| 1 |
Section 28 ICA |
The Supreme Court held that exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of a particular location to decides disputes relating to the contract, are not barred by Section 28 of the Contract Act. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, declares void any agreement that restricts a party from enforcing their rights under a contract through legal proceedings, or limits the time within which they can do so, except in cases of arbitration agreements. |
Rakesh Kumar Verma vs HDFC Bank Ltd, HDFC Bank vs Deepti Bhatia |
08-04-25 |
2 |
- |
| 2 |
Article 32 COI |
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 32 of the Constitution, being a remedial provision for the enforcement of fundamental rights, cannot be invoked as a means to challenge the Court's own judgment. The Court noted that allowing writ petitions under Article 32 to challenge final judgments would undermine judicial hierarchy and lead to endless litigation, undermining the principle of res judicata. |
Satish chander sharma & ors. Versus state of himachal pradesh & ors. |
16-04-25 |
3 |
- |
| 3 |
1.Whether the right against adverse effects of climate change can be recognized as part of the fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. 2. Whether renewable energy development (solar and wind projects critical for climate change mitigation) can be balanced with the protection of critically endangered species, particularly the Great Indian Bustard (Godawan) and the Lesser Florican. 3. Whether blanket undergrounding of transmission lines in priority habitats is feasible, or whether a more nuanced, |
The Supreme Court held that the right against climate change impacts is part of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. It said environmental protection and renewable energy must go hand in hand. The earlier blanket ban on overhead lines was found impractical, and instead the Court directed expert-guided measures like underground cabling where possible, bird diverters, and habitat protection. The Great Indian Bustard must be safeguarded, but alongside India’s renewable energy commitments. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रतिकूल प्रभावों के विरुद्ध अधिकार अनुच्छेद 14 और 21 के अंतर्गत मौलिक अधिकार है। न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि पर्यावरण संरक्षण और नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा को साथ-साथ आगे बढ़ाना होगा। पहले दिया गया सम्पूर्ण प्रतिबंध अव्यावहारिक माना गया और इसके स्थान पर विशेषज्ञों द्वारा सुझाए गए उपाय जैसे जहाँ संभव हो भूमिगत केबलिंग, पक्षी डाइवर्टर और आवास संरक्षण लागू करने का निर्देश दिया गया। महान भारतीय बस्तर की सुरक्षा अनिवार्य है, पर यह भारत की नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा प्रतिबद्धताओं के साथ संतुलित होकर ही होगी। |
[Case: M.K. Ranjitsinh Vs. Union of India] |
19 December 2025 |
Two Judges HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
Download PDF link
|
| 4 |
1.Whether non-compete fee paid by the assessee is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. 2. Whether, if treated as capital expenditure, depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act is allowable. 1.क्या करदाता द्वारा दिया गया नॉन-कम्पीट शुल्क राजस्व व्यय है या पूंजीगत व्यय। 2. क्या, यदि इसे पूंजीगत व्यय माना जाए तो |
The Court held that non-compete fee is capital expenditure as it provides enduring business advantage. However, it qualifies as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii), hence depreciation is allowable.न्यायालय ने माना कि नॉन-कम्पीट शुल्क पूंजीगत व्यय है क्योंकि यह दीर्घकालिक व्यावसायिक लाभ देता है। परन्तु यह धारा 32(1)(ii) के अंतर्गत अमूर्त संपत्ति माना जाएगा, अतः मूल्यह्रास की अनुमति है। |
[Case: Sharp Business System Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III C.A. No.-004072-004072 – 2014] |
19 December 2025 |
Two Judges J. [MANOJ MISRA] & J. [UJJAL BHUYAN] |
Download PDF link
|
| 5 |
1. Whether horse racing constitutes a “game of skill” exempt from gambling prohibitions under state laws. 2. Whether horse racing falls within the ambit of gambling statutes despite involving elements of skill. 3. Whether totalisator betting on horse races amounts to wagering prohibited under gambling laws. 4. Whether totalisator betting on horse races can be treated as a skill-based activity warranting constitutional protection. 1.क्या घुड़दौड़ राज्य कानूनों के जुआ निषेध से मुक्त “कौशल का खेल” मानी जाती है |
Supreme Court classified horse racing as a game of skill, not gambling; reaffirmed Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) precedent; struck down state attempts to criminalize totalisator betting; held skill in assessing horse performance, jockey, track conditions overrides chance element. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने घुड़दौड़ को कौशल का खेल घोषित किया, जुआ नहीं; डॉ. के.आर. लक्ष्मणन बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य (1996) न precedent की पुन: पुष्टि; टोटलाइजेटर सट्टेबाजी को अपराध बनाने के राज्य प्रयास रद्द; घोड़े प्रदर्शन, जॉकी, ट्रैक स्थितियों का कौशल मूल्यांकन संयोग तत्व पर भारी पड़ता है। |
[Case: Lakshmanan Vs. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan reference)] |
19 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] J. [R. MAHADEVAN] |
Download PDF link
|
| 6 |
1.Whether the High Court, while hearing a quashing petition, can grant blanket protection from arrest. 2.Whether the High Court, while hearing a quashing petition, can direct a time-bound investigation. 1.क्या उच्च न्यायालय, जब वह निरस्तीकरण याचिका सुन रहा हो, गिरफ्तारी से व्यापक संरक्षण प्रदान कर सकता है। 2.क्या उच्च न्यायालय, जब वह निरस्तीकरण याचिका सुन रहा हो, समयबद्ध जांच का निर्देश दे सकता है। |
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Protection from arrest till cognizance and directing time-bound investigation were set aside. Such directions must remain exceptional. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने माना कि उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र से अधिक कदम उठाए। अभियुक्तों को संज्ञान तक गिरफ्तारी से संरक्षण और समयबद्ध जांच का निर्देश रद्द कर दिया गया। ऐसे निर्देश केवल अपवाद स्वरूप ही दिए जा सकते हैं। |
[Case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Arshad Khan & Others 2025 INSC 1480] |
19 December 2025. |
Two Judges (Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice N. Kotiswar Singh) |
Download PDF link
|
| 7 |
1. Whether arbitrary discrimination in the regularization of ad-hoc employees violates the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether High Courts can selectively regularize some ad-hoc judicial officers while denying others with similar service records without any rational classification. 1.क्या एड-हॉक कर्मचारियों के नियमितीकरण में मनमाना भेदभाव संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 द्वारा प्रदत्त समानता का उल्लंघन करता है। 2.क्या उच्च न्यायालय समान सेवा रिकॉर्ड वाले कुछ एड-हॉक न्यायिक अधिकारियों |
Supreme Court struck down arbitrary discrimination in regularization; held Article 14 mandates equal treatment for similarly situated ad-hoc employees; directed High Court to regularize petitioner with continuity and benefits; reinforced equality principle in public employment. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने नियमितीकरण में मनमानी भेदभाव को रद्द किया; कहा कि समान स्थित एड-हॉक कर्मचारियों के लिए अनुच्छेद 14 समान व्यवहार अनिवार्य करता है; उच्च न्यायालय को याचिकाकर्ता को निरंतरता एवं लाभों सहित नियमित करने का निर्देश; सार्वजनिक रोजगार में समानता सिद्धांत को मजबूत किया। |
[Case: Ratnank Mishra Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General] |
19 December 2025. |
- |
Download PDF link
|
| 8 |
1..Whether communal rotation of vacancies mandates strict roster-based filling in university appointments. 2.Whether waitlist candidates from reserved categories can claim substantive rights if initial appointees decline. 3.Whether such claims affect the balance between reservation policy and merit in university appointments. 1.क्या विश्वविद्यालय नियुक्तियों में आरक्षित रिक्तियों का सामुदायिक चक्रण (communal rotation) कठोर रजिस्टर-आधारित भरण की अनिवार्यता है। 2.क्या प्रारंभिक नियुक्तियों के अस्वीकार करने पर |
Supreme Court clarified that communal rotation operates as a roster mechanism but does not extinguish waitlist rights of reserved category candidates; waitlisted SC/ST/OBC candidates entitled to substantive appointment if initial roster selectee declines; upheld reservation jurisprudence balancing roster rigidity with equity. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि सामुदायिक चक्रण रजिस्टर तंत्र के रूप में कार्य करता है किंतु आरक्षित श्रेणी के वेटलिस्ट उम्मीदवारों के अधिकारों को समाप्त नहीं करता; प्रारंभिक चयनित के अस्वीकार पर SC/ST/OBC वेटलिस्ट उम्मीदवारों को वास्तविक नियुक्ति का अधिकार; रजिस्टर कठोरता और समानता के संतुलन में आरक्षण विधिशास्त्र को पुष्ट किया। |
[Case: Radhika T. Vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology] |
18 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. (ARAVIND KUMAR) & J. (N.V. ANJARIA) |
Download PDF link
|
| 9 |
1.Whether the scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to patent illegality or procedural irregularities, 2. whether courts can re-appraise evidence or modify arbitral awards on merits? 1. क्या मध्यस्थता और सुलह अधिनियम, 1996 की धारा 34 के तहत न्यायिक पुनरीक्षण का दायरा केवल स्पष्ट अवैधता या प्रक्रियागत अनियमितताओं तक सीमित है, 2.क्या न्यायालय साक्ष्य का पुनर्मूल्यांकन कर या गुण-दोष के आधार पर मध्यस्थ पुरस्कार में संशोधन कर सकते हैं? |
Supreme Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review under Section 34; set aside High Court order; restored arbitral award; held courts cannot interfere with concurrent findings or re-examine evidence unless patent illegality apparent on award face. Hindi: सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने धारा 34 के तहत न्यायिक पुनरीक्षण के सीमित दायरे की पुन: पुष्टि की; उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को रद्द किया; मध्यस्थ पुरस्कार को बहाल किया; कहा कि समवर्ती निष्कर्षों में हस्तक्षेप या साक्ष्य पुनरपरीक्षा न्यायालय द्वारा नहीं की जा सकती जब तक पुरस्कार के चेहरे पर स्पष्ट अवैधता न हो। |
[Case: Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (BALCO)] |
18 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. [ARAVIND KUMAR] & J. [N.V. ANJARIA] |
Download PDF link
|
| 10 |
1. Whether the terms of a private Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) can prevail over the statutory tariff regulations framed by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC). 2.Whether statutory tariff regulations framed by the SERC override the contractual terms of a private PPA in case of conflict. 1.क्या एक निजी बिजली खरीद समझौते (PPA) की शर्तें राज्य विद्युत नियामक आयोग (SERC) द्वारा बनाए गए वैधानिक टैरिफ नियमों पर हावी हो सकती हैं। 2.क्या SERC द्वारा बनाए गए वैधानिक टैरिफ नियम, किसी निजी PPA की संविद |
The Court held that statutory regulations framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, have the force of law and override any private contract or unapproved PPA. Regulatory oversight is mandatory to protect consumer interests and ensure uniform pricing.अदालत ने माना कि विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 के तहत बनाए गए वैधानिक नियमों में कानून की शक्ति होती है और वे किसी भी निजी अनुबंध या गैर-अनुमोदित PPA से ऊपर होते हैं। उपभोक्ता हितों की रक्षा और समान मूल्य निर्धारण सुनिश्चित करने के लिए नियामक निरीक्षण अनिवार्य है। |
[Case: Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corp. Vs. Penna Electricity Ltd.] |
16 December 2025. |
- |
Download PDF link
|
| 11 |
