and monthly milk payments, fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000, raised interest to 7.5% per annum and re-computed the compensation at Rs.35,66,600.

• THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATION versus NATASHA STOREY

  16/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 469

  The Madras High Court had set aside Standing Order No. 1/2022 by which the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation reconstituted the Auroville Town Development Council with its own nominees in place of nominees of the Residents' Assembly. The Supreme Court allowed the Foundation's appeal, holding that the writ petitioner had suppressed the dismissal of her earlier petition seeking the same relief, and that under Sections 11(3), 16 and 17(e) of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 read with Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules the Governing Board alone constitutes committees and determines their composition, the Residents' Assembly having no right to be represented on them; the petition was an abuse of process and costs of Rs.50,000 were imposed.

• DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus S.G.G. TOWERS (P) LTD. & ORS.

  07/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 779

  The DDA's predecessor executed only an agreement to lease a Nazul plot in 1957; clause 24 provided that no right, title or interest would pass until a lease was executed and registered, and no lease was ever executed. The intended lessee nonetheless conveyed the plot to a company in 1985, and in that company's liquidation the plot was auctioned on an 'as is' basis to the first respondent in 2000; the sale was confirmed and the DDA's appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the auction purchaser acquired neither ownership nor leasehold rights but at most whatever rights the original intended lessee had under the agreement, declined to direct payment of unearned income out of the liquidation funds, left the DDA free to pursue possession or unearned income, and dismissed the appeal subject to those findings.

• JAMIN & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  06/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 638

  The Trial Court rejected the complainant's application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants (named in the FIR but not chargesheeted) in July 2010; the trial ended in conviction in October 2011; in September 2021 the High Court in revision set aside the rejection, and in February 2024 the Trial Court summoned the appellants. The Supreme Court upheld the summoning: the rejection was a patent illegality justifying revision; a revisional order rectifying a Section 319 order relates back to and replaces the Trial Court's order, so the summoning order is deemed passed before the trial concluded and the Trial Court was not functus officio; the appellants will face a separate de novo trial under Section 319(4). A proposed accused must be heard under Section 401(2) in a revision against a rejection, as the appellants were.

• STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. versus ARABINDA RABHA & ORS.

  06/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 598

  A successor Government of Assam cancelled a select list of 104 Forest Protection Force constables, prepared on an interview-only selection without recruitment rules, on the basis of a note of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests pointing to district-wise concentration of selectees, violation of the reservation policy and inclusion of non-meritorious candidates; the Gauhati High Court set the cancellation aside as curable irregularities needing an inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation withstood both Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality, that the writ court had wrongly substituted its own view, that selected candidates may question an arbitrary refusal to appoint but had no infringed right here as the list was never approved, and permitted a fresh process with age and physical-standard relaxations for the respondents.

• M/S SHRI SENDHUR AGRO & OIL INDUSTRIES versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

  06/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 714

  A Coimbatore borrower sought transfer under Section 406 CrPC of a cheque-dishonour complaint that the lender bank had filed at Chandigarh, where its collection account was located, although the loan, security and SARFAESI proceedings were all in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court dismissed the batch of transfer petitions, holding that Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with its Explanation permits a complaint wherever the cheque is delivered for collection through the payee's account, that the availability of another competent court or the accused's inconvenience, distance or language difficulty does not make transfer 'expedient for the ends of justice', and that a plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be raised before the trial court and decided on evidence, not by transfer.

• GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

  06/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 490

  A father convicted of raping his nine-year-old daughter under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment; in his own appeal the High Court directed that the life term would run for the remainder of his natural life. With notice confined to sentence, the Supreme Court held that conviction under both the IPC and the POCSO Act was justified because Section 42 of the POCSO Act requires punishment under whichever law prescribes the greater punishment and Section 42A, a procedural provision, cannot override it; but the High Court erred in increasing the rigour of the sentence in the accused's appeal, so the trial court's life sentence without the natural-life stipulation was restored with an enhanced fine payable to the victim.

• YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  06/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 502

  Two employees of an interior-decoration contractor were electrocuted and died while working on a shop sign board from an iron ladder; the contractor and the shop's store manager were charged under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC for not providing safety equipment, and their discharge applications were rejected by the trial court and the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court held that even taking the allegations as correct there was neither intention nor knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, so no prima facie case of culpable homicide (or even of Section 304A) was made out, and discharged the appellants.

• SITA RAM & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  05/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 204

  The deceased lodged an FIR naming the appellants as his assailants after a darat blow to his forehead, and died nine days later; the post-mortem gave asphyxia as the cause of death. The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal, convicting the first appellant under Section 304 IPC and the second under Sections 323 and 451 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the FIR was admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act because Indian law does not require that the maker be under expectation of death, and that the head injury causing a fissured skull fracture was in law the cause of a death by hypoxic brain injury manifesting as asphyxia; the convictions were upheld but the sentences reduced.

• VIJAY BAHADUR versus SUNIL KUMAR & ORS.

  05/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 11

  A defeated candidate for Gram Pradhan, who lost by 37 votes, alleged a discrepancy of 19 votes between the total orally stated by the presiding officer and the total in Form 46 for three booths. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, ordered a recount and the revision against it was dismissed, but the High Court under Article 226 quashed the recount for want of documentary evidence. The Supreme Court restored the recount: three of the four candidates had questioned the election on affidavit, the presiding officer's diary and ballot account could not be found despite an order under the RTI Act, and the unexplained absence of essential election records placed the declared result within the realm of questionability.

• PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus V. RAJAMANI & ANR. ETC.

  05/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 540

  Decree-holders under a 1986 decree for specific performance with possession, affirmed up to the Supreme Court by 2006, were obstructed in execution by the vendors' nephews, defendants in the suit who had never contested it and now claimed to be cultivating tenants; the executing court allowed their Section 47 CPC objection and the Madras High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that obstruction to a possession decree is adjudicated under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 CPC, that the executing court cannot go behind the decree or re-try issues that belonged to the suit, and that the respondents' claim was collusive and gave them no independent right or protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955; it ordered delivery of possession within two months and directed all High Courts to ensure pending execution petitions are disposed of within six months.

• JOYI KITTY JOSEPH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 419

  The wife of a person detained under the COFEPOSA Act for running a gold-smuggling syndicate challenged the detention. The Supreme Court rejected the grounds argued (omnibus invocation of clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1), reference to an old NDPS case, and non-placement of a bail-cancellation application before the detaining authority), but set aside the detention on a ground it noticed itself: the detenu had been released on bail with conditions imposed specifically to prevent further smuggling, and the detaining authority recorded no satisfaction as to why those conditions were insufficient.

• SMT. LAVANYA C & ANR. versus VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

  04/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 450

  In a suit to rescind a joint development agreement, the defendants' counsel twice undertook in 2007 that the defendants would not alienate the suit property, and the Trial Court made the undertaking an order which was extended from time to time; sale deeds were nonetheless executed. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, but the High Court in appeal held the defendants guilty of disobedience and ordered civil imprisonment, attachment and compensation. The Supreme Court confirmed the finding of contempt, rejecting the plea that counsel lacked authority to give the undertaking since the clients never sought its discharge for over four years, but deleted the civil imprisonment on account of age, kept the attachment and enhanced the compensation to Rs 13 lakhs with interest.

• SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. versus DR. KULBIR SINGH RANA

  04/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1547

  The Sports Authority of India challenged the Delhi High Court's refusal to recall an order that had disposed of its writ petition on its own counsel's statement that it would comply with the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to consider the respondents, contractual physiotherapists, as 'initial constituents' under Rule 4 of the 2022 Recruitment Rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals: a party cannot resile from an order passed on its concession unless fraud or deception is shown, and in any case the Tribunal had rightly held the respondents entitled to consideration as initial constituents.

• PATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  04/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 432

  Four persons were convicted under Sections 306 and 114 IPC for abetting the suicide of a postal employee who, according to a suicide note that surfaced twenty days after his death, had been blackmailed with compromising photographs. The Supreme Court acquitted them: the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, the doubtful emergence of the note, inconsistencies among the witnesses, the absence of any recovery of the money, ornaments or poison, and the failure to examine the handwriting expert undermined the prosecution, and in any event no act of incitement proximate to the suicide was attributed to the accused.

• KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  04/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482

  The appellant was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a child who went missing from a village Jagran function, and the Uttarakhand High Court confirmed the sentence. The Supreme Court acquitted him, finding that the trial was conducted in undue haste without a fair opportunity to defend, that the 'last seen' witnesses were unreliable because none of them told the police at the spot and no identification parade was held, that the recovery of clothes was planted, and that the DNA report was inadmissible since the expert was not examined and the chain of custody of the samples was not proved.

• C. KAMALAKKANNAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 629

  The appellant's conviction under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with 109 IPC rested on a handwriting expert's opinion that a postal cover used to transmit a forged marksheet bore his handwriting. The Court held that, since the original postal cover was never exhibited or proved and the expert did not even identify the cover examined, the existence of the disputed document was not established, the expert report was rendered redundant and the conviction could not stand; the appellant was acquitted.

• SANJAY SADASHIV BENDRE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1165

  Leading Firemen/Tandels of the Pune Municipal Corporation challenged the Bombay High Court's view that their reclassification as Class III under the Pune Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Classification of Services) Rules, 2014 reduced their retirement age from 60 to 58. The Supreme Court held that retirement age is governed by Regulation 66 read with Appendix A of the Municipal Service Regulations, 1954, framed under Section 465 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and that recruitment rules framed under Section 457(3)(a) cannot impliedly override a regulation specifically fixing the retirement age; the post remains in the 'inferior service' retiring at 60.

• SIDDHARTH DALMIA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 197

  A public-interest writ petition under Article 32 sought to restrain private hospitals from compelling patients to buy medicines, implants and consumables from hospital pharmacies at inflated prices and to direct the Union and States to frame a regulatory policy. The Court held that the matter involves policy choices best left to the executive, that public health and hospitals fall within the State List, and disposed of the petition by directing all State Governments to consider the issue and take appropriate policy decisions, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

• SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL versus BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 325

  A real-estate developer, against whom a personal-guarantor insolvency application under Section 95 IBC had been filed, sought a stay of execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for 27 penalties imposed by the NCDRC for failing to deliver flats, relying on the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC. The Court held that the interim moratorium for individuals and personal guarantors stays only proceedings in respect of a 'debt'; regulatory penalties and damages awarded by a consumer forum are 'excluded debts' under Section 79(15) and are not covered, so the execution could proceed.

• SURESH versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 317

  The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for burning his wife rested on a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate six days after the incident, which contradicted two statements the deceased made on the day of the incident (to the doctor and to the police) that she caught fire accidentally while cooking. The Court held that where dying declarations are inconsistent, conviction cannot rest on one of them without corroboration; finding no reliable corroboration and several circumstances inconsistent with the prosecution case, it acquitted the appellant on benefit of doubt.

• K.S. MEHTA versus M/S MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD.

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1

  Two non-executive directors of a listed company were prosecuted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheques issued by the company towards an inter-corporate deposit; the High Court refused to quash the complaints under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that non-executive directors who neither signed the cheques nor were shown by specific averments to be in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time cannot be made vicariously liable, and quashed the proceedings.

• DEVINDER KUMAR BANSAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

  03/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1531

  Anticipatory bail was refused to an Audit Inspector accused of demanding a bribe, collected through a co-accused caught red-handed, for conducting a panchayat audit. A mere demand or solicitation of a bribe is itself an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; anticipatory bail is not an integral part of Article 21 and in corruption cases may be granted only in exceptional circumstances such as false implication or frivolous or politically motivated allegations, none of which was shown.

• SHARMILA VELAMUR versus V. SANJAY AND ORS.