1.Whether the ceiling on Head Office expenditure under Section 44C of the Income Tax Act applies universally to all foreign companies. 2.Whether the ceiling under Section 44C applies regardless of the nature of the foreign company’s business. 3.Whether the ceiling under Section 44C applies irrespective of tax treaty provisions between India and the foreign company’s home country. 1.क्या आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 44C के तहत मुख्य कार्यालय खर्चों पर निर्धारित सीमा सभी विदेशी कंपनियों पर सार्वभौमिक रूप से लागू होती |
The Court held that Section 44C is a non-obstante clause and the ceiling on Head Office expenses applies to all foreign companies. The deduction cannot exceed 5% of the adjusted total income, ensuring a uniform cap on expenses claimed by foreign entities in India.अदालत ने माना कि धारा 44C एक 'नॉन-ऑब्स्टांटे' खंड है और मुख्य कार्यालय के खर्चों पर सीमा सभी विदेशी कंपनियों पर लागू होती है। कटौती 'समायोजित कुल आय' के 5% से अधिक नहीं हो सकती, जो भारत में विदेशी संस्थाओं द्वारा दावा किए गए खर्चों पर एक समान सीमा सुनिश्चित करती है। |
[Case: Director of Income Tax Vs. American Express Bank Ltd.] |
15 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. (J.B. PARDIWALA) J. (K.V.VISWANATHAN) |
Download PDF link
|
| 12 |
1.Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides State Rent Control legislations. 2. Whether tenants can claim retrospective protection under State Rent Control laws once premises are classified as “public premises.” 3.Whether eviction proceedings for LIC-owned properties are governed by the Public Premises Act, 1971 or by State Rent Control Acts. 4. Whether the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (special law overrides general law) applies in determining th |
- The Court ruled that PP Act, 1971 has overriding effect over State Rent Control legislations. - Tenants cannot claim protection under Rent Control Acts once the property is classified as “public premises.” - Eviction proceedings must be conducted under the PP Act, not under State Rent laws. - The doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant was held inapplicable, since both PP Act and Rent Acts are special laws, but PP Act was intended to prevail in cases of conflict. - सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि सार्वजनिक परिसरों (अनधिकृत कब्जाधारियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम, 1971 राज्य किराया नियंत्रण कानूनों पर प्रभावी और प्रधान है। - जब कोई संपत्ति “सार्वजनिक परिसर” घोषित हो जाती है, तो किरायेदार राज्य किराया कानूनों के तहत संरक्षण का दावा नहीं कर सकते। - बेदखली की कार्यवाही केवल सार्वजनिक परिसरों अधिनियम, 1971 के अंतर्गत होगी। - Generalia specialibus non derogant का सिद्धांत यहाँ लागू नहीं होगा क्योंकि दोनों ही विशेष अधिनियम हैं, लेकिन संसद ने स्पष्ट रूप से सार्वजनिक परिसरों अधिनियम को प्राथमिकता दी है। |
[Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2025),] |
11 December 2025. |
Three Judges ,J. (VIKRAM NATH) (SANDEEP MEHTA) J. (N.V. ANJARIA) |
Download PDF link
|
| 13 |
1.Whether the High Court can initiate ‘suo motu’ contempt proceedings against a judicial officer without following the principles of natural justice and established procedural safeguards. 2.Whether the High Court can initiate ‘suo motu’ contempt proceedings against a lawyer without following the principles of natural justice and established procedural safeguards. 3.Whether the High Court can initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer without following the principles of natural justice and |
The Supreme Court Clarified limits of contempt jurisdiction – courts must consider genuine remorse; protects free speech.The court emphasized that while High Courts have supervisory jurisdiction, 'suo motu' powers must be exercised with extreme caution. The Court ruled that judicial independence must be protected, and any action against individuals must ensure a fair opportunity to be heard (Audi Alteram Partem).अवमानना अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्पष्ट सीमाएँ – अदालतों को वास्तविक पश्चाताप पर विचार करना चाहिए; स्वतंत्र भाषण की सुरक्षा करता है। उच्चतम न्यायालय ने जोर दिया कि हालांकि उच्च न्यायालयों के पास पर्यवेक्षी अधिकार क्षेत्र है, लेकिन 'स्वत: संज्ञान' शक्तियों का प्रयोग अत्यंत सावधानी के साथ किया जाना चाहिए। न्यायालय ने निर्णय दिया कि न्यायिक स्वतंत्रता की रक्षा की जानी चाहिए, और व्यक्तियों के खिलाफ किसी भी कार्रवाई में सुनवाई का उचित अवसर (Audi Alteram Partem) सुनिश्चित किया जाना चाहिए। |
[Case: Vineeta Srinandan Vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay] |
10, December 2025. |
- |
Download PDF link
|
| 14 |
1. Whether leasing of residential dwellings for use as hostels qualifies for GST exemption under Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), Entry 13? 2. Is the GST exemption activity-specific (based on use as residence) or person-specific (based on who resides)? 3. Does leasing property to hostel operators for students/professionals amount to commercial activity or residential use? 1. क्या रेज़िडेंशियल ड्वेलिंग को हॉस्टल के रूप में किराए पर देने पर GST छूट लागू होगी, जैसा कि Notification No. 9/201 |
- The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s ruling. - It clarified that GST exemption is activity-specific: if the property is used as a residence, exemption applies. - The exemption is not person-specific: it is irrelevant whether the tenant himself resides or sublets for hostel use. - Imposing 18% GST on hostel accommodation would burden students and professionals, defeating the purpose of affordable housing. - सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट के फैसले को बरकरार रखा। - कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया कि GST छूट activity-specific है: यदि प्रॉपर्टी का उपयोग residential purpose के लिए हो रहा है तो छूट मिलेगी। - यह छूट person-specific नहीं है: किराएदार खुद रहे या हॉस्टल के रूप में सब-लीज़ करे, इससे फर्क नहीं पड़ता। - 18% GST लगाने से छात्रों और प्रोफेशनल्स पर बोझ पड़ेगा और सस्ती आवास सुविधा देने का उद्देश्य विफल हो जाएगा। |
[Case: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VS TAGHAR VASUDEVA AMBRISH] |
04 December 2025. |
Two Judges …J (J.B. PARDIWALA) J (K.V. VISWANATHAN) |
Download PDF link
|
| 15 |
1.Whether a statement recorded two months prior to the death of a person can be treated as a ‘Dying Declaration’ within the meaning of law. 2.Whether, on the basis of such a statement, additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 1.क्या मृत्यु से दो महीने पहले दर्ज किया गया बयान विधि की दृष्टि से ‘मृत्युपूर्व कथन’ माना जा सकता है। 2.क्या ऐसे बयान के आधार पर धारा 319 दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता (CrPC) के तहत अतिरिक्त आरोपियों को समन किया जा सकता है। |
The Court held that the interval of time between the statement and death is immaterial. If the statement relates to the cause of death, it is a valid Dying Declaration.अदालत ने माना कि बयान और मृत्यु के बीच समय का अंतराल महत्वहीन है। यदि बयान मृत्यु के कारण से संबंधित है, तो यह एक वैध मृत्युपूर्व कथन है। |
[Case: NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV VS STATE OF U.P.] |
04 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. (SANJAY KAROL) .J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH) |
Download PDF link
|
| 16 |
1.Whether retired employees of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank are entitled to pensionary benefits under the applicable cooperative service rules. 2.Whether the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank is legally bound to extend such pensionary benefits despite financial constraints. 1.क्या कांगड़ा सेंट्रल कोऑपरेटिव बैंक के सेवानिवृत्त कर्मचारी सहकारी सेवा नियमों के अंतर्गत पेंशन लाभ पाने के हकदार हैं। 2.क्या बैंक वित्तीय कठिनाइयों के बावजूद ऐसे पेंशन लाभ देने के लिए विधिक रूप से बाध्य है। |
The Supreme Court held that pension is not a matter of charity but a vested right of employees who have served the institution. The Court directed the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank to implement a proper pension scheme in line with statutory obligations and constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. It emphasized that financial constraints cannot be used as a ground to deny pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of with directions to ensure compliance within a fixed timeline. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि पेंशन कोई दान नहीं बल्कि उन कर्मचारियों का निहित अधिकार है जिन्होंने संस्था की सेवा की है। न्यायालय ने कांगड़ा सेंट्रल कोऑपरेटिव बैंक को निर्देश दिया कि वह विधिक दायित्वों और समानता व गरिमा की संवैधानिक गारंटी के अनुरूप उचित पेंशन योजना लागू करे। न्यायालय ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि वित्तीय कठिनाइयों को पेंशन लाभ देने से इनकार करने का आधार नहीं बनाया जा सकता। परिणामस्वरूप, अपील का निपटारा किया गया और अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करने हेतु निश्चित समयसीमा के भीतर निर्देश दिए गए। |
[Case: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) before the Supreme Court of India.] |
3 December 2025. |
Two judges J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] J. [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA] |
Download PDF link
|
| 17 |
1.Whether the actions taken by the respondents against Abhishek Gupta were legally sustainable. 2.Whether the claims made by the respondents against Abhishek Gupta were legally sustainable. 3.Whether the lower authority’s interpretation of the law required interference by the Supreme Court. हिन्दी 1.क्या प्रतिवादियों द्वारा अभिषेक गुप्ता के विरुद्ध की गई कार्यवाही विधिक रूप से टिकाऊ थी। 2.क्या प्रतिवादियों द्वारा अभिषेक गुप्ता के विरुद्ध किए गए दावे विधिक रूप से टिकाऊ थे। 3.क्या निचली प्राधिकरण द्वारा कानून |
The Supreme Court examined the facts and arguments presented by both sides. It clarified the scope of the relevant statutory provisions and held that the order of the lower authority required interference. The Court restored the proper legal position and disposed of the appeal in accordance with its reasoning. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने दोनों पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यों और तर्कों पर विचार किया। न्यायालय ने संबंधित विधिक प्रावधानों की सीमा को स्पष्ट किया और माना कि निचली प्राधिकरण का आदेश हस्तक्षेप योग्य है। न्यायालय ने उचित कानूनी स्थिति को बहाल किया और अपील का निपटारा अपनी तर्कसंगतता के अनुसार किया। |
[Case: ABHISHEK GUPTA VS DINESH KUMAR C.A. No.-014545-014546 – 2025] |
3 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] J. [AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH] |
Download PDF link
|
| 18 |
1.Whether the Union of India has complied with its constitutional obligations to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities in public infrastructure. 2.Whether the Union of India has complied with its statutory obligations to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities in digital platforms and services. 3.Whether stronger directions are required from the Supreme Court to enforce accessibility standards effectively. 1.क्या भारत संघ ने सार्वजनिक अवसंरचना में दिव्यांगजन के लिए पहुँच सुनिश्चित कर |
The Supreme Court held that accessibility is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Union of India to frame and implement comprehensive guidelines ensuring barrier-free access in government buildings, transport systems, and digital services. It emphasized that accessibility is not charity but a constitutional guarantee of equality and dignity. The appeal was accordingly allowed with directions to ensure compliance within a fixed timeline. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि पहुँच (Accessibility) संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 और 21 से उत्पन्न एक मौलिक अधिकार है। न्यायालय ने भारत संघ को निर्देश दिया कि वह सरकारी भवनों, परिवहन प्रणाली और डिजिटल सेवाओं में बाधा-रहित पहुँच सुनिश्चित करने हेतु व्यापक दिशा-निर्देश बनाए और लागू करे। न्यायालय ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि पहुँच कोई दान नहीं बल्कि समानता और गरिमा की संवैधानिक गारंटी है। अपील को स्वीकार किया गया और अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करने के लिए निश्चित समयसीमा के भीतर निर्देश दिए गए। |
[Case: Mission Accessibility v. Union of India before the Supreme Court of India. W.P.(C) No.-000206-000206 – 2025] |
3 December 2025. |
Two Judges J. (VIKRAM NATH) & J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) |
Download PDF link
|
| 19 |
1.whether the actions of the Chief Executive Officer in relation to the property and permissions granted to Jyoti Builders were legally sustainable. 2.whether interference by the Supreme Court was required to settle the dispute. 1.क्या मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी द्वारा संपत्ति और ज्योति बिल्डर्स को दी गई अनुमतियों से संबंधित कार्यवाही विधिक रूप से टिकाऊ थी 2.क्या विवाद के समाधान हेतु सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का हस्तक्षेप आवश्यक था। |
The Supreme Court examined the facts and legal arguments and clarified the scope of the law. It held that the order of the lower authority required interference and restored the proper legal position. The Court concluded that the appeal deserved to be allowed and accordingly disposed of the matter in line with its reasoning. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने तथ्यों और कानूनी तर्कों पर विचार किया और कानून की सीमा को स्पष्ट किया। न्यायालय ने माना कि निचली प्राधिकरण का आदेश हस्तक्षेप योग्य है और उचित कानूनी स्थिति को बहाल किया। न्यायालय ने निष्कर्ष निकाला कि अपील स्वीकार की जानी चाहिए और मामले का निपटारा तर्कसंगतता के अनुसार किया गया। |
[Case: Jyoti Builders Vs. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. C.A. No.-014512-014512 – 2025] |
2 December 2025 |
Two Judges (J.B. PARDIWALA) & (K.V. VISWANATHAN) |
Download PDF link
|
| 20 |
1. Whether the textile units (Unit No.1 and Unit No.2) could claim exemption under Notification No. 5/1998-CE by asserting that fabrics were processed without the aid of power. 2. Whether the processes of bleaching, mercerizing, squeezing, stentering, and packing carried out in two adjoining units should be treated as independent or as part of a continuous manufacturing chain. 3. Whether the CESTAT erred in setting aside the Commissioner’s order by treating the units’ activities separately and ignoring t |
the Supreme Court held that the textile units were liable to pay excise duty. The Court observed that bleaching, mercerizing, squeezing, stentering, and packing were all part of a continuous manufacturing process carried out with the aid of power. Therefore, exemption under Notification No. 5/1998-CE could not be granted. The Court set aside the order of the CESTAT and restored the Commissioner’s order, confirming the duty liability. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि वस्त्र इकाइयाँ उत्पाद शुल्क चुकाने के लिए उत्तरदायी हैं। न्यायालय ने माना कि ब्लीचिंग, मर्सराइजिंग, स्क्वीज़िंग, स्टेन्टरिंग और पैकिंग सभी एक सतत विनिर्माण प्रक्रिया का हिस्सा हैं, जो बिजली की सहायता से की जाती है। इसलिए अधिसूचना संख्या 5/1998-CE के तहत छूट नहीं दी जा सकती। अदालत ने CESTAT का आदेश रद्द कर दिया और कमीश्नर का आदेश बहाल करते हुए कर देयता की पुष्टि की। |
[Case: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot v. Narsibhai Karamsibhai Gajera & Ors.C.A. No.-003405-003407 – 2012] |
2 December 2025 |
Tow Judges (Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar) |
Download PDF link
|
| 21 |
1.Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC. 2. Whether the allegations disclose the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. 3. Whether the allegations disclose the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. 4. Whether continuation of criminal proceedings is justified when the dispute is essentially civil in nature. 1. क्या एफआईआर में दर्ज आरोप धारा 341 आईपीसी (अनुचित अवरोध) का अपराध सिद्ध करते हैं। 2. क्या आरोप धारा 354C आईपीस |
The Supreme Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not make out offences under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of the IPC. The Court observed that the complainant was not engaged in any private act to attract voyeurism, no specific threat was alleged to constitute criminal intimidation, and wrongful restraint was not established since she was not a lawful tenant. The Court concluded that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and continuing criminal proceedings would be unjust. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the accused was discharged. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि एफआईआर में दर्ज आरोप धारा 341, 354C और 506 आईपीसी के अपराध सिद्ध नहीं करते। न्यायालय ने माना कि शिकायतकर्ता किसी निजी क्रिया में संलग्न नहीं थी जिससे वॉयूरिज़्म का अपराध बन सके, कोई स्पष्ट धमकी नहीं दी गई थी जिससे आपराधिक धमकी सिद्ध हो सके, और अनुचित अवरोध भी सिद्ध नहीं हुआ क्योंकि वह वैध किरायेदार नहीं थी। अदालत ने निष्कर्ष निकाला कि विवाद मूलतः दीवानी प्रकृति का है और आपराधिक कार्यवाही जारी रखना अनुचित होगा। इसलिए अपील स्वीकार की गई और अभियुक्त को आरोपमुक्त किया गया। |
[ Case: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal Crl.A. No.-005146-005146 – 2025] |
2 December 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh & Justice Manmohan) |
Download PDF link
|
| 22 |
1. Whether goods, money, and ornaments given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage can be legally returned to the woman after divorce under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 1. क्या विवाह के समय दिये गये सामान, धनराशि और आभूषण तलाक के बाद महिला को मुस्लिम महिला (तलाक पर अधिकारों का संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1986 की धारा 3 के अंतर्गत वापस मिल सकते हैं? |
1. The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order and held that the divorced Muslim woman (appellant) is entitled to recover Rs. 7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. 2. The Court emphasized that the 1986 Act must be interpreted purposively to secure dignity, equality, and financial protection of divorced Muslim women, in line with Article 21 of the Constitution. 1. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश रद्द करते हुए कहा कि तलाकशुदा मुस्लिम महिला (अपीलकर्ता) विवाह के समय दिये गये 7 लाख रुपये और 30 भोरी सोने के आभूषण वापस पाने की हकदार है। 2. न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि 1986 अधिनियम की व्याख्या इस प्रकार होनी चाहिए कि तलाकशुदा मुस्लिम महिलाओं की गरिमा, समानता और आर्थिक सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित हो, जो संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 से मेल खाता है। |
[Case: Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin & Anr. Crl.A. No.-005164-005165 – 2025] |
2 December 2025 |
Two Judges – Justices Sanjay Karol & N. Kotiswar Singh |
Download PDF link
|
| 23 |
1. Whether the term “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 should be interpreted broadly to include all areas recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of ownership. 2. Whether State governments and private parties could divert forest land without prior approval of the Central Government. 3. Whether continuous monitoring by the Supreme Court was necessary to protect forests and environment. 1. क्या वन (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1980 के तहत “वन” शब्द की व्यापक व्याख्या की जानी चाहिए ताकि स |
Supreme Court gave a wide interpretation to the term “forest” and held that all lands recorded as forest in any government record fall under the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court prohibited diversion of forest land without prior approval of the Central Government. It converted the case into a continuing mandamus, issuing directions from time to time to protect forests, wildlife, and environment. This case became the foundation of environmental jurisprudence in India. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने “वन” शब्द की व्यापक व्याख्या की और कहा कि सरकारी अभिलेखों में दर्ज सभी वन क्षेत्र वन (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1980 के अंतर्गत आते हैं। न्यायालय ने केंद्रीय सरकार की पूर्व स्वीकृति के बिना वन भूमि के उपयोग परिवर्तन पर रोक लगाई। इस मामले को निरंतर आदेश जारी करने वाला “कंटिन्यूइंग मैंडमस” बना दिया गया, जिससे वनों, वन्यजीवों और पर्यावरण की रक्षा हेतु समय समय पर निर्देश दिए जाते रहे। यह मामला भारत में पर्यावरण न्यायशास्त्र की नींव बन गया। |
[Case: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Ors. In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges [I.A. No.105701 of 2024 (CEC Report No. 03 of 2024)] [Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995] |
20-November 2025. |
Three Judges CJI. (B.R. Gavai) J. (K. Vinod Chandran) J. (N.V. Anjaria) |
Download PDF link
|
| 24 |
1. Whether recent amendments to the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 were constitutionally valid. 2. Whether restrictions imposed on organ donation and transplantation violated the right to health under Article 21. 3. Whether Union’s regulatory framework ensured transparency and fairness in allocation of organs. 1. क्या मानव अंग एवं ऊतक प्रत्यारोपण अधिनियम, 1994 में हाल के संशोधन संवैधानिक रूप से वैध थे। 2. क्या अंगदान और प्रत्यारोपण पर लगाए गए प्रतिबंध अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत स्वास्थ्य |
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the regulatory framework but directed the Union to strengthen safeguards against misuse. The Court emphasized that organ transplantation is closely linked to the right to life and health under Article 21. It mandated stricter monitoring, equitable allocation, and protection of donor/recipient rights. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने नियामक ढांचे की संवैधानिक वैधता को बरकरार रखा लेकिन संघ को दुरुपयोग रोकने हेतु सुरक्षा उपायों को मजबूत करने का निर्देश दिया। न्यायालय ने कहा कि अंग प्रत्यारोपण जीवन और स्वास्थ्य के अधिकार से जुड़ा है। न्यायालय ने सख्त निगरानी, समान आवंटन और दाता/ग्राही अधिकारों की रक्षा का आदेश दिया। |
Indian Society of Organ Transplantation Vs. Union of India |
19 November 2025 |
Two Judges (CJI. (B.R. GAVAI) J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) |
Download PDF link
|
| 25 |
1. Whether unchecked industrial effluents contaminating the Jojari River posed a grave threat to public health and violated citizens’ right to life under Article 21. 2. Whether State authorities failed in their constitutional duty to protect environment and prevent pollution. 3. What remedial and preventive measures should be directed to safeguard the lives of affected populations. 1. क्या जोजरी नदी में औद्योगिक अपशिष्ट का अनियंत्रित प्रवाह जनस्वास्थ्य के लिए गंभीर खतरा था और अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत नागरिकों क |
Supreme Court treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation. It held that contamination of the Jojari River endangered nearly 2 million lives, violating Article 21. The Court directed strict regulatory action against polluting industries, mandated clean up operations, and ordered the State to ensure safe drinking water and medical facilities for affected residents. The ruling reinforced the principle that environmental protection is integral to the right to life.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने मामले को जनहित याचिका के रूप में लिया। न्यायालय ने कहा कि जोजरी नदी का प्रदूषण लगभग 20 लाख जीवन को खतरे में डालता है, जो अनुच्छेद 21 का उल्लंघन है। न्यायालय ने प्रदूषण फैलाने वाले उद्योगों के विरुद्ध कड़ी कार्रवाई, नदी की सफाई, और प्रभावित निवासियों के लिए सुरक्षित पेयजल व चिकित्सीय सुविधाएँ सुनिश्चित करने का आदेश दिया। निर्णय ने यह सिद्धांत दोहराया कि पर्यावरण संरक्षण जीवन के अधिकार का अभिन्न हिस्सा है। |