  02/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 377

  A mother, appointed by an Idaho court as full and permanent guardian of her 22-year-old son who has Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and mild intellectual disability, challenged the Madras High Court's dismissal of her habeas corpus petition after the father had brought the son from the US to Chennai during pending guardianship proceedings. The Supreme Court, relying on a multidisciplinary NIMHANS assessment and the Idaho evaluation reports, held that the son functions at the level of an 8-to-10-year-old and cannot make independent, legally binding decisions, so his stated wish to stay with his father could not found a finding of consensual residence; applying the parens patriae doctrine and the best-interests test, it directed that he return to the US with his brother under the mother's guardianship.

• THE STATE OF GOA & ANR. versus NAMITA TRIPATHI

  02/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 341

  The High Court quashed the summoning order in a complaint under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against the proprietor of a laundry, holding that dry cleaning is not a 'manufacturing process' because no transformation into a new commercially distinct article results. The Court held that Section 2(k) of the Act expressly includes 'washing' and 'cleaning' of any article with a view to its use, delivery or disposal, that the transformation test belongs to the Central Excise Act and cannot be imported into this welfare statute, that the laundry employing more than nine workers with power was a 'factory' under Section 2(m), and restored the complaint and summoning order.

• SHABEEN AHMAD versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  02/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 367

  In a dowry-death case where the bride died of ante-mortem strangulation within two years of marriage, the Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court to the father-in-law and mother-in-law, finding a strong prima facie case and a mechanical approach by the High Court, but left undisturbed the bail of the two sisters-in-law in view of their less direct role and personal circumstances.

• RAJNISH SINGH @ SONI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

  02/03/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 303

  The appellant sought quashing of a chargesheet under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC founded on an FIR lodged in 2022 alleging that he had sexual relations with the complainant from 2006 under a false promise of marriage. The Court held that a consensual physical relationship between educated adults continued for about sixteen years, during which the complainant portrayed herself as his wife, cannot be attributed purely to a promise of marriage or treated as rape, found the allegations contradictory and belated, and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings as an abuse of process.

• IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES versus

  02/03/2025 · [2025] 4 S.C.R. 222

  In suo motu proceedings and connected matters on recruitment of persons with disabilities to the district judiciary in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the Court held that visually impaired candidates cannot be regarded as 'not suitable' for judicial service, struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low-vision candidates, struck down the proviso to Rule 7 (three years' practice or 70% in the first attempt) for candidates with disabilities as indirect discrimination, held that relaxation of minimum cut-off marks for such candidates is permissible under the existing power to relax and the DoPT Office Memorandum, directed separate cut-offs and merit lists for the disability category at every stage, and held that persons with disabilities and persons with benchmark disabilities cannot be distinguished for these purposes.

• SARITA CHOUDHARY versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1456

  Two women Civil Judges (Junior Division) of Madhya Pradesh, terminated during probation in May 2023 under Rule 11(c) of the M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 and not reinstated when the Full Court reconsidered the matter at the Supreme Court's request, challenged their terminations. Examining their ACRs, assessment charts and complaints, the Court found no consistent poor performance, found that adverse remarks were communicated late or not at all and an unapproved ACR was relied on, and held that the terminations were founded on complaints of misconduct and inefficiency without any opportunity to be heard, making them punitive, stigmatic and arbitrary. It set aside the terminations and ordered reinstatement with declared probation, seniority and notional benefits, but without salary for the intervening period.

• THE CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD & ANR.

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1445

  An advertising company that took a Rs 10 crore project loan to fund the post-production of a film, and later complained to the NCDRC that the bank wrongly reported it as a defaulter after a one-time settlement, was held not to be a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: the loan had a close nexus with profit generation and its dominant purpose was commercial. The NCDRC's award of Rs 75 lakh compensation was set aside for want of jurisdiction, without any opinion on the merits.

• PRADIP N. SHARMA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2091

  A retired IAS officer sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 409, 219 and 114 IPC alleging that, as District Collector, he had corruptly set aside a forfeiture of government land in favour of absentee allottees, and separately sought anticipatory bail after the High Court refused both. The Court declined to quash the FIR because the allegations of misuse of official position, lack of jurisdiction and collusion required investigation, but granted anticipatory bail since the case turns on official records and no need for custodial interrogation was shown.

• SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1416

  In a revision against an order discharging the appellant in a murder case, the High Court stayed the discharge ex parte while issuing notice and later directed the appellant to surrender to custody. The Court held that a stay of a discharge order is a drastic measure amounting to final relief, permissible only in rare cases of ex facie perversity after hearing the accused, that under Section 390 read with Section 401 CrPC the revisional court should ordinarily direct the discharged person to furnish bail rather than commit him to custody, quashed both orders and directed the appellant to furnish bail before the Sessions Court pending the revision.

• SACHIN YALLAPPA USULKAR & ORS. versus VIJAYATA & ORS.

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2080

  The Tribunal and the High Court held that a minor (Appellant No. 2) was driving the Bolero that killed the claimants' breadwinner, awarded compensation enhanced to Rs. 21,82,800 and directed the insurer to pay and recover from the owner. Re-examining the evidence, the Court found no evidence that the minor was driving, the eyewitnesses themselves having stated that his father drove, absolved the minor, upheld the compensation and set aside the pay-and-recover direction, making the insurer liable without recovery.

• UNION OF INDIA THR. I.O. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus MAN SINGH VERMA

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1534

  In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC that had become infructuous after the accused was released following a closure report, the High Court directed the Narcotics Control Bureau to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for wrongful confinement. The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to the grant or refusal of bail, that compensation for violation of fundamental rights has been awarded only in proceedings under Article 32, and that the award was without authority of law; the compensation direction was set aside while leaving the respondent's other remedies open.

• ABDUL WAHID & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  28/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2101

  Three appellants convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for a 1988 knife attack in Kota challenged their life sentences. The Court found the sole surviving eyewitness, the informant PW-1, to be an interested stock witness of the police whose account was contradicted by the investigating officers and the physical record, found the other eyewitnesses hostile or inconsistent, and found the investigation gravely deficient (motorcycle not seized, no blood-soil sample, weapon recoveries unproved and weapons not produced). Holding there was no credible evidence connecting the accused to the admittedly homicidal death, it acquitted all three.

• SACHIN JAISWAL versus M/S HOTEL ALKA RAJE & OTHER

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1396

  Land bought by the appellant's father in 1965, on which he and his brother built a hotel after forming a partnership in 1972, became the property of the firm under Section 14 of the Partnership Act. The Court upheld the High Court's clarification that the decree declaring title be read in favour of the firm alone, and held that the High Court had no occasion to decide the separate contention that title could not pass by a relinquishment deed.

• GAURI MAHTO @ GAURI KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2122

  The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the statutory ingredients: the case rested on an absconding co-accused's confession, the victim and his parents never identified the appellant, ownership of the house of recovery was not investigated, and neither a ransom demand by the appellant nor any threat of death or hurt was proved.

• M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION versus THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC.

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1625

  Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the State claimed to have taken possession of 46,538.43 sq m of surplus land in Hyderabad by a panchnama dated 08.02.2008, weeks before the Repeal Act took effect in Andhra Pradesh. Restoring the Single Judge's judgment, the Court held that a notice under Section 10(5) must actually be served and thirty days must elapse before possession can be taken under Section 10(6); that vesting under Section 10(3) is of title, not de facto possession; that the State must prove actual physical possession by cogent evidence, which it failed to do, so the landholder gets the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act; and that neither a Division Bench in an intra-court appeal nor a writ court faced with a 'disputed question of fact' plea should have brushed aside the Single Judge's findings.

• THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH versus ASHOK BHOI ETC.

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1785

  The State's appeals against the High Court's acquittal of two accused charged with the kidnapping for ransom and murder of a boy were dismissed. The case rested on circumstantial evidence; 'last seen together' evidence alone, with an unconvincing recovery and no proof that the accused made the ransom call, could not sustain a conviction, and there was no evidence at all against the second accused.

• RAJU @ NIRPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1821

  Concurrent convictions of the accused for kidnapping and gang rape of a girl under seventeen who was held captive and repeatedly raped over two months were upheld. The prosecutrix's minority made consent irrelevant and in any event submission under fear of her captors was not consent; the medical opinion that she was 'accustomed to sexual intercourse', the absence of injuries and the delay in the FIR did not help the defence; and no reduction of sentence below the statutory minimum was warranted.

• M.S. ANANTHAMURTHY & ANR. versus J. MANJULA

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2035

  The Supreme Court held that a general power of attorney executed alongside an unregistered agreement to sell did not create an agency coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act merely because it was called irrevocable, so it ended on the principal's death under Section 201, and the sale deed the attorney later executed in favour of her son passed no title. Read together, the documents would create an interest in immovable property needing registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The respondent's injunction decree was upheld.

• PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTII versus JOTHI & ANR.

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411

  The appellant, substituted as plaintiff on the strength of a will, objected to his sister (another legal heir of the deceased plaintiff) being impleaded as a defendant. The Court held that its earlier order permitting his substitution did not bar anyone else from contesting the will, that all necessary parties must be heard to reach the truth, and dismissed the appeal.

• RADHIKA AGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331

  Challenges to the power of customs and GST officers to arrest, and to the vires of Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Acts, were rejected. The Court held that the 2012, 2013 and 2019 amendments to Section 104 of the Customs Act displaced the petitioners' reliance on Om Prakash; that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to arrests under both Acts except where excluded; that the safeguards laid down in Arvind Kejriwal for arrests under the PMLA (material, written reasons to believe, grounds of arrest in writing, judicial review) apply equally to arrests under Section 104 of the Customs Act and Section 69 of the GST Acts; and that taxpayers cannot be coerced into paying tax under threat of arrest. Bela M. Trivedi, J. concurred in a separate opinion confining judicial review of such arrests to compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards.

• MANSOOR ALI FARIDA IRSHAD ALI & OTHERS versus THE TAHSILDAR-I, SPECIAL CELL & OTHERS

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1703

  Occupants of a plot under a slum rehabilitation scheme challenged an eviction notice issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, contending that the plot was a MHADA layout to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(5) DCR and that no slum notification had been issued. The Court held that a censused slum falls within the definition of slum under Regulation 33(10) DCR without any separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act, that the plot was not a MHADA layout, that the unchallenged AGRC order had attained finality, and dismissed the appeals.

• KANISHK SINHA & ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1405

  The appellants sought quashing of two FIRs, contending that the second, which arose from a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC filed in 2010-2011 without a supporting affidavit, violated the direction in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. The Court held that the affidavit requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava operates prospectively only, upheld the High Court and dismissed the appeals.

• MANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYA versus MAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR.

  27/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1433

  The brother of the deceased (the first informant) challenged a Bombay High Court order refusing the State leave under Section 378(3) CrPC to appeal against the acquittal of the deceased's husband on a charge of murdering her by gunshot. The Court held that at the leave stage the High Court must examine whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, not whether the acquittal is perverse, and finding the High Court's reasons unconvincing, granted leave and remitted the acquittal appeal for decision on merits, also permitting the informant to file a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to be heard together with it.

• RAM LAL versus JARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

  25/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1745

  The Supreme Court held that when a decree for specific performance is affirmed in appeal, the trial court's decree merges in the appellate decree, which alone is executable; where the appellate court fixes no time for depositing the balance price, the time fixed by the trial court does not automatically govern, and the decree holder must deposit within a reasonable time. Restoring the executing court's order permitting deposit, it awarded the judgment debtors 9% simple interest for the delay.

• NIRMITI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  25/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1206

  The Supreme Court held that the reservation of a plot for a private school under the 1993 Amravati development plan had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act once no steps to acquire it were taken within twelve months of the owners' purchase notice of 13.08.2014, so the land was free of reservation when sold to the appellants; it set aside the High Court's view that the purchasers could not take the benefit of the earlier lapse.

• DR. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH versus BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (THROUGH SECRETARY) AND ORS.

  25/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2130

  The Supreme Court held that Article 212(1) does not bar judicial review of the Bihar Legislative Council's expulsion of a member on the Ethics Committee's recommendation, since that disciplinary action is administrative and not a proceeding of the Legislature challenged for procedural irregularity, and that courts may review the proportionality of such punishment. Finding expulsion for derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister grossly disproportionate, it used Article 142 to treat the seven months already undergone as suspension, ordered reinstatement and quashed the bye-election.

• GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED versus GRSE LIMITED WORKMENS UNION & ORS.

  25/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1813

  The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment that had decided a pending writ petition on compassionate appointment while hearing an intra-court appeal against a mere de-listing order. Because the Division Bench had no roster allocation from the Chief Justice to hear such writ petitions, and consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction, its order was void; the writ petition was revived for decision by a bench assigned by the Chief Justice.

• MAHAVEER SHARMA versus EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

  25/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1311

  The Supreme Court held that a life insurer could not repudiate a claim for non-disclosure of other policies where the insured had disclosed, and supplied a copy of, a larger existing life policy and omitted only policies of inconsequential sum assured. The disclosure was substantial, the omission would not have influenced a prudent insurer, and death was accidental under a life (not Mediclaim) cover; the claim was ordered to be paid with 9% interest.

• JAYA BHATTACHARYA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

  25/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1325

  Deciding on merits a pension dispute pending for about 25 years, the Supreme Court held that once the State regularised the appellant's long absence by treating it as extraordinary leave, that period could not be treated as a break in service to deny pension, particularly when the departmental inquiry ordered by the Tribunal into her claim that she was kept from working was never held. Pension was directed to be finalised within three months, without arrears.

• HIRALAL BABULAL SONI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  24/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 708

  In a bank fraud through forged telegraphic transfers, the Supreme Court acquitted a jeweller convicted under Sections 120B and 411 IPC, holding that once the courts below found that the 205 seized gold bars were not proved to be the gold bought with the fraudulent demand drafts, he could not be convicted, nor could Sections 106 or 114 of the Evidence Act be used to shift the burden to him; the gold was ordered returned to him and the bank's claim was rejected.

• LIFECARE INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  24/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 727

  In an Article 32 petition by a micro enterprise excluded from drug tenders by minimum turnover clauses, the Supreme Court held that the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises Order 2012, issued under Section 11 of the MSMED Act, has the force of law. It creates no enforceable right for an individual MSE but imposes duties on the authorities that are subject to judicial review; minimum turnover clauses cannot override the Order. The Review Committee and Grievance Cell were directed to act within 60 days.

• SUNEETI TOTEJA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

  24/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 918

  The Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order against a BIS officer who, while on deputation as Presiding Officer of the FSSAI Internal Complaints Committee, had filed a counter affidavit before the CAT and dealt with the complainant. Her acts were in discharge of official duty, so previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC was necessary; Section 197 recognises no 'deemed sanction', and the competent authority (BIS) had expressly refused sanction.

• MD. BANI ALAM MAZID @ DHAN versus STATE OF ASSAM

  24/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2006

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder and causing disappearance of evidence, holding that once the High Court discarded the extra-judicial confessions as inadmissible, the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken; the remaining circumstances of last seen together and recovery of the body at his instance were themselves not proved, and the absence of motive and non-examination of material witnesses further weakened the prosecution.

• THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BALVEER SINGH

  23/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 836

  Reversing the High Court's acquittal, the Supreme Court restored a husband's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for killing his wife at home and secretly cremating her at night. The seven-year-old daughter's eyewitness account was wrongly discarded as tutored merely because her police statement was recorded 18 days late and she lived with a maternal relative. The Court laid down tests for child and tutored testimony and held that the proved circumstances shifted the burden to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

• ANMOL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  21/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1142

  Giving reasons for its earlier order admitting a NEET-UG candidate with 58% locomotor and speech disability to MBBS, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of 'both hands intact' in Appendix H-1 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations is ableist, overbroad and contrary to Article 41, the UN Convention and the RPwD Act. It rejected the unreasoned five-member AIIMS board report, accepted the dissenting member's functional assessment, and confirmed the admission.

• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA

  21/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1295

  In a large batch of appeals by the State of Odisha, the Supreme Court set aside High Court orders directing that the entire service of former job contract employees be counted for calculating pension. Rule 18(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 adds only so much job contract service as makes the employee eligible for pension, unlike Rule 18(3) for work-charged employees; the State was, however, made to pay costs for its inexcusable delays.

• RAHUL VERMA & ORS. versus RAMPAT LAL VERMA & ORS.

  21/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1713

  The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause in a partnership deed binds and benefits the legal heirs of a deceased partner even though they did not sign the deed, because under Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 an arbitration agreement survives a party's death and the right to sue for rendition of accounts survives to the heirs. The High Court's order referring the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 was upheld.

• JITENDER @ KALLA versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

  20/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1969

  Dealing with an SLP for premature release that suppressed the convict's fixed thirty-year sentence without remission, the Supreme Court laid down that an advocate-on-record is wholly responsible for what he files even if someone else drafted it, that name lending is misconduct under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and, flagging serious doubts about the senior-designation guidelines in Indira Jaising I and II, referred the question of their reconsideration to the Chief Justice of India.

• STATE OF KERALA & ORS. versus MOUSHMI ANN JACOB

  20/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1273

  Construing the Kerala Government Order of 25 February 2021 on conversion fees for unnotified paddy land, the Supreme Court held that the fee exemption for lands up to 25 cents applies only to holdings of 25 cents or less; where the land exceeds 25 cents, the fee of 10% of fair value is payable on the whole extent, not merely on the portion above 25 cents. The High Court's contrary reading was set aside.

• SURINDER DOGRA versus STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR CBI

  20/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 696

  The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of an Indian Airlines Traffic Superintendent for cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct, holding that the handwriting expert's report and the testimony of a witness familiar with his handwriting proved that he alone prepared and tampered the auditor and flight coupons of a ticket converted from an infant ticket to an adult one.

• THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus RAJESH KUMAR @ MUNNU

  20/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1806

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's acquittal of the respondent in a rape and house-trespass case, holding that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the mother turning hostile, the father's evasive testimony, the refusal of medical examination and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused justified the benefit of doubt.

• RACING PROMOTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DR. HARISH & ORS.

  20/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1608

  The Supreme Court set aside directions of the Madras High Court, issued in public interest litigation against a Formula 4 street race in Chennai, which required the private promoter to reimburse the State's Rs. 42 crore spend, deposit future costs in advance and bear the whole expenditure, and required the State to conduct such events itself, holding that a High Court cannot rewrite the terms of a State instrumentality's MoU or override a public-private partnership policy.

• BANK OF BARODA versus FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS.

  19/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 687

  The Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court wrongly used its writ jurisdiction to quash personal insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor at the stage when the Adjudicating Authority had only appointed a resolution professional. Whether the guarantee liability was waived, i.e., whether the debt exists, is a mixed question for the resolution professional's report under Section 99 and adjudication under Section 100 IBC; the proceedings were restored.

• MAATR SPARSH AN INITIATIVE BY AVYAAN FOUNDATION versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

  19/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1772

  On a public interest petition seeking feeding and child-care rooms in public places, the Supreme Court recognised that a child's right to be breast-fed and the mother's right to breast-feed flow from Article 21, and directed the Union to remind all States and Union Territories, with a copy of its order, to comply with the Ministry of Women and Child Development's advisory of 27.02.2024 on creating such facilities.

• SAJID KHAN versus L RAHMATHULLAH & ORS.

  19/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 657

  The Supreme Court restored the appointments of Junior Engineers (Electrical) in Lakshadweep who held a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, where the rules and advertisement prescribed a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The employer had obtained a clarification that the two diplomas were equivalent and accepted them; equivalence is for the employer, and the CAT and High Court erred in taking a technical view based only on nomenclature.

• DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANR versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

  18/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1178

  The Supreme Court held that purchasers who obtained a High Court direction for refund of stamp duty paid on a lost, unused e-stamp paper were also entitled to interest, since money retained by the State without right carries a right to interest even absent a statutory provision; it awarded interest at 8% per annum on the amounts retained, computed at Rs. 4,35,968.

• STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE

  18/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 193

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order quashing a second FIR against a State bio-fuel authority official under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that a second FIR is permissible where its scope differs from the first; here the first FIR concerned a single bribe demand while the second concerned a wider conspiracy of corruption in the department. The second FIR was restored and the investigation directed to be completed early.

• IN RE: POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL versus

  18/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1588

  In a suo motu matter on remission of sentences, the Supreme Court held that where the appropriate Government has a remission policy, it must consider every convict as and when eligible under it, without any application by or for the convict. It directed States and Union Territories without a policy to frame one within two months, laid down the standards for conditions attached to remission, and required brief reasons, communication to the convict and a hearing before grant, refusal or cancellation of remission.

• STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus TRISHALA ALLOYS PVT. LTD.

  17/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1948

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005, which restricted input tax credit on goods held in stock to the reduced rate of tax, could not operate before 01.04.2014. Only from that date did the amended first proviso to Section 13(1) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 supply the statutory sanction needed to cut down credit already earned on inputs bought at the higher rate.

• JAIDEEP BOSE versus M/S BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

  17/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 234

  Summons in a criminal defamation complaint over newspaper articles on the authenticity of auctioned paintings were quashed against the Editorial Director and the journalists. There was no statutory presumption and no specific allegation against the Editorial Director, the Magistrate skipped the inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. mandatory for accused residing outside his jurisdiction, and a remand after more than a decade would serve no purpose.

• STATE OF KARNATAKA versus T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY

  17/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1241

  The Supreme Court restored a disproportionate-assets FIR against a public servant that the High Court had quashed. It held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in Prevention of Corruption Act cases, and that a detailed source information report disclosing a cognizable offence can itself serve as one. A Superintendent of Police may issue a single reasoned order directing both registration of the FIR and investigation by a Deputy Superintendent under Section 17 of the Act.

• HITESH UMESHBHAI MASHRU versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  17/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 205

  The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant accused of offences under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) IPC, noting that he had joined the investigation under interim protection and the charge-sheet had since been filed, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

• SUBHELAL @ SUSHIL SAHU versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  17/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 636

  The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in custody since December 2023 in a cryptocurrency investment fraud being tried by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, where the prosecution proposed to examine 189 witnesses. Explaining Section 437(6) CrPC, it held that the provision does not give an indefeasible right to bail like default bail under Section 167(2), but applications under it must be dealt with liberally and refused only for weighty reasons. As a special condition, it directed the appellant to deposit Rs.35 lakh within six months.

• WESTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. versus MANOHAR GOVINDA FULZELE & ANR.

  16/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 183

  The Supreme Court held that gratuity can be forfeited under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 where an employee is terminated for misconduct that constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, without any criminal conviction; the contrary view in C.G. Ajay Babu was treated as obiter. It upheld total forfeiture for an employee appointed on a forged date-of-birth certificate but limited forfeiture to 25% for conductors who misappropriated meagre fares.

• M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS versus R N NADIGAR & ORS.

  14/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1876

  The Supreme Court held that a representative suit by former students and rate-payers seeking a declaration of the State's title and possession of land was not maintainable. The State was bound by the final injunction decree the appellant had obtained against it in an earlier suit, and the plaintiffs, who knowingly stayed out of that litigation, had no locus to seek reliefs for the State that the State itself could not obtain. The suit was dismissed, leaving the question of title open.

• MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 100

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's review order setting aside a bus driver's dismissal. The employer had pleaded on oath before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the lorry driver alone was to blame, then hid that stand and the Tribunal's award from the Labour Court, which the Court found amounted to suggestio falsi and suppressio veri akin to fraud on court. As the driver admitted doing daily-wage badli work, it reduced back wages from 100% to 75%, with full terminal benefits.

• RAMESH A. NAIKA versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC.

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1721

  The Supreme Court upheld, on circumstantial evidence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC of a father who drowned his two young children, but commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life without remission. The trial court had failed to consider his lack of criminal antecedents and his good conduct and relations with the family, and intimidation of witnesses during the trial could not be treated as a prior criminal antecedent.