[Case: In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan SMW(C) No.-000008-000008 – 2025] |
21 November 2025 |
Five Judges |
Download PDF link
|
| 26 |
Whether bail conditions imposed in a pending murder trial can be modified or cancelled. whether judicial verdicts once final can be reopened. क्या लंबित हत्या मुकदमे में दी गई ज़मानत की शर्तों को बदला या रद्द किया जा सकता है, क्या न्यायिक निर्णयों को अंतिम होने के बाद दोबारा खोला जा सकता है? |
The Supreme Court held that finality of judicial verdicts is fundamental to the rule of law. Bail conditions once imposed cannot be lightly modified. Reopening settled issues undermines Article 141 and public confidence in justice. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि न्यायिक निर्णयों की अंतिमता कानून के शासन का मूल तत्व है। एक बार लगाई गई ज़मानत की शर्तों को आसानी से बदला नहीं जा सकता। पहले से तय मुद्दों को दोबारा खोलना अनुच्छेद 141 और न्याय व्यवस्था में जनता के विश्वास को कमजोर करता है। |
[Case: Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman vs. The State of West Bengal MA-002323-002323 – 2025] |
26 November 2025 |
Division Bench — Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih |
Download PDF link
|
| 27 |
1. Whether commercial suits filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 can be dismissed purely on technical grounds. 2. Whether such suits must necessarily be decided on merits rather than procedural objections. 3. Whether jurisdictional principles in commercial disputes need uniform clarification across High Courts. 1.क्या वाणिज्यिक न्यायालय अधिनियम, 2015 के अंतर्गत दायर वाणिज्यिक वाद केवल तकनीकी आधारों पर खारिज किए जा सकते हैं? 2.क्या ऐसे वादों का निपटारा केवल प्रक्रिया संबंधी आपत्तियों पर नहीं बल्कि गुण |
The Supreme Court held that commercial disputes must be adjudicated on merits, not dismissed on procedural technicalities. Jurisdiction principles were clarified to ensure uniformity.सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि वाणिज्यिक विवादों का निपटारा गुण-दोष के आधार पर होना चाहिए, केवल प्रक्रिया संबंधी तकनीकीताओं पर नहीं। अधिकार क्षेत्र से जुड़े सिद्धांतों को स्पष्ट किया गया ताकि एकरूपता बनी रहे। |
[Case: MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Renuka Realtors and Ors. C.A. No.-013514-013514 – 2025] |
- |
Two Judges (JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA) |
Download PDF link
|
| 28 |
1. Whether private forest lands could be deemed acquired under the Maharashtra Act of 1975 based on old, unserved notices issued decades earlier. 2. Whether the State complied with mandatory procedures of serving notices to landowners before claiming acquisition. 3. Whether judicial discipline required adherence to earlier Supreme Court precedents on forest land acquisition. 1. क्या महाराष्ट्र अधिनियम, 1975 के तहत निजी वन भूमि को पुराने, अप्रेषित नोटिसों के आधार पर अधिग्रहित माना जा सकता था। 2. क्या राज् |
Supreme Court quashed the State’s claims. It held that acquisition under the 1975 Act requires strict compliance with statutory procedure, including service of notice. Reliance on stale, unserved notices from the 1960s was impermissible. The Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings and emphasized judicial discipline.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने राज्य के दावों को खारिज किया। न्यायालय ने कहा कि 1975 अधिनियम के तहत अधिग्रहण के लिए वैधानिक प्रक्रिया का सख्ती से पालन आवश्यक है, जिसमें नोटिस की सेवा शामिल है। 1960 के दशक के पुराने, अप्रेषित नोटिसों पर भरोसा करना अस्वीकार्य है। न्यायालय ने अपने पूर्ववर्ती निर्णयों को दोहराया और न्यायिक अनुशासन पर बल दिया। |
[Case: Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.C.A. No.-005454-005454 – 2019] |
7 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale) |
Download PDF link
|
| 29 |
1.Whether mere long separation of spouses amounts to irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 2.Whether irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3.Whether courts must identify which spouse was responsible for breaking marital ties before granting divorce. 4.Whether the Supreme Court alone, under Article 142 of the Constitution, can dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. 1.क्या केवल पति पत्नी का लंबे समय तक अलग रहना विवाह के अव |
The Supreme Court held that marriage should not be considered broken down merely because the spouses live separately. Courts must carefully examine who was responsible for breaking the marital ties. The doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Only the Supreme Court, exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can dissolve a marriage on this ground. Divorce cannot be granted mechanically; the institution of marriage must be preserved unless reconciliation is truly impossible. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि केवल पति पत्नी के अलग रहने से विवाह को टूटा हुआ नहीं माना जा सकता। न्यायालयों को यह सावधानीपूर्वक देखना होगा कि वैवाहिक संबंध तोड़ने की ज़िम्मेदारी किस पक्ष की थी। अविवर्तनीय विघटन (irretrievable breakdown) का सिद्धांत हिंदू विवाह अधिनियम, 1955 में वैधानिक आधार नहीं है। केवल सुप्रीम कोर्ट ही संविधान के अनुच्छेद 142 के तहत अपनी असाधारण शक्तियों का प्रयोग कर इस आधार पर विवाह को समाप्त कर सकता है। तलाक़ को यांत्रिक रूप से नहीं दिया जा सकता; विवाह संस्था को तब तक संरक्षित रखना होगा जब तक मेल मिलाप वास्तव में असंभव न हो। |
[Case: Case Note: A v. I Civil Appeal No. 9876 of 2025 |
24 November 2025 |
Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J.B. Pardiwala |
- |
| 30 |
1. Whether the Governor can simply withhold assent to a Bill without returning it to the Legislative Assembly. 2. Whether such withholding without communication violates the federal structure of the Constitution. 3. What is the scope of the Governor’s power to reserve Bills for the consideration of the President. 1. क्या राज्यपाल बिना विधानसभा को लौटाए केवल सहमति रोक सकते हैं। 2. क्या ऐसा करना संविधान की संघीय संरचना का उल्लंघन है। 3. राज्यपाल की राष्ट्रपति के विचारार्थ विधेयक सुरक्षित रखने की शक्ति की |
Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot merely withhold assent without returning the Bill to the Assembly. Such conduct is unconstitutional and against the principles of federalism. The Court clarified that the Governor must either assent, withhold with reasons and return, or reserve the Bill for the President. Arbitrary withholding is impermissible.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि राज्यपाल केवल सहमति रोक नहीं सकते। उन्हें या तो सहमति देनी होगी, या कारण सहित विधेयक को विधानसभा को लौटाना होगा, या राष्ट्रपति के विचारार्थ सुरक्षित रखना होगा। मनमाने ढंग से सहमति रोकना असंवैधानिक है और संघवाद के विरुद्ध है। |
[Case: In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (Presidential Reference)] |
20 November 2025 |
Five Judges (CJI B.R. Gavai, CJI Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice A |
Download PDF link
|
| 31 |
1. Whether under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the place of filing complaint for dishonour of account payee cheque is determined by the payee’s home branch. 2. Whether complaints filed at other branches or locations are maintainable. 1. क्या परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम, 1881 की धारा 142(2)(a) के तहत अकाउंट पेयी चेक के अनादरण पर शिकायत दाखिल करने का स्थान प्राप्तकर्ता की होम ब्रांच से निर्धारित होता है। 2. क्या अन्य शाखाओं या स्थानों पर दाखिल शिकायतें ग्राह्य हैं। |
Supreme Court clarified that for account payee cheque dishonour, the complaint must be filed at the place where the payee maintains his bank account (home branch). Filing at other places is not permissible under Section 142(2)(a) NI Act.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि अकाउंट पेयी चेक के अनादरण पर शिकायत उसी स्थान पर दाखिल की जानी चाहिए जहाँ प्राप्तकर्ता का बैंक खाता (होम ब्रांच) है। अन्य स्थानों पर दाखिल शिकायतें धारा 142(2)(a) एन.आई. अधिनियम के तहत ग्राह्य नहीं हैं। |
[Case: Jai Balaji Industrial Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s HEG T.P.(Crl.) No.-001099-001099 – 2025] |
28th November, 2025. |
Two Judges (Justice J.B. PARDIWALA & Justice R. MAHADEVAN) |
Download PDF link
|
| 32 |
1. Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance policy terms. 2. Whether the insurer could repudiate liability citing breach of policy conditions. 3. Whether the High Court’s order required interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. . क्या दावा करने वालों को मोटर वाहन अधिनियम और बीमा पॉलिसी की शर्तों के तहत मुआवजा पाने का अधिकार था। 2. क्या बीमाकर्ता पॉलिसी शर्तों के उल्लंघन का हवाला देकर देयता से बच सकता था। 3. क्या उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश मे |
Supreme Court examined the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 9753–9756 of 2025. The Court clarified that compensation must be awarded in line with statutory requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act and policy terms. The insurer cannot arbitrarily repudiate liability. Relief was moulded to balance claimants’ rights and insurer’s obligations. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने विशेष अनुमति याचिकाएँ (सिविल) संख्या 9753–9756/2025 पर विचार किया। न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि मुआवजा मोटर वाहन अधिनियम और पॉलिसी शर्तों के अनुसार दिया जाना चाहिए। बीमाकर्ता मनमाने ढंग से देयता से बच नहीं सकता। राहत इस प्रकार दी गई कि दावा करने वालों के अधिकार और बीमाकर्ता की जिम्मेदारियाँ संतुलित रहें। |
[Case: Preetha Krishnan & Ors. Vs. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.SLP(C) No.-009753-009756 – 2025] |
6 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra) |
Download PDF link
|
| 33 |
1. Whether non disclosure of conviction under Section 138 NI Act in election nomination form amounts to disqualification. 2. Whether the High Court was right in unseating the petitioner from the post of Councillor. 1. क्या चुनाव नामांकन पत्र में धारा 138 एन.आई. अधिनियम के तहत सजा का उल्लेख न करना अयोग्यता माना जाएगा। 2. क्या उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा याचिकाकर्ता को पार्षद पद से हटाना उचित था। |
Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order. It ruled that suppression of conviction details in nomination papers is a material concealment, rendering the election invalid. The petitioner was rightly disqualified and unseated. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को बरकरार रखा। न्यायालय ने कहा कि नामांकन पत्र में सजा का विवरण छिपाना एक महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य का दमन है, जिससे चुनाव अमान्य हो जाता है। याचिकाकर्ता को सही रूप से अयोग्य घोषित कर पद से हटाया गया। |
[Case: Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12000 of 2025] |
6 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar) |
Download PDF link
|
| 34 |
1. Whether execution of the trial court decree could be refused because the appellate decree was passed in favour of appellants who had died before hearing. 2. Whether such an appellate decree is valid or a nullity. 1. क्या ट्रायल कोर्ट के डिक्री का क्रियान्वयन इसलिए रोका जा सकता था क्योंकि अपीलीय डिक्री मृत अपीलकर्ताओं के पक्ष में दी गई थी। 2. क्या ऐसी अपीलीय डिक्री वैध है या शून्य। |
Supreme Court held that an appellate decree passed in favour of deceased appellants is a nullity. Consequently, the original trial court decree revives and is executable. The executing court erred in refusing execution. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि मृत अपीलकर्ताओं के पक्ष में दी गई अपीलीय डिक्री शून्य है। परिणामस्वरूप, ट्रायल कोर्ट की मूल डिक्री पुनः जीवित होती है और क्रियान्वित की जा सकती है। क्रियान्वयन न्यायालय द्वारा क्रियान्वयन से इनकार करना त्रुटिपूर्ण था। |
[Case: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Civil Appeal No.-of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024)] |
6 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar) |
Download PDF link
|
| 35 |
1. How do ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ under Section 304 IPC determine whether culpable homicide amounts to murder or a lesser offence. 2. Whether ordering a DNA test in connection with a paternity dispute was warranted when the issue had no nexus with the offence under Section 304 IPC. 1. धारा 304 भारतीय दंड संहिता के अंतर्गत ‘इरादा’ और ‘ज्ञान’ कैसे यह निर्धारित करते हैं कि अपराध हत्या है या कम गंभीर अपराध। 2. क्या पितृत्व विवाद से संबंधित डीएनए परीक्षण का आदेश तब उचित था जब उसका अपराध (धारा 304) से कोई स |
Supreme Court clarified that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC depends on the presence of intention and knowledge. The Court further held that ordering a DNA test when paternity has no connection with the alleged offence is unwarranted and impermissible.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि हत्या और गैर हत्या योग्य अपराध (धारा 304) के बीच अंतर ‘इरादा’ और ‘ज्ञान’ की उपस्थिति पर निर्भर करता है। न्यायालय ने आगे कहा कि जब पितृत्व का प्रश्न अपराध से संबंधित नहीं है, तो डीएनए परीक्षण का आदेश अनुचित और अस्वीकार्य है। |
[Case: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha & Others Crl.A. No.-001013-001013 – 2021] |
10 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)& (Justice VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) |
Download PDF link
|
| 36 |
1. Whether written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee in a language he understands. 2. Whether failure to provide such grounds renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. 1. क्या गिरफ्तारी के लिखित आधार आरोपी को उसकी समझ की भाषा में देना अनिवार्य है। 2. क्या ऐसा न करने पर गिरफ्तारी और बाद की रिमांड अवैध हो जाती है। |
Supreme Court held that furnishing written grounds of arrest in a language comprehensible to the arrestee is mandatory. If not provided, both the arrest and remand are illegal. This ruling reinforced constitutional protections under Article 22 and statutory safeguards under CrPC. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि गिरफ्तारी के लिखित आधार आरोपी को उसकी समझ की भाषा में देना आवश्यक है। यदि ऐसा नहीं किया जाता, तो गिरफ्तारी और रिमांड दोनों अवैध मानी जाएँगी। यह निर्णय अनुच्छेद 22 और दंप्रसं के तहत दिए गए वैधानिक संरक्षण को मजबूत करता है। |
[Case: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another Cr.A-2195-2025] |
6 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih) |
Download PDF link
|
| 37 |
1. Whether the direction for investigation issued by the JMFC under Section 156(3) CrPC, which led to registration of FIR Crime No.12/2018 and was subsequently quashed by the High Court, was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether there was sufficient material before the JMFC to justify referring the matter for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in the institution of the FIR. 1. क्या मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा धारा 156(3) दंप्रसं के तहत जांच का निर्देश, जिसके परिणामस् |
Supreme Court held that once a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct investigation and registration of FIR. The High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold. The appeal was allowed, and the FIR restored.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि जब शिकायत संज्ञेय अपराध को दर्शाती है, तो मजिस्ट्रेट धारा 156(3) दंप्रसं के तहत जांच और एफआईआर दर्ज करने का निर्देश देने के लिए सक्षम है। उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रारंभिक स्तर पर एफआईआर को रद्द करना त्रुटिपूर्ण था। अपील स्वीकार की गई और एफआईआर बहाल की गई। |
[Case: Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Crl.A. No. 004728 / 2025 Registered on 04-11-2025 SLP(Crl) No. 011336 - / 2022 Registered on 23-11-2022)] |
4 November 2025 |
Two Judges (Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) |
Download PDF link
|
| 38 |
Abuse of process in criminalizing civil disputes |
Criminal prosecution quashed where used as pressure tactic in civil business disputes |
Indrajeet singh vs State of UP |
Oct 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 39 |
Client-Advocate Privilege: Limits on summoning advocates during investigation |
Investigating agencies cannot summon advocates solely to extract case details; client-advocate privilege protected |
In Re (Summoning Advocates under investigation) |
Oct 2025 |
Vinod Chandran, N.V. Anjaria JJ |
Download PDF link
|
| 40 |
Appointment of Judicial Officers as District Judges: Eligibility of advocates with minimum 7 years bar experience |
Advocates who completed 7 years practice before recruitment in subordinate service are eligible for direct District Judge appointment process |
Rejanish K.V. vs K. Deepa |
Oct 2025 |
Constitutional Bench |
Download PDF link
|
| 41 |
Is the death sentence sustainable where prosecution fails on vital circumstances? |
Acquitted accused in Mugalivakkam child rape-murder case; Court ruled the prosecution "miserably failed" on proof. |
Dashwanth v. State of TN |
Oct 2025 |
Not named in summary |
Download PDF link
|
| 42 |
Can High Court recall/review its own criminal orders under Section 482 CrPC? |
No; only clerical/accidental errors can be corrected, not substantive recall/review of criminal orders. |
State of Rajasthan vs Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi |
Oct 2025 |
Not named in summary |
Download PDF link
|
| 43 |
Can mere suspicion justify conviction on circumstantial evidence in murder cases? |
Suspicion—even strong—cannot replace proof; benefit of doubt led to acquittals where prosecution evidence was insufficient. |
Nazim vs State of UK |
Oct 2025 |
Not named in summary |
Download PDF link
|
| 44 |
Is the grant of bail in serious fraud cases to be scrutinized for judicial accountability? |
Quashed bail in Rs. 6.25 crore land fraud; directed judicial officer training, holding that arbitrary bail erodes faith in system. |
Netsity System pvt ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi |
Oct 2025 |
Not named in summary |
Download PDF link
|
| 45 |
Does the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, have retrospective effect for claims of juvenility in old cases? |
The Act applies retrospectively; claims of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after disposal of the case. |
Hansraj v. State of UP |
9-Oct-2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 46 |
Does a registered will carry presumption of due execution and genuineness? |
Reiterated that a registered will carries presumption of due execution and genuineness; the burden of proof is on the party challenging the will. |
State of Rajasthan vs Ajit Singh |
1 Sep 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 47 |
Is mechanical grant of bail and use of witness protection as bail condition valid? |
SC slammed High Courts for mechanically granting bail (copy-paste orders) and said liberty must be balanced with societal interests through well-reasoned orders; witness protection schemes are not bail cancellation substitutes. |
PHIRERAM vs State of UP. |
4 Sep 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 48 |
Does a right to housing form part of Article 21 (right to life)? |
Supreme Court declared right to housing as integral to the right to life under Article 21, warning authorities and RERA for failing to protect homebuyers from delays and defaults by developers. |
Mansi Brar Fernandes vs Shubha Sharma |
12 Sep 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 49 |
Can High Courts create a new case while framing new questions of law under Section 100(5) CPC? |
High Courts cannot frame an entirely new case or substantial question of law without pleadings, issues, or recorded reasons. Any such action is procedurally improper. |
C. P. FRANCISVS C.P.JOSEPH |
3 Sep 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 50 |
Does the SC/ST Act bar anticipatory bail under all circumstances? |
The bar applies only if prima facie offence under the Act is made out; courts can grant anticipatory bail if allegations don't disclose such offence. |
Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain |
Criminal Law Bench |
Sept 2025 |
Download PDF link
|
| 51 |
Right to private defence standards in assault cases? |
Private defence must be judged practically based on imminent threat, not pedantically; acquitted accused doctor of murder charge. |
Rakesh Dutt vs State of UK |
5 Sept 2025 |
DB |
- |
| 52 |
Can FIR proceedings post-divorce continue if parties settled? |
FIR proceedings may be quashed post-divorce if parties settled and ex-spouse has no objection to prevent harassment. |
Navneesh Aggarwal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another |
Sept 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 53 |
Is dishonour of cheque a civil wrong, and can it be compounded anytime? |
Dishonour under Section 138 NI Act is a civil wrong; offence is compoundable at any stage per Section 147. |
Gian Chand Garg vs Harpal Singh |
Sept 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 54 |
Should child interact with parents living apart or abroad? |
Welfare of child requires continued contact; courts must facilitate meaningful interaction unless contrary to child's best interests. |
Manoj Dhankar vs Neeharika |
2 Sept 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 55 |
Can a student keep MBBS seat after fraudulent caste certificate? |
Admissions based on false caste certificates are invalid but equity balances rights of bona fide students who completed substantial education. |
Chaitanya vs State of Maharashtra. |
25 Sept 2025 |
DB |
Download PDF link
|
| 56 |
Is illegal detention in excess of sentence permissible? |
Unlawful incarceration is grave; MP govt directed to explain 5-year overstay. |
Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
10 Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 57 |
Can prolonged cohabitation raise presumption of marriage? |
Long cohabitation raises presumption of marriage; rebuttable only by unimpeachable evidence. |
Chowdamma (D) by LR v. Venkatappa (D) by LRs |
Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 58 |
Can NCLAT dispense with mandatory filing of certified copy? |
Filing of certified copy of impugned order is a mandatory requirement in appeal—cannot be waived. |
Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. DSK Global Education |
Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 59 |
Does withdrawal of PIL bar fresh litigation? |
Withdrawal of PIL does not attract res judicata; fresh litigation on same subject is not barred. |
Suresh Chandra Maharana & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors |
17 Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 60 |
Does employment accident during commute qualify for compensation? |
Accident during work commute can be considered as arising out of employment if nexus established. |
Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. |
Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
- |
| 61 |
Can criminal courts review their own judgments? |
Criminal courts barred from reviewing or altering judgments except for strict statutory exceptions—Section 362 (CrPC)(Sec 403 BNSS)prohibition is absolute. |
Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla & Anr |
Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 62 |
Can extra-judicial confession alone convict an accused? |
Extra-judicial confession alone is a weak form of evidence—requires corroboration, cannot form sole basis for conviction. |
Shanti Devi Vs State of Haryana |
18 Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 63 |
Is expert opinion mandatory for visible interpolation in sale agreement? |
Self-evident interpolations in documents may be independently assessed; expert opinion not mandatory. |
Syed Basheer Ahmed v. M/s Tinni Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr |
28 Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 64 |
Can criminal cases continue after divorce? |
FIR proceedings may be quashed post-divorce if parties settled and ex-spouse has no objection—to prevent harassment. |
Navneesh Aggarwal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another |
Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 65 |
Does gender cap in Army JAG recruitment violate equality? |
Females and males form one cadre; gender cap (50%) for Army JAG recruitment violates Article 14; selection must be merit-based. |
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr vs The Union of India & Ors |
11 Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 66 |
Can limitation in filing application to set aside arbitral award be computed from disposal of Sec. 33 plea? |
Limitation for setting aside arbitral award begins from date of disposal of Sec. 33 application (correction/interpretation), not the date of award itself |
Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav |
Aug 2025 |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 67 |
Does Acknowledgment Of Partial Debt Would Extend The Limitation Period For The Entire Debt? |
The Supreme Court Observed That The Acknowledgment Of Partial Debt Would Not Extend The Limitation Period For The Entire Debt Under Section 18 Of The Limitation Act, 1963. |
M/S. Airen And Associates Versus M/S. Sanmar Engineering Services Limited |
27 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 68 |
Can An Amendment To A Complaint Can Be Made At The Post-Cognizance Stage? |
The Supreme Court Ruled That An Amendment To A Complaint Can Be Made At The Post-Cognizance Stage, Provided That No 'Prejudice' Is Caused To The Accused And The Complainant's Cross-Examination Is Awaited. |
Bansal Milk Chilling Centre Versus Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr. |
26 July |
2 Jb |
- |
| 69 |
Does A Registered 'Will' Carries A Presumption Of Due Execution And Genuineness? |
The Supreme Court On Monday (July 21) Reiterated That A Registered 'Will' Carries A Presumption Of Due Execution And Genuineness, And The Burden Of Proof Lies Heavily On The Party Challenging The Will. |
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others Versus Metapalli Muthaih(D) By Lrs. |
22 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 70 |
Is There A N Administrative Requirement That Mandates Personal Appearance Of Litigants At The High Court For Issuance Of Photo Affidavits.? |
The Supreme Court Has Dismissed A Writ Petition Challenging The Administrative Requirement Of The Allahabad High Court That Mandates Personal Appearance Of Litigants At The High Court For Issuance Of Photo Affidavits. |
Biswajit Chowdhury V. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court Of Allahabad & Anr. |
17 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 71 |
Whether Pension Can Be Denied Without The Authority Of Law? |
The Court Reiterated That Pension Is An Employee's Right To Property, Which Is A Constitutional Right, That Cannot Be Denied Without The Authority Of Law, Even If An Employee Was Compulsorily Retired On Account Of Misconduct. |
Vijay Kumar Versus Central Bank Of India & Ors. |
17 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 72 |
Whether Existence Of Civil Disputes Between Parties Warrant The Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings? |
The Supreme Court Reiterated That The Existence Of Civil Disputes Between Parties Does Not Warrant The Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Where A Prima Facie Case Is Made Out. |
Kathyayini Versus Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. |
16 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 73 |
Whether A Partnership Firm With More Than Two Partners Dissolve Upon The Death Of One Partner? |
The Supreme Court Observed That A Partnership Firm With More Than Two Partners Does Not Dissolve Upon The Death Of One Partner, Provided The Partnership Deed Contains A Clause Allowing The Firm's Continuity. |
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. Versus M/S Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors. |
16 May |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 74 |
Whether Stem Cell Banking Services, Including Enrolment, Collection, Processing, And Storage Of Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells, Constitute “Healthcare Services”? |
The Supreme Court Held That Stem Cell Banking Services, Including Enrolment, Collection, Processing, And Storage Of Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells, Constitute “Healthcare Services” Which Were Exempted From Service Tax As Per The Notifications Issued By The Ministry Of Finance In 2012 And 2014 Under The Finance Act, 1994. |
M/S. Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ahmedabad – Iii |
16 July |
2 Jb |
- |
| 75 |
Does Grant Of Mandatory Injunction Under Section 39 Of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Sra”) Discretionary? |
The Supreme Court Observed That A Grant Of Mandatory Injunction Under Section 39 Of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Sra”) Is Discretionary, And Can Be Granted Only Upon The Breach Of An Enforceable Legal Obligation. The Court Said That A Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Granted Unless There Exists A Legal Right And There's A Breach Of That Legal Right. |
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority And Ors. Versus Nirmala Devi |
15 July |
2 Jb |
- |
| 76 |
Does Plea Of 'Res Judicata' Be Decided In An Application Filed Under Order Vii Rule 11 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure For Rejection Of A Plaint.? |
The Supreme Court Held That A Plea Of 'Res Judicata' Cannot Be Decided In An Application Filed Under Order Vii Rule 11 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure For Rejection Of A Plaint. The Court Held That Res Judicata Is An Issue To Be Decided In Trial And Cannot Be Summarily Decided In An Application To Reject The Plaint. |
Pandurangan V. T. Jayarama Chettiar And Another |
15 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 77 |
Does Victim Need Necessarily Be A Complainant/Informant For Filing An Appeal Under Proviso To Section 372 Crpc? |
Reiterating That The Victim Need Not Necessarily Be A Complainant/Informant For Filing An Appeal Under Proviso To Section 372 Crpc, The Supreme Court Ruled That A Company That Suffers Loss/Damages Due To Acts Of The Accused Can Filed Appeal Against Acquittal As A 'Victim' Under Proviso To Section 372 Crpc. |
Asian Paints Limited Versus Ram Babu & Another |
14 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 78 |
Is Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation Of The Spouse Is Admissible As Evidence ? |
Sc Held That A Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation Of The Spouse Is Admissible As Evidence In Matrimonial Proceedings |
Vibhor Garg V. Neha |
14 July |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 79 |
Is There Any Illegality In Awarding Interest On Future Prospects In Motor Accident Compensation Claim Cases.? |
The Supreme Court Observed That There's No Illegality In Awarding Interest On Future Prospects In Motor Accident Compensation Claim Cases. The Court Advised The Insurance Companies To Settle The Claim On A Computation Proactively, On Receipt Of Intimation Of The Accident, At Least Provisionally, To Avoid Interest On Future Prospects And Driving Into Protracted Litigation. |
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Niru @ Niharika & Ors. |
14 July |
2 jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 80 |
Whether tere sould be a subsisting plaint to seek an injunction order |
The Supreme Court observed that there ought to be a subsisting plaint to seek an injunction order. The Court added that an injunction order loses its validity upon rejection of the plaint and would be back in operation only when the plaint is restored/revived. |
Ieee Mumbai Section Welfare Association Versus Global Ieee Institute For Engineers |
31 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 81 |
Concept of motive |
The Court explained that proving one's motive is a difficult task, “as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned himself, the motive has to be inferred from the activities and conduct of the person.” “The law is now well-settled that while proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal.” |
Chetan Versus The State Of Karnataka |
31 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 82 |
Based on communication of rounds of arrest U/A 22 (1) of COI |
The Supreme Court held that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution does not arise, as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee under Article 22(1). |
Kasireddy Upender Reddy Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. |
26 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 83 |
Whether "last seen together" theory alone is enough to sustain a conviction ? |
Observing that the "last seen together" theory alone is not enough to sustain a conviction unless supported by other compelling evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted just because the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the time gap between the last sighting and the death was unclear. |
Padman Bibhar Versus State Of Odisha |
23 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 84 |
whether the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has authority to review its own decisions or adopt a contradictory stance? |
The Supreme Court ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has no authority to review its own decisions or adopt a contradictory stance in later proceedings, as the JJB is not vested with any review jurisdiction under the law. |
Rajni Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. |
20 May |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 85 |
Whether minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.? |
In an important judgment relevant to several judiciary aspirants, the Supreme Court the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service. |
All India Judges Association Vs Union Of India (Minimum Practice & LDCE Issue) |
20 May |
3 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 86 |
2 JB Can the statements of accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. be used against co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.? |
The Supreme Court observed that the statements of accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (police interrogation) cannot be used against co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail. |
P Krishna Mohan Reddy Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh |
19 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 87 |
2 JB Can Appellate Court invoke its powers to enhance the sentence when neither the state, the victim, nor the complainant has filed an appeal or revision seeking such enhancement.? |