• VINOD @ NASMULLA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 80

  The Supreme Court acquitted an appellant convicted of dacoity with a deadly weapon and an Arms Act offence, holding that a test identification parade loses its evidentiary value when the identifying witnesses are not examined at trial, that the solitary dock identification by a police witness who was not used in the parade was unreliable, and that the alleged night-time arrest with a pistol by a lone constable was doubtful in the absence of corroboration.

• TAPAS KUMAR PALIT versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 630

  The Supreme Court granted bail to an undertrial accused under the UAPA who had been in custody for about five years, holding that however serious the alleged offence, prolonged incarceration while the trial drags on infringes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. It also observed that prosecutors should not multiply witnesses on the same fact and that the Special Judge should question the need for repetitive witnesses.

• JSW STEEL LTD. versus THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUMBAI PORT TRUST MUMBAI & ORS.

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 701

  The High Court erred in disposing of a 1996 writ petition as infructuous and relegating the petitioner to a civil suit. The petition raised a pure question of law, whether the cost of removing a capsized barge's wreck under Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 could be fastened on a party other than the vessel's owner, which required no disputed facts. Lapse of time caused by systemic delay was no ground to close it. The petition was revived and remanded for decision on merits.

• M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITED versus HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 998

  The Supreme Court held that HUDCO, which allotted a 5-star hotel site and car park, was in breach of its reciprocal obligations: it did not execute documents for statutory approvals, could not execute the agreement to sub-lease because it held no perpetual lease, and lacked layout approval. It therefore could not forfeit the allottee's first instalment, and was directed to refund it. Because the allottee had engaged in forum shopping and did not come with clean hands, it was denied interest under Section 34 CPC.

• RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAIN versus AVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE & ANR.

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 670

  The Supreme Court upheld the impounding of an agreement to sell executed in favour of a tenant already in possession, holding that under Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 such an agreement is deemed a conveyance and attracts stamp duty, because stamp duty is levied on the instrument and possession had been handed over before the agreement. Any duty paid on the agreement is to be adjusted against the duty on the eventual sale deed.

• CMJ FOUNDATION AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1020

  The Supreme Court upheld the State of Meghalaya's 2014 order dissolving CMJ University. It held that the Chancellor's appointment without the Visitor's approval under Section 14(1) of the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 was non est, since 'subject to approval' means conditional on approval and the Act contains no deemed approval; that the dissolution complied with Section 48 and the Court's 2013 directions; and that the High Court Division Bench, having upheld the procedure, wrongly remanded the matter to the Single Judge.

• M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 128

  Where a bidder for a Rs.1,504-crore tunnel project quoted Rs.1,569 instead of Rs.1,569 crores, the Supreme Court held the error to be patent and self-evident, found the Border Roads Organisation's insistence on the bid and forfeiture of the Rs.15.04-crore bid security disproportionate, and directed refund of the security on the bidder paying Rs.1 crore for its own fault.

• P. RAMMOHAN RAO versus K. SRINIVAS AND ORS. ETC.

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1060

  Temporary Assistant Executive Engineers appointed in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department in 1990-92, when no recruitment rules for the post existed, and continued without break until regularised in 2005, are entitled to count their officiating service for seniority over the 1997 batch of APPSC direct recruits. The State was not functus officio after G.O.M. No. 234 and needed no prior hearing of affected employees before revising it by G.O.M. No. 262.

• PUJA FERRO ALLOYS P LTD. versus STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

  13/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 138

  Industrial units whose power supply began after the Goa notification of 30.09.1991 granting a 25% tariff rebate was rescinded with effect from 01.04.1995 could not claim the rebate under it. The 1996 amending notifications were void ab initio, and the units' challenge to recovery notices under the Goa rebate recovery Act of 2002 was barred by res judicata in view of the GR Ispat decision. The appeals were dismissed.

• KAMALKISHOR SHRIGOPAL TAPARIA versus INDIA ENER-GEN PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

  12/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 91

  Cheque-dishonour complaints were quashed against an independent non-executive director who had neither signed the cheques nor been involved in the company's financial affairs. The complaints contained no specific averment of how he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, and mere directorship does not attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

• SUKHDEV SINGH versus SUKHBIR KAUR

  12/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1569

  Answering a reference, a three-Judge Bench held that a spouse whose marriage is declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 may claim permanent alimony under Section 25, since 'any decree' includes a decree of nullity. Interim maintenance under Section 24 may be granted even where the court prima facie finds the marriage void or voidable. Both reliefs are discretionary and depend on the parties' conduct.

• K. KRISHNAMURTHY versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

  12/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 557

  Construing Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court held that penalty for undisclosed income found in a search is discretionary, that the Assessing Officer must prove the income is 'undisclosed income' found in the course of the search, and that the immunity in sub-section (2) is available even where tax and interest are paid late. It confined the 10% penalty to the income first disclosed during assessment, not the amount the assessee admitted during the search, and not the entire assessed income.

• THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus PRISM CEMENT LIMITED & ANR

  12/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1861

  The Supreme Court held that the 2002 amendment to Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which made State exemptions on inter-State sales subject to production of Forms C and D under Section 8(4), is prospective. It does not take away the accrued right of a unit holding unconditional exemption under eligibility and entitlement certificates issued in 1998, so the revision notices and trade circulars demanding the exempted tax were rightly quashed.

• THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR versus KANHAIYA PRASAD

  12/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 544

  The High Court's order granting regular bail to an accused in a money-laundering prosecution was set aside because it recorded no satisfaction on the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45 PMLA. Statements recorded under Section 50 are not barred by Article 20(3), and money laundering is an independent offence that does not require the accused to be named in the predicate offence. The bail application was remanded to a different Bench and the accused directed to surrender.

• CANARA BANK versus AJITHKUMAR G.K.

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 963

  The Supreme Court upheld Canara Bank's refusal of compassionate appointment to the son of an employee who died four months before superannuation. It held that indigence is the first precondition for such appointment, that terminal benefits and family pension must be weighed in assessing it, and, respectfully disagreeing with paragraph 19 of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, that the family was not in penury. It set aside the High Court's direction to appoint him without a suitability test, but under Article 142 directed a lump-sum payment of Rs. 2.5 lakh.

• SUMAN MISHRA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 534

  An FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family were quashed as vexatious. The FIR was lodged two months after the husband filed for divorce, its main rape allegation was dropped after investigation without any protest petition, and the remaining allegations were omnibus and undated. The High Court's cursory refusal to quash was set aside.

• OM PRAKASH GUPTA ALIAS LALLOOWA (NOW DECEASED) & ORS. versus SATISH CHANDRA (NOW DECEASED)

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 937

  Two second appeals by a defendant against specific performance decrees, held abated by the High Court, were restored. In the first, the deceased respondent's heirs had themselves applied for substitution, so the appellant's heirs needed no separate application. In the second, a passing mention of the plaintiff's death in an affidavit filed for another purpose was not compliance with Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC. A prayer for substitution may be read as including a prayer to set aside abatement.

• RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus FIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 648

  The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that, in pending contempt proceedings, referred the parties to mediation over the appellants' objection, holding that a mandamus upheld by the Supreme Court must be obeyed in letter and spirit, that mediation cannot be forced on an unwilling party, and that the State's demand for the current market price instead of the allotment price was an attempt to defeat the writ. Instead of remanding, it kept the matter pending and directed the Chief Secretary to comply.

• M/S TECHNO PRINTS versus CHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION & ANR.

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 208

  The Supreme Court quashed the part of a show cause notice that asked a printing contractor why it should not be blacklisted for three years for failing to complete textbook printing on time during the COVID-19 period. It held that a mere breach of contract does not justify blacklisting, and that the principles governing blacklisting orders must be kept in mind even at the show-cause stage. The Corporation remained free to forfeit the EMD, and the rest of the notice was left untouched.

• JAY KISHAN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 65

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The three predicate cases arose mainly from civil property and money disputes and were still pending, and the FIR's vague allegations did not meet the threshold for invoking a stringent penal statute, which must be strictly construed.

• DR. AMARAGOUDA L PATIL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  11/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 574

  The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homoeopathy because he lacked the mandatory ten years' experience as a 'leader' (Head of a Department or Head of an Organisation) under Section 4 of the National Commission for Homoeopathy Act, 2020. It held that a selection by an expert Search Committee remains open to judicial review on eligibility, that statutory essential qualifications cannot be departed from without a power to relax, and that the appointment suffered from malice in law.

• NAUSHEY ALI & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  10/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 289

  The Supreme Court quashed, on the basis of a compromise, a 1991 prosecution summoned under Sections 307/149 IPC and other provisions, holding that the High Court confused compounding with quashing under Section 482 CrPC and that, on the nature of the injury, the weapons and the surrounding facts, no case under Section 307 was made out and the matter was not one in which settlement had to be refused.

• AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITED versus JATIN PRATAP DESAI & ANR.

  10/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1545

  The Supreme Court restored an arbitral award holding a husband jointly and severally liable with his wife for the debit balance in her trading account with a stock broker. It held that an oral contract of joint and several liability for exchange transactions falls within BSE Bye-law 248(a), that the jurisdictional objection was waived because it was not raised under Section 16, and that the High Court exceeded its Section 37 jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence to find the award perverse and patently illegal.

• VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  10/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 158

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction of the mother-in-law for burning her daughter-in-law to death, on the strength of the dying declaration recorded by the Tehsildar and the oral dying declaration to the doctor, but acquitted the husband because neither declaration implicated him and mere presence, or failure to take her to hospital, does not prove common intention under Section 34 IPC; Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not supply the missing foundational facts.

• UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

  10/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 756

  The Supreme Court dismissed the Union's appeals against Sikkim High Court judgments that had freed distributors of Sikkim State lotteries from service tax under each successive amendment to the Finance Act, 1994 (2010, 2012, 2015 and 2016). Reading the paper and online lottery agreements, it held that the distributors bought tickets as principals and resold them on their own account, not as agents of the State, so they rendered no taxable service to the State. It held that conducting a lottery is betting and gambling, taxable only under Entry 62 of List II.

• HANSRAJ versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  09/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 612

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC because the circumstantial evidence (weak motive, uncorroborated last-seen evidence, a doubtful recovery of the farsi without forensic proof, and inconsistent testimony that he was seen fleeing) did not form a complete chain excluding his innocence.

• AMRIT YADAV versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

  09/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 24

  The Supreme Court held that a 2010 advertisement for Class IV posts in Palamu district, which stated neither the number of posts nor the reserved and unreserved break-up, was a nullity under Articles 14 and 16; it quashed the advertisement, the whole recruitment and all appointments, held that persons appointed under a void process need not be heard before a fresh panel was directed, and ordered a fresh recruitment with age relaxation.

• RAVI versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

  09/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 526

  The Supreme Court acquitted a husband convicted by both courts below of strangling his wife, holding that the purely circumstantial case failed: the relatives turned hostile, the doctor conceded tuberculosis and transport of the body as alternative explanations, the recovered rope was commonplace, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not fill the gap because the prosecution never made out a prima facie case.

• B.V. RAM KUMAR versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

  09/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 48

  The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet under Sections 269, 270 and 504 IPC against the Officiating Director of an institute who had reprimanded a subordinate doctor in his chamber. The allegation of an inadequate supply of PPE kits was conjectural and refuted by witnesses, and a superior's admonition on matters of workplace discipline and duties is not an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.

• SANJAY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1790

  The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence and conviction for rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, holding that the circumstantial case was doubtful from its genesis: the accused's conduct raised no suspicion, no missing report was lodged, the extra-judicial confession was given in three inconsistent versions without independent witnesses, the forensic report did not link the accused, and the last-seen circumstance alone, itself doubtful, could not sustain a conviction.

• SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 521

  The Supreme Court held that an insurer could not repudiate a fire-damage claim on a truck for want of a valid permit when the vehicle held a National Permit valid to 2017 and was burnt within its home State, where no authorisation fee was payable; the National Commission's order was set aside and the claim directed to be paid with 9% interest.

• RAJA KHAN versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 461

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder and causing disappearance of evidence because the circumstantial chain was not proved: the Section 27 disclosure and recoveries were doubtful (memos signed at the police station, the diver recovered items at police direction, inconsistent accounts of the chain recovery), the identification of the gold chains was flawed, and the last-seen evidence was uncorroborated.

• MAYA SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 602

  In a motor accident death claim, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to apply a split multiplier (salary until retirement, then pension) without special reasons, restored the Tribunal's multiplier-based assessment, added 15% future prospects, and awarded loss of consortium of ₹40,000 to each of the three claimants.

• GOPAL SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1174

  The Supreme Court acquitted the two surviving appellants, whose conviction had been reduced by the High Court to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, because no witness identified them in court as the assailants: the eyewitnesses deposed in their absence and the court witnesses gave only hearsay or omitted versions.

• VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 476

  The Supreme Court held that an offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is committed on the day after the due date under Section 139(1), not on the date a belated return is filed. The assessee's default for AY 2013-14 therefore preceded the first show cause notice (for AY 2011-12) and was a 'first offence' under the CBDT's 2014 compounding guidelines; filing a belated return is not 'voluntary disclosure'. The rejection of compounding was set aside and a fresh application directed to be decided on its merits.

• VIHAAN KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 424

  The Supreme Court held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1). It found that the police had not told the appellant his grounds (telling his wife, a remand report, an arrest memo and a vague case-diary entry did not count), declared the arrest vitiated, and ordered his release. It held that a later chargesheet does not cure the illegality, and directed Haryana to stop the practice of handcuffing and chaining accused persons to hospital beds.

• GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court quashed dowry-harassment proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and a connected Domestic Violence Act case, against the complainant's mother-in-law's sister and her son. The only allegation against them was a generalised one of pressurising the complainant, without any specific overt act; the witness statements were hearsay and identical; and the appellants lived in a different city from the matrimonial home.

• AYYUB & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  06/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 452

  The Supreme Court quashed abetment-of-suicide proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the father and relatives of a young man who had died after being beaten by the deceased girl's family, holding that the alleged taunt, even if true, did not show the intentional instigation needed under Section 107 IPC, and that the one-sided investigation made continuing the trial an abuse of process. It ordered a Special Investigation Team to reinvestigate the girl's unnatural death.

• M/S S.R.S. TRAVELS BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.T. RAJASHEKAR versus THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS & ORS.

  05/02/2025 · [2025] 3 S.C.R. 262

  The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka Legislature's repeal of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 by Section 3 of Karnataka Act No. 9 of 2003, holding that the power to repeal is coextensive with the power to enact, that the earlier decisions upholding the 1976 Act did not bar its repeal, and that no fresh Presidential assent was needed. Reversing the High Court on the second issue, it held that the State Transport Authority may delegate the grant of non-stage carriage permits to its Secretary under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 56(1)(d) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

• P.M. LOKANATH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

  05/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 622

  The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case under Sections 448 and 506 IPC because the FIR alleged the appellants threatened the complainant to withdraw civil suits that had in fact been filed by the appellants themselves; the allegations were absurd and the prosecution was a malicious offshoot of a long-running civil property dispute.

• SOVARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  04/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1890

  The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter, without ruling on guilt, because the trial breached the guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21: key witnesses were examined without defence counsel, legal aid counsel was appointed late and changed repeatedly, a Section 311 CrPC recall application was rejected summarily, defence evidence was closed the day new counsel appeared, and the Section 313 examination omitted incriminating circumstances. The case was remanded for a fresh trial from the stage of framing of charge.

• ASHUTOSH PATHAK versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: SHIKHA PATHAK

  04/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1831

  The Supreme Court refused special leave against the High Court's refusal to interfere with trial court orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a dowry-harassment trial. It held that one witness was rightly not summoned because nothing showed his evidence was essential, that the accused was given ample opportunity to examine the other witness summoned at his instance, and that successive Section 311 applications and adjournments were dilatory tactics.

• SHAHJAHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: SRI GAFFAR KHAN

  04/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1845

  The Supreme Court set aside the denial of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to a wife, holding that the Family Court's reasons (that a second marriage rules out a dowry demand, and that the wife admitted fault in a compromise deed which recorded no such admission) were conjectural and contrary to the record; it awarded her Rs. 4,000 a month and made all maintenance payable from the date of application. In a postscript it reiterated that 'Court of Kazi', 'Darul Qaza' or 'Sharia Court' decisions have no recognition in law.

• THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

  04/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1091

  The Supreme Court held that Cosmos Co-operative Bank, which took deposit of the original share certificate of a flat (a document of title), had a legal mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. That mortgage ranked above Central Bank of India's earlier security, which rested only on unregistered agreements of sale, created no interest in the flat, and was at most an equitable mortgage or charge enforceable only against persons with notice. Central Bank's charge was in any case postponed under Section 78 for failing to give notice, and the sale proceeds were directed to be paid to Cosmos Bank.

• UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus TARSEM SINGH & ORS.

  03/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 376

  The Supreme Court dismissed NHAI's application asking it to clarify that Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) applies only prospectively. Limiting that decision would revive the discrimination Tarsem Singh removed between landowners whose land NHAI acquired between 1997 and 2015 and everyone else. Granting solatium and interest does not reopen concluded cases, so the doctrine of immutability is not breached. The connected appeals were disposed of with directions to compute solatium and interest.

• AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE

  03/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 404

  The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of an Airports Authority engineer found guilty of bribery in a departmental enquiry held after his criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt. In the intra-court appeal, the High Court Division Bench had wrongly reopened findings that were final from an earlier round of litigation, treated non-examination of the decoy as fatal, applied the criminal standard of proof, and re-appreciated evidence without finding the Single Judge's judgment perverse.

• WAHID versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

  03/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 363

  The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of armed robbery of passengers in a Gramin Sewa vehicle, holding that the prosecution story of the complainant spotting all four unknown accused together near a bus depot two days later, with weapons matching the FIR, was improbable and riddled with discrepancies, that the recoveries fell with it, and that belated dock identification without a test identification parade, contradicted by other eyewitnesses, could not sustain the conviction.

• RAMU APPA MAHAPATAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  03/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 388

  The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of murdering his live-in partner on the strength of extra-judicial confessions alone. The confession was made while he was in a confused state of mind, the witnesses' accounts were improbable and contained material omissions from their police statements, and there was no corroboration such as blood-stained clothes or a recovered weapon bearing blood.

• GULSHAN KUMAR versus INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION & ORS.

  02/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 313

  In a writ petition by a candidate with 25% permanent disability (writer's cramp) who was denied a scribe and compensatory time in recruitment examinations because these were confined to persons with benchmark disabilities, the Supreme Court held that all examination facilities given to persons with benchmark disabilities, other than reservation, must be extended to all persons with disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016. It rejected the plea that the examining body was not amenable to writ jurisdiction and directed the Union Ministry to revise and re-notify its Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 within two months, with specified safeguards.

• GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED versus ANIL KARLEKAR & ORS.

  02/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 343

  Apartment buyers cancelled their booking after possession was offered because market prices had fallen. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision to limit the builder's forfeiture to 10% of the basic sale price instead of the agreed 20% earnest money, because the agreement was one-sided in the builder's favour. It set aside the 6% interest the NCDRC had awarded on the refund.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SUNNY KUMAR @ SUNNY KUMAR SAO

  02/02/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 619

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail to an accused charged under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, because after his release he was arrested in another NDPS case, and directed him to be taken into custody while asking the trial court to finish the trial within about four months.

• SAU. JIYA versus KULDEEP

  31/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1398

  The Supreme Court declined to disturb a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, without examining the cruelty findings, because the husband had remarried, the parties had lived together for only about two months and the marriage had irretrievably broken down; applying the Rajnesh v. Neha factors and finding the husband had not candidly disclosed his income, it awarded the wife Rs. 10,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony.

• M/S C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. versus IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

  31/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1413

  The Supreme Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting a contractor's delay-damages claims under clause 49.5 of the General Conditions of Contract, which bars damages for the employer's delay and provides only for extension of time. The contractor had repeatedly sought extensions under that clause and undertook not to claim anything beyond escalation, so it was estopped from challenging the clause; its new challenge under Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act could not be raised for the first time, and no ground for interference under Sections 34 and 37 was made out.

• SHRIPAL & ANR. versus NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD

  31/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1427

  The Supreme Court held that gardeners engaged for years by Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam were its own workmen, not contractor's labour, and that their oral termination in 2005, while conciliation proceedings were pending, breached Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It replaced the High Court's daily-wage re-engagement with reinstatement, continuity of service, 50% back wages and a direction to start regularisation.

• KARAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

  31/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1370

  The Supreme Court acquitted a husband convicted of dowry death and cruelty because the dowry demands deposed to by the deceased's mother and brother were material omissions from their earlier police statements, and no specific act of cruelty or harassment soon before the death was proved, so neither Section 304-B IPC nor the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was attracted.

• KARUPPUDAYAR versus STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LALGUDI TRICHY & ORS.

  31/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1381

  The Supreme Court quashed a charge-sheet under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act because, even on the FIR's own version, the caste abuse took place inside the complainant's office chamber with no member of the public present, so it did not occur 'in any place within public view'. The High Court had not considered this contention at all.

• KULDEEP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

  31/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1392

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for rape and criminal intimidation against a man who had married the complainant-victim of her own free will, holding that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC excluded the rape charge and that the victim's non-appearance showed no purpose in continuing the prosecution.

• INOX AIR PRODUCTS LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1235

  The Supreme Court quashed a Drugs and Cosmetics Act prosecution against a medical-gas company and its Managing Director for selling Nitrous Oxide I.P. in bulk to a firm that held a Form 25 manufacturing licence but no Form 20B wholesale licence. Given the wide definition of 'manufacture' in Section 3(f), a Form 25 licensee may break up, repack and sell the drug by wholesale, so no offence under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) was made out; the Magistrate's summoning order was also bad for want of any reasons.

• VELLORE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. RAJEBDRAN versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE DISTRICT & OTHERS

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1265

  In appeals arising from tannery pollution of the River Palar in Vellore District, the Supreme Court held that a polluter's liability under the polluter pays principle is continuing and lasts until the ecological damage is reversed, so payment under the 2001 Loss of Ecology Authority award did not end the tanneries' liability after 1998. It restored the Authority's power to assess post-1998 damage, upheld its 2009 award for left-out claimants, and applying a 'Government Pay Principle' directed the State to pay compensation and recover it from polluters, with extensive remedial directions.

• SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. versus MOODUDULA SRINIVAS

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1442

  The Supreme Court held that a woman whom the respondent married knowing of her earlier marriage, and who was de facto separated from her first husband under an MoU without a legal decree of divorce, could claim maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 CrPC; given the provision's social justice purpose, the absence of a formal divorce from the first marriage could not defeat her claim on these facts.

• ASHOK SAXENA versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC.

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1454

  The Supreme Court rejected the argument that an accused who stabbed the informant's wife while she intervened, his intended target being the informant, lacked the intention required for culpable homicide, holding that Section 301 IPC (transfer of malice) attributes the intended mental state to him. However, having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, it brought the case within Exception 4 to Section 300, altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone given the 1992 incident and the appellant's age of 74.

• PARIMAL KUMAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1953

  The Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court direction, based on the Advocate General's oral concession, that let CTET holders and holders of neighbouring States' TET take part in an ongoing recruitment of Assistant Teachers advertised with JTET as the essential qualification. It held this was a change in eligibility after the recruitment had begun, contrary to Tej Prakash Pathak. The 2024 amended rules could not be applied to that recruitment, and results of eligible JTET holders were to be declared. Rajesh Bindal, J. concurred, adding observations on the role of teachers.

• JASMINBHAI BHARATBHAI KOTHARI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1491

  Clarifying the listing practice of its Registry, the Supreme Court held that under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 an application for exemption from surrendering can be entertained only where the petitioner has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, not in other cases such as refusal of anticipatory bail or of extension of interim or temporary bail. The special leave petition against the High Court's refusal to extend temporary bail was disposed of.