The Supreme Court held that, in an appeal against conviction, an Appellate Court cannot invoke its powers to enhance the sentence when neither the state, the victim, nor the complainant has filed an appeal or revision seeking such enhancement. |
Sachin Versus State Of Maharashtra |
17 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 88 |
Specifications about the caste certificate under the recruitment advertisement |
The Supreme Court observed that to apply under the recruitment advertisement, the caste certificate must be submitted in the specific format prescribed therein, and a candidate cannot claim exemption from this requirement merely on the basis of belonging to that category. |
Mohit Kumar Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors |
17 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 89 |
Does Arbitral Tribunal has the power to award different rates of interest for different phases.? |
The Supreme Court held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an Arbitral Tribunal has the power to award different rates of interest for different phases. |
M/S. Interstate Construction Versus National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. |
16 may |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 90 |
Whether Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), apply to government allotments, as such transactions are neither inter vivos nor commercial in nature but are in the public interest.? |
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), which invalidates absolute restraints on alienation, does not apply to government allotments, as such transactions are neither inter vivos nor commercial in nature but are in the public interest. |
The State Of Telangana & Ors. Versus Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust |
14 May |
2 Jb |
- |
| 91 |
whether police officers may be considered reliability as witnesses extend to their testimony regarding witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.? |
The Supreme Court clarified that while police officers may be considered reliable witnesses for recoveries of physical evidence, such as weapons or narcotics, based on voluntary disclosures by an accused, this reliability does not extend to their testimony regarding witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. |
Renuka Prasad Versus The State |
14 May |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 92 |
Whether an unregistered agreement to sell can be admitted as evidence to establish the existence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.? |
The Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell may be admitted as evidence to establish the existence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance. The Court said that this arrangement is made possible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which allows an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or of a collateral transaction. |
Muruganandam Versus Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs. |
9 may |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 93 |
Under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., is it necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? |
The Supreme Court held that to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; a person may be summoned if there is prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in the offence. |
Harjinder Singh Versus The State Of Punjab & Anr |
7 may |
2 Jb |
Download PDF link
|
| 94 |
Powers of courts under order 18 rule 17 CPC |
The Supreme Court ruled that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, a court may not only pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour based on the defendant's admissions but may also dismiss a suit where the plaintiff's admissions undermine the claim. |
Saroj Salkan Versus Huma Singh & Ors. |
6 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 95 |
Powers of courts under order 18 rule 17 CPC |
The Supreme Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC empowers the court to recall a witness at any stage solely for the purpose of seeking clarification, but it does not grant any right to the parties to recall witnesses for further examination or cross-examination |
Shubhkaran Singh Versus Abhayraj Singh & Ors. |
6 May |
2 JB |
Download PDF link
|
| 96 |
Whether 3 years practice to appear in judicial exams mandatory? |
In Direct Recruitment Through Exam, Seniority Must Be Based On Marks & Not Past Service |
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. Versus The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. |
4 May |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 97 |
Based on proper and nessary parties in a civil suit |
The Supreme Court r ruled that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, a subsequent purchaser may not be a 'necessary party' but can be a 'proper party' if their rights are affected by the adjudication of the dispute. |
M/S J N Real Estate Versus Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. |
2 May |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 98 |
Whether if a penetrative act is carried out by even one person, all others sharing a common intention can also be held liable for gang rape? |
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the accused individuals found guilty of gang rape, rejecting their argument that they had not personally committed any act of penetration. The Court clarified that under Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, if a penetrative act is carried out by even one person, all others sharing a common intention can also be held liable for gang rape |
Raju @ Umakant Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh |
2 May |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 99 |
Whether High Court cant reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution? |
The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908." |
K. Valarmathi Vs Kumaresan |
1 May |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 100 |
Whether calling "impotent" in offensive language Constitutes round for abetment of suicide? |
The Supreme Court quashed an abetment to suicide case under Section 306 of the IPC against the husband's in-laws, ruling that merely calling him "impotent" in offensive language while taking their daughter (the deceased's wife) to her parental home after a marital dispute did not amount to abetment. |
Shenbagavalli And Ors. Versus The Inspector Of Police, Kancheepuram District And Anr. |
1 May |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 101 |
? |
The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a suit or application for default under Rules 2 or 3 of Order IX of the CPC does not prevent the filing of a fresh suit, as such dismissal does not constitute a judgment or decree, and therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply. |
Amruddin ansari (dead)through lrs & ors. Versus afajal ali & ors. |
26 April |
2 |
- |
| 102 |
? |
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of a police report cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order. If the cognizance is taken after recording a finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case based on a reading of the case records, explicit reasons are not required. |
Pramila Devi & Ors. V. Stte of Jharkhand & Anr. |
24 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 103 |
? |
The Supreme Court held that once a defendant is set ex parte, they are not entitled to present evidence in their defence; their only available recourse is to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness in an attempt to disprove the plaintiff's case. |
Kanchhu vs. Prakash chand & ors. |
23 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 104 |
? |
The Supreme Court recently held that an Appellate Court's failure to frame points of determination under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) does not invalidate its judgment, provided there is substantial compliance with the rule and the appellant has not raised any specific issues from the trial court's judgment that require reconsideration. |
Nafees Ahmad & Anr. V. Soinuddin & Ors. |
23 April |
02 |
- |
| 105 |
? |
The Supreme Court observed that the absence of motive will not be fatal to the prosecution's case if there exists strong circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a cavil of doubt. The Court said that “when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence.” |
Subhash aggarwal versus the state of nct of delhi |
21 April |
2 |
- |
| 106 |
? |
Satish chander sharma & ors. Versus state of himachal pradesh & ors. The Supreme Court recently observed that the flaws in the investigation would not automatically be fatal to the prosecution's case when other credible evidence exists. The Court further observed that mere defects or irregularities in the investigation do not automatically vitiate the prosecution's case; rather, if sufficient crucial material is found upon careful examination, a conviction may still be sustained. |
R. Baiju versus the state of kerala |
21 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 107 |
Article 58 of limitation act |
The Supreme Court observed that the limitation period starts from the date when the cause of action first accrued to the plaintiff, and not when he acquired 'full knowledge' about the same. "In dealing with the submission, the appellate Court distinguished between “having knowledge” and “full knowledge” to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation as the limitation would reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge |
Nikhila divyang mehta & anr. Versus hitesh p. Sanghvi & ors. |
16 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 108 |
? |
The Supreme Court held that the action of the Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them to the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature is "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside. |
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor Of Tamilnadu And Anr |
08 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 109 |
? |
Confirming the order of eviction passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against a son and daughter-in-law, the Supreme Court held in favour of a 75-yr old man whose self-acquired property was encroached upon by the couple. |
Rajeswar Prasad Roy vs The State Of Bihar & Ors |
11 April |
2 |
- |
| 110 |
? |
The Supreme Court held that an accused person, who is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is absconding from trial proceedings, is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. |
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Aditya Sarda |
09 April |
2 |
- |
| 111 |
? |
K. Gopi v. The sub-registrar & ors. Supreme Court Flags Misuse Of Rape Laws After Break-Ups, Quashes Case Against Ex-Judge Over Alleged Marriage Promise |
Biswajyoti chatterjee versus state of west bengal & anr. |
08 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 112 |
? |
The Supreme Court observed that the Registration Act, 1908 does not authorize the Registering Authority to deny registration of a transfer document on the ground that the vendor's title documents are not produced or that their title is unproven. Therefore, the Court struck down as unconstitutional Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. |
K. Gopi v. The sub-registrar & ors. |
07 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 113 |
The issue before the Supreme Court was with respect to trial court's direction under Order XX Rule 12(1)(c) of the CPC to an inquiry into mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the suit property by the tenant to the landlord. |
The suit is under Rent Act; the termination of tenancy takes place on the date on which decree of is passed. And therefore, mesne profit has to be calculated from the date of the decree |
Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi v. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole |
07 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 114 |
Section 197 CrPC |
Prior Sanction Mandatory To Prosecute Police Officers For Acts In Excess Of Duty If Reasonably Connected To Official Functions |
G.C. Manjunath & Ors. V. Seetaram |
10 April |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 115 |
Section 34(3) Arbitration act |
Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation |
M/s r. K. Transport company versus m/s bharat aluminum company ltd. (balco) |
04 April |
2 |
- |
| 116 |
Disclose their criminal antecedents. |
The Supreme Court has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents. The synopsis of the petitions must specify if the petitioners have clean antecedents. Their involvement in any criminal case must be disclosed, with specific details about the stage of the proceedings. If false disclosures are made, then the petition will be dismissed, the Court warned. |
Munnesh v State of UP |
04 April |
2 |
- |
| 117 |
Limitation period |
The limitation period begins from the date of registration of the sale deed, which constitutes constructive notice, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision upholding a decree in a partition suit filed 45 years after the sale deed was registered. |
Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. V. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors. |
03 April |
2 |
- |
| 118 |
IS Quasi-Judicial Bodies Bound By Principles Of Res Judicata |
SC stated that it has been settled that the principle of res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities. This Court in Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. has taken the view that principles of res judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies |
M/s faime makers pvt. Ltd. Versus district deputy registrar, co-operative societies (3), mumbai & ors. |
02 April |
2 |
- |
| 119 |
Section 319 CRpc |
Additional Accused Can Be Summoned Based On Witness's Statement Without Cross-Examination |
Satbir singh versus rajesh kumar and others |
01 April |
2 |
- |
| 120 |
Can Assistant Professors In Engineering Colleges Be Re-designated As Associate Professors Without PhD? |
The Supreme Court held that Assistant Professors in Engineering institutes(appointed after March 15, 2000), who did not have Ph.D. qualification at the time of appointment or failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years of their appointment, cannot claim re-designation as Associate Professors in terms of the 2010 notification issued by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). |
The secretary all india shri shivaji memorial society (aissms) and ors. V. The state of maharashtra and ors|slp |
01 April |
2 |
- |
| 121 |
Whether the High Court of Bombay was correct in concluding that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 does not prohibit the use of Urdu as an additional language on the signboard of a Municipal Council building in Maharashtra. |
The Division Bench (two judges) of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court holding that there was no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act. The judgment of the Court was authored by Justice Dhulia. |
VARSHATAI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
15 April |
2 |
- |
| 122 |
(i) Whether the Indian Courts are jurisdictionally empowered to modify an arbitral award. (ii) Whether the power to set aside an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 being a larger power, will include the power to modify an arbitral award and if so, to what extent. |
The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held that courts possess a limited power under Section 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act to modify an arbitral award. The majority also affirmed the courts' power to modify post-award interest where justified. Chief Justice Khanna authored the majority judgment, while Justice Viswanathan wrote a dissenting opinion, holding that courts cannot modify an arbitral award. |
GAYATRI BALASAMY vs M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED |
30 April |
5 |
- |
| 123 |
When can a second FIR be registered? |
While a second FIR for the same offence is impermissible, a second FIR for a different offence is permissible. The Court narrated the following circumstances when the registration of a second FIR is permissible: "1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different." |
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE |
February 19, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 124 |
Legal mortgage would defeat equitable mortgage |
A mortgage created by the deposit of an unregistered agreement to sell will be subservient to a mortgage which was created by the deposit of title deeds. This is because an agreement of sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on any property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. |
The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Ors. |
February 04, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 125 |
Whether permanent alimony or maintenance can be awarded to a spouse even after a marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of HMA. |
Permanent alimony and interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be granted even when the marriage has been declared void. "A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary |
SUKHDEV SINGH v SUKHBIR KAUR |
February 12, 2025 |
3 |
Download PDF link
|
| 126 |
Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting. |
A woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. The Court clarified that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory. If the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband. |
SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS |
January 30, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 127 |
Allowing Scribe in exams |
The Court has held that the facility of scribe and other necessary facilities should be extended to all disabilities, even those which are not benchmark disabilities, thereby upholding the right of inclusive education of persons with disability to participate in examinations with necessary accommodations. |
GULSHAN KUMAR Vs INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION |
February 03, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 128 |
Can appeal be dismissed solely due to delay? |
The right to appeal against a conviction is a statutory right granted to the accused under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., and a properly explained delay in filing the appeal cannot be a valid ground for its dismissal. |
MAHESH SINGH BANZARA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH |
January 02, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 129 |
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home? |
A wife, even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against her, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. A wife's refusal to comply with the decree of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on just cause would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. |
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato |
January 10, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 130 |
Principles To Evaluate Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Cases |
The Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence: (i)The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. (ii)Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. (iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt. (v)The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis. |
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala |
January 07, 2025 |
3 |
Download PDF link
|
| 131 |
Doctrine of merger |
The doctrine speaks that once the superior court disposes of a case, whether by setting aside, modifying, or confirming the lower court's decree, the superior court's order becomes the final, binding, and operative decree, merging the lower court's decision into it. There cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point in time. |
BALBIR SINGH & ANR ETC VERSUS BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. ETC |
January 17, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 132 |
Facet Article 14 of the Indian Constitution |
Irregular promotions granted in the past cannot serve as a basis for continuing illegality. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits negative discrimination. |
JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF ODISHA |
January 20, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 133 |
Directions regarding issuance of e-notice under CrPC/ BNSS |
Police should not serve notice for appearance to the accused/suspect as per Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) through WhatsApp or other electronic modes. The Court made it amply clear that the service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023. |
Satender Kumar Antil v CBI |
January 21, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 134 |
Whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to 'PG Medical Courses' within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible? |
Domicile-based reservations in PG Medical seats is impermissible as it is unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. State quota seats are to be filled up on the basis of merit in the NEET exam. |
Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel |
January 29, 2025 |
3 |
Download PDF link
|
| 135 |
Is a transferee Pendente Lite Entitled To Get Impleaded In Suit ? |
A pendente lite transferee has no automatic right to be impleaded in a suit. Only in exceptional cases, where the transferee's rights are adversely affected or jeopardized, a leave would be granted to the pendente lite transferee to appeal against the decree. Several other principles have been laid down. |
H. ANJANAPPA & ORS. VERSUS A. PRABHAKAR |
January 29, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 136 |
How is BNSS different in terms of ordering investigation under S. 156 CrPC? |
Three new safeguards in BNSS Section 175(3) (absent in Cr.P.C. 156(3)): 1) mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police (with copy and affidavit); 2) Magistrate's power of inquiry; and 3) consideration of the police's refusal to register the FIR. These codify existing safeguards against misuse of magisterial powers. |
OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
January 16, 2025 |
2 |
Download PDF link
|
| 137 |
Can a writ petition be filed to render a HC judgment illegal? |
The Supreme Court held that a High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court added that if petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment for not being heard, they can either pray for its recall or challenge the same through a special leave petition. |
VIMAL BABU DHUMADIYA vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
January 17, 2025 |
3 |
Download PDF link
|