• M/S JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1256

  The Supreme Court quashed a Magistrate's summoning order in a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleging manufacture of a drug not of standard quality, because the order assigned no reasons at all and did not reflect application of mind. Following its decision of the same date in INOX Air Products and settled precedent, it set aside the High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings.

• RAKESH KUMAR CHARMAKAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 252

  The Supreme Court held that part-time sweepers in the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department, appointed temporarily at Collector's rates on the recommendation of a district Selection Committee against sanctioned backlog posts under a Special Recruitment Drive, were entitled to the regular pay-scale after three years under Clause 6 of the circular dated 10.05.1984. They were similarly situated to the employees in Ram Naresh Prajapati, and the Division Bench erred in distinguishing that case.

• LALITA versus VISHWANATH & ORS.

  30/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1643

  The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a husband and in-laws charged with abetting a married woman's suicide, holding that mere harassment or cruelty does not establish abetment and that Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked without cogent evidence of cruelty; it also held that where the first informant dies of causes unconnected with the case, the contents of the FIR cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer.

• KRISHNADATT AWASTHY versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1173

  A three-judge bench resolved a split verdict over the 1998 selection of Shiksha Karmis that the Collector had cancelled on grounds of bias, without hearing or impleading the selectees. It held that no reasonable likelihood of bias was shown because the related committee members had recused under a resolution and awarded no marks, and that cancelling the appointments without notice grossly violated audi alteram partem, a defect the revisional stage could not cure. It upheld Justice Vishwanathan's opinion and allowed the appeals without remand.

• M.S. SANJAY versus INDIAN BANK & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1588

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that, on a guarantor's writ petition, had annulled a 2007 SARFAESI auction because the sale notice did not give the full number of clear days. Since the auction purchaser had paid the price, received a sale certificate and developed the property over years, the Court held the High Court should have taken a practical, equitable view, as writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary and need not follow a mere technical infraction that caused no injustice.

• NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU versus LAKHWINDER SINGH

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1581

  The Supreme Court upheld suspension of sentence and bail granted to an NDPS convict pending appeal, holding that Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (1994) does not bar bail before half the sentence is served, and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be used to deny bail where the appeal is unlikely to be heard before a substantial part of a fixed sentence is undergone.

• S. VISHNU GANGA & ORS. versus M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1163

  In motor accident claims by four daughters for the death of their parents, who ran a mill as partners, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's sharp reduction of compensation and restored the Tribunal's award, holding that the children's becoming partners did not mean they suffered no loss of income, and that income tax returns were reliable evidence of the deceased's income.

• INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. versus GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1782

  By a 2:1 majority (Hrishikesh Roy J., for himself and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.; S.V.N. Bhatti J. dissenting), the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 31(4) IBC is mandatory: where a resolution plan involves a combination, Competition Commission approval must be obtained before the Committee of Creditors approves the plan. The CoC's approval of AGI Greenpac's plan for Hindustan National Glass, given without that approval, was set aside. The majority also found the CCI's conditional approval procedurally flawed, since no show cause notice went to the target company and the voluntary divestment lacked the target's participation.

• DR. TANVI BEHL versus SHREY GOEL & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1209

  On a reference, a three-judge Bench held that domicile or residence-based reservation in admission to Post Graduate medical courses within the State quota is constitutionally impermissible as violative of Article 14; apart from a reasonable number of institutional preference seats, State quota seats must be filled strictly on merit in the all-India NEET examination. The Court upheld the High Court's invalidation of the UT Chandigarh residence pool, but protected admissions already granted under it.

• MAHABIR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1105

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that, in a revision by the deceased's father against the trial court's acquittal, convicted the appellants of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment without serving notice on them. Section 401(3) CrPC bars a revisional court from converting an acquittal into a conviction, Section 401(2) requires a hearing, and Section 401(5) could not apply because the victim's right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 (effective 31.12.2009) is substantive and not retrospective. The High Court had also wrongly treated a hostile witness's police statement as substantive evidence. The State was directed to pay Rs. 5 lakh compensation to each appellant for over three months of unlawful detention.

• H. ANJANAPPA & ORS. versus A. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1755

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that condoned a 586-day delay and granted leave to appeal against a specific performance decree to purchasers who bought part of the suit property pendente lite in breach of a temporary injunction. It held the delay was not shown to be for sufficient cause, and explained that while a lis pendens transferee may seek leave to appeal despite rejection of his impleadment application, the grant of leave is discretionary and was unwarranted on these facts.

• AJAY MALIK versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1725

  The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings for wrongful confinement, trafficking and conspiracy against a DRDO scientist who had employed the complainant as a domestic worker, and upheld the discharge of his neighbour who held the house key. No prima facie case was made out, and the complainant had recanted on oath. Noting the absence of legal protection for domestic workers, the Court invoked Article 142 to direct the Union Government to constitute an expert committee to consider a legal framework.

• SHANKAR LAL SHARMA versus RAJESH KOOLWAL & ORS.

  29/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1717

  The Court disposed of a party-in-person's SLP on a settlement it brokered, directing the respondent-Company to pay the 73-year-old petitioner Rs. 20 lakhs in full and final settlement of all his claims. It used the occasion to commend the unpaid amicus curiae and to urge advocates, especially young ones, to assist litigants who cannot afford counsel.

• CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  28/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1041

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, who had been sentenced to death for the abduction, rape and murder of a young woman after she arrived at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. The CCTV footage, which the High Court called the axis of the case, was inadmissible without a Section 65-B(4) certificate, and the remaining circumstances (last seen, sightings, conduct, recoveries and an extra-judicial confession) were unreliable and did not form a complete chain.

• GAMBHIR SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  28/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1508

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, who had been sentenced to death for murdering his brother, sister-in-law and their four children. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, and none of the three circumstances relied on (motive, last seen and recoveries) was proved. The Court criticised the investigation and the conduct of the trial as lackadaisical.

• IVAN RATHINAM versus MILAN JOSEPH

  28/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1009

  The Supreme Court set aside the revival of a maintenance petition in which the respondent sought to prove that the appellant, not his mother's husband, was his biological father. It held that under Section 112 of the Evidence Act legitimacy determines paternity unless non-access is proved; that a DNA test could not be ordered where the spouses admittedly had access and the balance of privacy and dignity interests weighed against it; that the civil court had jurisdiction over the earlier declaratory suit; and that the revived proceedings were barred by res judicata.

• RAMESH BAGHEL versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS

  27/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 961

  In a split decision on where a Christian pastor from a Bastar village could be buried after villagers objected to burial in the village graveyard, Nagarathna J. would have permitted burial on the family's private land and found the State's stance discriminatory, while Satish Chandra Sharma J. upheld the High Court and directed burial at the designated Christian burial ground at Karkapal. With the body in the mortuary for three weeks, the Bench jointly directed under Article 142 that the burial take place at Karkapal with State logistical support and police protection.

• K. SAMBA MOORTHY versus SANJIV CHADHA & ORS.

  27/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 998

  Where a bank officer's minor penalty was quashed for likelihood of bias in the enquiry and the writ court granted "all consequential benefits", the Supreme Court held that those benefits included the promotion to Scale-III that had been kept in abeyance and then cancelled only because of the enquiry. Paying back the reduced pay alone was not compliance; the bank was given four weeks to grant the promotion from 28.07.2001 with monetary benefits and 6% interest.

• CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  27/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 239

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the acquittal of three police constables. The High Court had convicted them of murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC merely because they were in the same car as the head constable who fired the fatal shot. There was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds, and the trial court's view was neither perverse nor impossible.

• SOMDATT BUILDERS-NCC-NEC(JV) versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.

  26/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 203

  The Supreme Court restored an arbitral award directing NHAI to pay a contractor the BOQ rate for the full quantity of geogrid actually required under the approved design, holding that the Dispute Review Board and the technically qualified Arbitral Tribunal had plausibly, indeed correctly, read Clauses 51 and 52 as allowing rate revision only for instructed variations, and that the High Court's Division Bench exceeded the narrow scope of Section 37 in overturning an award already upheld under Section 34.

• S SHOBHA versus MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD.

  24/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1147

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court ruling that writ petitions against Muthoot Finance Ltd. over a gold loan were not maintainable, holding that a private non-banking finance company is not 'State' under Article 12 and does not become amenable to Article 226 merely because it must follow Reserve Bank of India regulations; the borrower was left to civil, arbitral or RBI Ombudsman remedies.

• HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  24/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 934

  Purchasers who cancelled a flat booking by a deed executed before the 24.04.2015 amendment to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, but registered after it, were held entitled to the unamended two-year period for claiming refund of stamp duty, because their right accrued on execution and a shortened limitation cannot defeat an accrued right. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also had no power to recall its order granting the refund. The refund was restored with interest.

• MARIPPAN & ANR. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  24/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1674

  The Supreme Court quashed cheating and abetment proceedings against the parents of a man accused of having physical relations with the complainant on a promise of marriage, holding that the complaint disclosed no act of theirs that was illegal, let alone criminal, and that their trial would abuse the process of court. It also ordered deletion of a disparaging High Court remark about the son, who was not a party before it.

• MADHUSHREE DATTA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

  23/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 187

  The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 511 IPC against two officials of the complainant's employer, filed over her forced resignation and the taking back of her laptop. Even taken at face value, the complaint, FIR and chargesheet disclosed none of the ingredients of the offences: the dispute was essentially about termination and was civil in nature, and the prosecution was an abuse of process.

• M. VENKATESWARAN versus THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  23/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 231

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant-husband's concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for demanding additional gold sovereigns around a marriage that lasted three days, but, given the 19-year delay and both parties having moved on, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed him to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.

• NIMAI GHOSH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

  23/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1932

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the appellants' acquittal for murder and restored the trial court's acquittal. The three related eyewitnesses behaved unnaturally: they made no attempt to save the deceased and did not report the killing for about 14 hours. The medical evidence showed a single shot, contrary to their account of two, no weapon was recovered, and the chance witnesses were not corroborated.

• M/S TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

  22/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 880

  Noting a direct conflict between earlier decisions on orders of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, and expressing reservations about the view that a writ petition can never lie against such orders, the Supreme Court did not decide the appeal but referred to a five-Judge Bench whether writ jurisdiction is completely barred, when the alternative-remedy rule will not apply, and whether Council members who conducted conciliation may themselves arbitrate.

• THAMMARAYA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  22/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 948

  The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence consisting only of recoveries said to have been made on their disclosure statements, holding that the disclosure statements and recoveries were not proved in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that the failure to hold a test identification parade of the recovered articles left the chain of circumstances incomplete.

• MOHD. TAHIR HUSSAIN versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

  22/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 911

  A two-Judge Bench delivered a split verdict on an undertrial's plea for interim bail to campaign in the Delhi Assembly Election, 2025. The High Court had refused interim bail but granted custody parole to file his nomination. Mithal J. held that interim bail is not permissible for contesting, let alone campaigning, and would dismiss the SLP. Amanullah J. would grant limited interim bail, given nearly five years in custody and bail in most other cases. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India.

• MANISH YADAV versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  22/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1497

  The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order against the appellant for rape and offences under the SC/ST Act. On the complainant's own Section 164 CrPC statement, she was an adult who entered a consensual relationship out of mutual affection, not because of a false promise of marriage, and her statement contained no caste-based abuse. Continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

• DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus SUBHASH SHARMA

  21/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1409

  The Supreme Court upheld bail granted by the High Court to an accused under the PMLA, holding that his arrest was vitiated because he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of the Enforcement Directorate taking physical custody of him, and that where an arrest is illegal bail cannot be refused on the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA.

• STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus M/S OM PRAKASH BRICK KILN OWNER, ETC.

  21/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 859

  The Supreme Court held that once brick earth was declared a minor mineral under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State of Punjab could levy royalty on its extraction under the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, whoever owned the land, since brick-kiln operators were not exempt under Rule 3. The High Court's decree restraining recovery of royalty was set aside and the dismissal of the suits restored.

• STATE OF JHARKHAND versus DR. NISHKANT DUBEY & ORS.

  21/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1909

  The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of an FIR against two Members of Parliament and others for allegedly pressuring air traffic control officials at Deoghar Airport to clear a take-off, holding that the FIR did not make out offences under Sections 336, 447 or 448 IPC, and that offences under the Aircraft Act, 1934 can be taken cognizance of only on a complaint by or with sanction of the authorities named in Section 12B, so the police could only forward their material to such an authorised officer.

• VIPIN KUMAR versus JAYDEEP & OTHERS

  21/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1659

  The High Court had allowed a second appeal ex parte, without serving the appellant personally (notice went only to his father) and without framing any substantial question of law. Fraud was also alleged against the plaintiff. The Supreme Court set aside the second appeal judgment, the review order and the order refusing recall, and restored the second appeal to the High Court, holding that its earlier dismissal of an SLP did not bar reconsideration because no merger occurs.

• LAXMI DAS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

  21/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 825

  The Supreme Court quashed the abetment-of-suicide proceedings against the mother of the deceased's boyfriend, holding that even taking the chargesheet and witness statements as true, her disapproval of the marriage and a remark that the deceased need not live if she could not live without her son were too remote and indirect to amount to instigation under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.

• BHUPINDERPAL SINGH GILL versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  20/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 804

  The Supreme Court set aside a 2% pension cut imposed on a Senior Medical Officer who was charge-sheeted eleven days before his retirement for going on leave without sanction during the election period. The findings of guilt rested on no legal evidence and on a duty that was never charged, and the penalty order rejected his reply in one sentence. The Court found that the proceedings were a retaliatory ruse for his litigation against senior officials, restored his full pension with interest and awarded costs.

• BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NASHIK COMMISSIONERATE

  20/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1987

  Petroleum products sold between oil marketing companies at import parity price under a Government-sponsored product-sharing MOU were held not to be valued at transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, because the price was not the sole consideration for the sale; the real object was uninterrupted supply across India. BPCL's demand was nevertheless set aside because the extended limitation and the penalty could not be sustained: the Department already knew of the MOU. The Revenue's appeals were remanded to the Tribunal.

• JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA versus THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

  20/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 834

  The Supreme Court dismissed a peon's claim to promotion as Tracer because the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 require all Tracer posts to be filled by direct recruitment through public advertisement, and earlier irregular promotions of other peons could not found a claim of discrimination, since Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. It criticised the State for never placing the statutory rules before the Tribunal or the courts.

• BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR. versus RANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS.

  17/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1598

  The Supreme Court held that a decree of perpetual injunction can be executed whenever it is breached, since under the proviso to Article 136 of the Limitation Act its execution is subject to no limitation. But detention in civil prison and attachment under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC require a finding, on material produced by the decree-holder, that the judgment-debtor had an opportunity to obey and wilfully disobeyed. As the executing court ordered arrest and attachment ex parte on bare allegations, refusing to take the judgment-debtors' objections on record, and the High Court affirmed this in a single line under Article 227, both orders were set aside.

• BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. versus BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.

  17/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 781

  Once the High Court in second appeal restored the trial court's conditional decree for specific performance, the trial decree merged in the appellate decree. Because the appellate decree fixed no time for deposit, the trial court's 20-day deposit period did not revive from the date of the second-appeal judgment. Since the decree holders deposited promptly with the executing court's permission, the judgment debtors' application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission was rightly rejected.

• SUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO & ORS. versus PENKI ARUNA KUMARI

  17/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 902

  A suit by partners of an unregistered partnership firm against another partner for recovery of the Rs. 30 lakh they had paid as capital for their shares was held barred by Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act, 1932; the plea that the partnership business had never commenced did not lift the bar, and the remedy lay in a suit for dissolution and accounts saved by Section 69(3).

• VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMAR versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 869

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC for killing the deceased with a cement brick during a midnight altercation, but reduced the five-year sentence to the period already undergone. The Court doubted that Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) applied, observing that Exception 4 (sudden fight) would have been the apt basis, but left the conviction undisturbed as the State had not appealed.

• MAHENDRA AWASE versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 80

  The Supreme Court discharged a loan-recovery agent charged under Section 306 IPC after a guarantor of a loan died by suicide, holding that pressing for repayment in the course of his duty, even in heated and abusive exchanges, did not show intent to instigate suicide, and cautioning police and trial courts against mechanically invoking Section 306.

• IRFAN ALIAS BHAYU MEVATI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1691

  In appeals against death sentences for the gang rape and attempted murder of a child, the Supreme Court allowed the appellants' application under Section 391 CrPC read with Article 142. The trial had been concluded in under two months, and the DNA report, the fulcrum of the prosecution case, was merely exhibited through a police officer without any of the scientific experts being examined. Holding that this failure vitiated the trial, the Court set aside the convictions and remanded for the experts to be examined and the case decided afresh.

• U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS versus C. YASHODA & OTHERS

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 92

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court status quo order passed in a second appeal before any substantial question of law had been formulated and while some respondents were still unserved. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC arises only on formulating a substantial question of law, and the inherent power under Section 151 cannot be used to grant interim protection in disregard of that mandate.

• RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 2008

  The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act for carrying about 50 kg of poppy husk in three cartons on a train. The prosecution proved that he was found sitting on one carton with the other two beside him, and as he gave no satisfactory explanation, the presumptions under Sections 54 and 35 applied and conscious possession was established.

• OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1469

  The Supreme Court set aside a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) CrPC to register an FIR against a police officer on an advocate's complaint, holding that the Magistrate acted mechanically without checking whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of Sections 294, 504, 506, 500 or 323 IPC, and explained how Section 175(3) and (4) of the BNSS codify the safeguards developed by case law.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS versus VIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH NATH

  16/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 63

  The Supreme Court restored an order of the Inspector General of Prisons transferring a life convict from Hazaribagh Central Jail to Dumka Central Jail on the jail authorities' apprehension of a gang war, holding that transfer of a convict is an administrative decision under Section 29(2) of the Prisoners Act, 1900, open to interference only if arbitrary or illegal, and directed Jharkhand to frame a Jail Manual based on the Model Prison Manual, 2016.

• BISWAJIT DAS versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  15/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 110

  The Court held that issuing limited notice on a special leave petition does not take away its power, after leave is granted, to hear the appeal on all points where justice requires; whether to widen the scope is a matter of discretion. On the merits it upheld the appellant's convictions under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for obtaining insurance claims by showing a living insured as dead, but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone.

• DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS. versus THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  14/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 490

  Following Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that Civil Judges (Senior Division) who cleared the 40-mark suitability test for the 65% merit-cum-seniority promotion quota to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service could not be passed over merely because juniors ranked higher on a merit list, and granted them notional promotion from the date of the 2019 promotions.

• CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTD versus M/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED AND ANR.

  14/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 123

  A purchaser under a registered agreement for sale first sued only for an injunction, and later sued for specific performance and to annul the vendor's sale deed in favour of the appellant. The second suit was held not barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. The purchaser knew of the vendor's refusal before the first suit, but specific performance was then impossible because a Government Order banned registration of sales in the village to anyone except the appellant. The High Court's quashing of that ban after the first suit gave a fresh cause of action, so the restoration of the plaint was upheld, though on different reasoning.

• RAJEEB KALITA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  14/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 27

  Deciding a public interest writ petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court held that access to proper sanitation is part of the right to life under Article 21, and that access to justice requires court premises to have adequate, maintained toilets. Finding toilet facilities in courts across the country deficient, it directed the High Courts and States/UTs to provide separate, accessible and maintained toilets for men, women, persons with disabilities and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals. It required committees in each High Court, dedicated funding, and status reports within four months.

• MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus M/S FARIDABAD IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD.

  10/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 729

  The Supreme Court held that a Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award, filed on the court's reopening after the 30-day condonable period under the proviso to Section 34(3) expired during vacation, was time-barred: Section 4 of the Limitation Act helps only when the 3-month limitation period itself ends on a court holiday, and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is excluded because the Limitation Act applies. The Court urged Parliament to revisit the stringent position.

• RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA versus DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER

  09/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 462

  The Supreme Court held that a husband's decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife's failure to comply with it, do not by themselves attract the disqualification in Section 125(4) CrPC. Whether the wife had sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband must be decided on the evidence in each case. On the facts, the wife had just cause to stay away, so the High Court's order denying her maintenance was set aside and the Family Court's award of Rs. 10,000 per month was restored.

• MAMTA KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

  09/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 649

  The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, accused under Section 306 IPC, after the State conceded that she had joined the investigation under the Court's interim order and that the Investigating Officer no longer required her custodial interrogation.

• DR. SHARMAD versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

  09/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 414

  The Supreme Court restored a promotion to Associate Professor (Neurosurgery) in Kerala's Medical Education Service, holding that G.O. dated 07.04.2008, which governs recruitment in the absence of Article 309 rules, requires five years' teaching experience as Assistant Professor but not experience gained after acquiring the postgraduate degree, and that Rules 10(ab) and 28 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules did not import that condition.

• THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

  09/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 772

  The Supreme Court upheld a Calcutta High Court order permitting the plaintiff contractor to amend its plaint to bring on record debarment orders passed after the suit was filed. Those orders flowed from the memo challenged in the suit and formed a continuing cause of action, so the amendment did not change the nature of the suit, was within time, was not barred by the earlier withdrawn amendment application, and needed no fresh notice under Section 80 CPC.

• NBCC (INDIA) LTD. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

  09/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 610

  The Supreme Court expressed the clear opinion that a micro or small enterprise is not barred from making a reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 merely because it filed its memorandum under Section 8 after the contract was executed. Section 18 allows 'any party to a dispute' to refer, and filing the memorandum is discretionary for such enterprises. Finding that Silpi Industries and Mahakali Foods did not consciously decide the point, the Court nonetheless referred the appeal to a three-Judge Bench for legal certainty.

• GOVERDHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  09/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 657

  The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the two appellants fatally assaulted the deceased, relying on the mother's eyewitness account corroborated by a prompt FIR, an early medical record and medical opinion, despite most witnesses turning hostile. It held that the co-accused father's acquittal did not entitle them to parity, but because premeditation and motive were not established and death followed after two days from cumulative head injuries, it altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already served with a fine.

• VIJAY PRABHU versus S.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS.

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 718

  The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff-purchaser's SLP against concurrent refusal of specific performance. A plaintiff found not ready and willing, and himself in default, cannot invoke Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act to obtain part performance, which is discretionary and available only where the contract permits segregation; the Court clarified, however, that relinquishment under Section 12(3) may be made at any stage, including in appeal.

• CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus SMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 263

  The Supreme Court held that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act did not bar a co-heir's civil suit seeking declarations that a sale deed by another co-owner and the purchaser's later mortgage to the bank were void, and seeking possession. These are not matters the Debts Recovery Tribunal can decide under Section 17, whose power is limited to testing measures under Section 13(4) and 'restoring' possession. Since a plaint cannot be partly rejected under Order VII Rule 11, the High Court rightly restored the suit.

• INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAM versus MATHEW K CHERIAN & ANR.

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 498

  Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 penalises anyone other than a railway servant or authorised agent who carries on the business of procuring and supplying railway tickets, whether physical tickets or e-tickets. The Court therefore restored the prosecution of an unauthorised person who allegedly used hundreds of fake IRCTC user IDs to sell tickets. It quashed the prosecution of an authorised agent, since Section 143 does not reach unauthorised acts of authorised agents, and creating multiple user IDs is not itself an offence under it.

• H. GURUSWAMY & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 764

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had condoned a delay of about 2200 days and revived a 1977 suit dismissed as abated. The High Court ignored the plaintiffs' long inaction, the trial court's reasons and the earlier adjudication of their rights; expressions such as 'liberal approach' or 'substantial justice' cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation.

• SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATIL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 592

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the appellant's acquittal for murdering his wife, a case resting on circumstantial evidence. Even assuming an extra-judicial confession to the village Police Patil was admissible, the witnesses gave only vague, omnibus words that could not be relied on. The discovery of the iron rod was not proved, motive alone could not sustain a conviction, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked because the prosecution had not first laid the foundational facts.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 403

  Two ex parte arbitral awards obtained by a retired State employee from arbitrators he had nominated himself, on the strength of an unproven 1957 'arbitration agreement' to which he was not a party, were declared null and void for fraud and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court set them aside although the State's Section 34 objections had been dismissed as time-barred, and dismissed the execution proceedings.

• RAM PYAREY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  08/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 484

  The Supreme Court acquitted the brother-in-law of a woman who died by self-immolation, holding that there was practically no evidence that he abetted her suicide and that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked without cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment.

• THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus HARI KESH

  07/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 651

  The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing a sanction order under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after the trial had begun and prosecution witnesses had been examined, without any finding that the alleged defect in sanction had caused a failure of justice; whether the sanctioning officer was competent is a matter of evidence at trial.

• OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  07/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 362

  The Supreme Court held that a plea of juvenility which the courts never properly determined had not attained finality, and could be decided under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 even after the dismissal of the appeal, review and curative petitions and commutation of the death sentence by the President. As the State had admitted that the appellant was 14 at the time of the 1994 offence, the Court maintained the conviction, set aside the sentence beyond the statutory upper limit, and ordered his release.

• INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION versus SRI BALA & CO.

  07/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 542

  The Supreme Court rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC the plaint in a second suit for specific performance filed in 2007 after the plaint in the first suit (filed in 1993) was rejected in January 1998 for non-payment of court fee. A fresh suit under Order VII Rule 13 is governed by the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, with time running from the rejection of the earlier plaint, so it had to be filed by January 2001; reliance on an alleged letter extending time, never pleaded in the first suit, could not save it.

• BHARAT AAMBALE versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  06/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1524

  Dismissing an appeal against a conviction for possession of ganja, the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Orders or Rules under it does not by itself vitiate a trial or require acquittal. It matters only where it produces discrepancies in the physical evidence that make the prosecution case doubtful; substantial compliance suffices, other evidence may prove recovery, and the accused must first lay a factual foundation for any alleged non-compliance. On the facts, the sampling of the 73 seized packets was found to have followed the prescribed procedure.

• THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. versus CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.

  06/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 313

  The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court direction to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to convey Block-A of a Poorer Classes Accommodation Scheme plot to the lessee mill company. Neither the 1927 Board resolution nor the 1928 lease bound the Corporation to convey. Read harmoniously with Section 48(a), Section 51(2) of the Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 confers only a contingent right, and the lessee never paid the cost of conveyance. The writ petition, filed 61 years after the lease expired and after letting the suit limitation under Section 527 of the 1888 Act lapse, was also barred by delay and laches.

• ABDUL NASSAR versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

  06/01/2025 · [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 302 and 376 IPC for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, resting on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances, including discovery of the body in the accused's bathroom, recoveries on his disclosure and DNA evidence with reliable link evidence, was complete. The death sentence question became otiose as the appellant had died. The Court criticised the courts below for not setting out the inferences from the evidence and laid down principles for appraising circumstantial evidence.

• BISHWAJIT DEY versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

  06/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 281

  The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Act contains no specific bar on the interim release of a seized vehicle, so trial courts may release it under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (applicable through Section 51 of the NDPS Act). Where neither the owner nor his agent is accused and the contraband was recovered from a third-party occupant, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari on conditions. The appellant's truck was ordered to be released.

• FRANK VITUS versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ORS.

  05/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 184

  Supplementing its earlier judgment of 8 July 2024 on bail conditions, the Court declined to require that the Registration Officer or Civil Authority be impleaded in, or given notice of, bail applications by foreigners, since those authorities have independent powers and no locus to oppose bail; instead, courts granting bail to a foreigner must direct the State or prosecuting agency to inform the Registration Officer at once.

• JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR versus STATE OF GOA & ORS.

  05/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 230

  The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for cheating against the appellant, who as attorney of two co-owners had executed sale deeds for their share in a property. Taking the complaint as true, the complainant (another claimed co-owner, not a purchaser) was not deceived or induced by the appellant, the dispute was essentially civil, and lodging a criminal complaint two years after filing title suits, while suppressing those suits, was an abuse of process.

• 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA 2. SRI G ARVIND 3. SMT. RADHAMMA

  03/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1683

  The Supreme Court held that landowners who voluntarily surrendered land to the Bangalore Development Authority in 2001, when the whole acquisition was completed before the amended incentive rules took effect on 27.11.2002, could not claim the larger entitlement under the amended rules merely because their application for sites was made in 2005. The allotment already made was confirmed and no further allotment was due.

• GEETHA V.M. & ORS. versus RETHNASENAN K. & ORS.

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 515

  The Supreme Court held that Kerala health service employees absorbed, with their posts and lien, into the Directorate of Medical Education on exercising an option under the policy abolishing dual control were not transferred 'on request'. The proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which counts seniority from the date of joining, does not apply; their seniority is maintained from their original appointment under Rule 27(a) and 27(c), as Rule 8 of Appendix I to G.O. dated 25.10.2008 provides.

• MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. versus MATHIAS ORAM & ORS.

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 158

  In post-disposal applications in the long-running Mahanadi Coalfields land acquisition matter, the Supreme Court declined to extend the term of the Claims Commission or to direct it to prepare rehabilitation lists or decide individual claims. Its 03.11.2022 judgment had already settled every issue and defined the Commission's limited task; the Commission exceeded that remit, and the remaining disputes lie before the High Court or the State authorities.

• KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI (RANI) M/S S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 81

  Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the notice of filing of an award required by Section 14(2), from which the 30-day limitation for objections under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act runs, needs no particular form; awareness that the award is filed and accessible suffices. The respondents knew of the award from the District Judge's order of 21.09.2022, so limitation expired on 20.10.2022 and the appellant's Section 17 application of 10.11.2022 was not premature.

• CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING OFFICER CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, & ORS. versus P. BABU

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 576

  Dismissing the revenue authorities' appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the quashing of stamp-duty valuation orders on two sale deeds. A Registering Officer who refers an instrument to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act as undervalued must have, and record, prima facie reasons based on material; a reference without reasons vitiates the enquiry, and here the Collector also failed to pass a reasoned provisional order as the Tamil Nadu Rules of 1968 require.

• OMI @ OMKAR RATHORE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 266

  The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the summoning of two persons named in the FIR to stand trial for murder under Section 319 CrPC on the strength of the first informant's examination-in-chief, even though the police had filed a closure report in their favour. The power under Section 319 does not depend on whether a person was named in the FIR or charge-sheeted, and the investigating officer's satisfaction cannot override evidence led at trial.

• MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD. versus FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS.

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 177

  The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that, in writ jurisdiction, quashed a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors in 2020 for want of notice to a suspended director. The writ petition was filed almost three years after the meeting, the director had already invoked the remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on the same grounds, and the Code is a complete code with its own remedies, so the High Court should not have interdicted the CIRP.

• SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. versus DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD.

  02/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 151

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order under Article 227 that had directed an Arbitral Tribunal to allow the claimant a further opportunity to cross-examine the respondent's witness. The Tribunal had already given full opportunity, the High Court found no perversity in its refusal, and the statutory policy of judicial restraint in arbitral matters required the High Court to keep out.

• PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR. versus M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 431

  Dismissing the Revenue's petition, the Supreme Court held that a court-sanctioned reduction of a company's share capital, which proportionately cut the assessee's shareholding from 15,33,40,900 to 9,988 shares with the face value unchanged, extinguished the assessee's rights in those shares and was a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so the claimed capital loss was allowable.

• B.N. JOHN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 12

  The Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Sections 353 and 186 IPC arising from an official raid on a children's hostel. Cognizance under Section 186 was barred by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC because no written complaint by a public servant was made to a Judicial Magistrate (a letter to the City Magistrate does not qualify). The FIR alleged only obstruction, not assault or criminal force, so no cognizable offence under Section 353 was disclosed and the police investigation, and everything after it, was vitiated.

• KIM WANSOO versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court quashed, as against the appellant, an FIR alleging cheating, breach of trust and related offences arising from non-payment of about Rs. 9 crores to a labour sub-contractor. The FIR made no specific allegation against the appellant or the company of which he was Project Manager, the default being attributed to other companies, so it disclosed no offence against him and the High Court erred in declining to quash it under Article 226.

• MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus GAGAN NARANG & ORS. ETC.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 239

  The Supreme Court held that Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not confine applications for adoption of a bid-discovered tariff to distribution licensees or generating companies. Read literally and in harmony with Section 86(1)(b), it allowed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, setting up a waste-to-energy plant under its duty in the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, to seek tariff adoption from the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. APTEL's contrary ruling was set aside and DERC's orders restored.

• GOPAL KRISHAN & ORS. versus DAULAT RAM & ORS.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 93

  The Supreme Court held that the words 'by the direction of the testator' in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 apply only where an attesting witness sees some other person sign the Will on the testator's behalf; where the witness saw the testator himself affix his mark, no direction need be proved. The High Court's finding that the Will was unproved was set aside and the first appellate court's decree upholding it restored.

• URMILA DIXIT versus SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 105

  The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's order declaring void a mother's gift of property to her son under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The gift deed and a contemporaneous promissory note recorded that the son would maintain her, the son failed to do so, and the Division Bench had wrongly given the beneficial statute a strict reading. Tribunals under Section 23 may also order possession to be restored.

• SRI MAHESH versus SANGRAM & ORS

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 62

  A son adopted in 1994 by a childless widow sued for partition and to set aside her later sale and gift of properties she had obtained under a compromise decree. The Supreme Court held that, although his adoption related back to her husband's death, her lawful alienations bound him, so the sale stood; but the gift was void for want of acceptance and delivery of possession, so he took the gifted properties as her sole heir.

• THE STATE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus A. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 130

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's quashing of two CBI corruption cases against Central Government employees for offences in Kurnool and Ananthapur districts that were registered and charge-sheeted in Hyderabad after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. Under the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, pre-bifurcation orders, including the general consent to the CBI and the notification empowering the CBI Court at Hyderabad, continued in force in both new States until altered; and in any event no State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was needed to investigate Central Government employees for an offence under a Central Act.

• DALJIT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 117

  The Supreme Court held that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence: prosecution for failing to appear in response to a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC can begin only after a proclamation is issued, but may continue even after the proclamation ceases to operate. Where the accused is later acquitted of the original offence, the trial court may treat that as a ground to close the Section 174A proceedings. On the facts (acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, a 2010 dispute and money paid), all proceedings, including the Section 174A FIR, were closed and the proclaimed-person status quashed.

• M/S NARESH POTTERIES versus M/S AARTI INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 40

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order quashing a cheque-dishonour complaint filed by a proprietary firm through its manager holding a letter of authority. The complaint was in the payee's name, and the letter of authority and affidavits sufficiently asserted the manager's authority and personal knowledge; any dispute on authorisation or knowledge is a matter for trial, not a ground for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

• BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERS versus GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 190

  Land acquired under the KIAD Act in 2003 for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor was taken in 2005, but no compensation was paid for over two decades owing to the inaction of the State and KIADB. The Supreme Court agreed that a Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift the date for reckoning market value, a power only constitutional courts have. It held that the High Court should not have treated the landowners' appeal as premature, and, invoking Article 142 to protect their Article 300-A right, directed a fresh award at market value as on 22.04.2019.

• SANJAY DUTT & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

  01/01/2025 · [2025] 1 S.C.R. 446

  The Supreme Court quashed a forest department complaint under Section 4 read with Section 19 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 against three officers of real estate companies, holding that the Act imposes no vicarious liability on directors or officers, that the complaint attributed no specific act to them, and that criminal vicarious liability arises only where a statute expressly provides for it.