- Naresh Potteries Vs Aarti Industries 2025 INSC 1 – S 482 CrPC – S 142 NI Actby CiteCase
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 ; Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138,142 –When the company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant should necessarily be the company which is to be represented by an authorised employee and in such a situation, the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement, oral or by affidavit, to the effect that complainant is represented by an authorised person who has knowledge, would be sufficient- if there is any dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorised or it is to be demonstrated that the complainant had no knowledge of the transaction, and as such could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused person to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. However, dismissal or quashing of the complaint at the threshold would not be justified-The issue of proper authorisation and knowledge can only be an issue for trial- (Para 21) – What can be treated as an explicit averment, cannot be put in a straightjacket but will have to be gathered from the circumstance and manner in which it has been averred and conveyed, based on the facts of each case. (Para 33)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 – The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great caution and further that inherent powers should not be used to interfere with the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to scuttle a fair investigation or prosecution. (Para 34)
Summary: High Court quashed the summoning order observing that the power of attorney holder did not have personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to the criminal proceedings as there was no specific pleading to that effect in the letter of authority and the affidavit of the power of attorney holder under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The averments made make it wholly clear that Sh. Neeraj Kumar possessed personal knowledge of the facts of the matter at hand and was well-equipped and duly authorised to initiate criminal proceedings-That beside the fact that it would always be open for the trial court to call upon the complainant for examination and cross- examination, if and when necessary, during the course of the trial. As such, a peremptory quashing of the complaint case by the High Court is completely unwarranted and that too on an incorrect factual basis.
- Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gagan Narang 2025 INSC 2 – S 63 Electricity Act – Interpretation Of Statutes –by CiteCase
Electricity Act, 2003- Section 63- Section 63 does not restrict invoking of the provisions of Section 63 only to Discoms or generating companies- When the provisions of Section 63 of the Act are read in harmony with the provisions of Section 86(1)(b) of the Act, the powers of the State Commission cannot be curtailed by interpreting that the same can be invoked only by the Discoms or the generating companies. (Para 44)
Interpretation Of Statutes –The first and foremost principle of interpretation is that of literal interpretation. When the statute read in a literal manner is capable of giving meaning to the provision that the legislation intended to and does not lead to any absurdity, it is not permissible by judicial interpretation to add, alter, or delete any words to such a statute. (Para 30)
Summary: APTEL held that MCD was neither a distribution licensee nor a generating company and thus it had no jurisdiction to file an application under Section 63 of the Act for adoption of tariff- Allowing appeal, SC observed: when the provisions of Section 63 of the Act are read in harmony with the provisions of Section 86(1)(b) of the Act, the powers of the State Commission cannot be curtailed by interpreting that the same can be invoked only by the Discoms or the generating companies.
- Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz vs Government Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 3 – Art. 300A Constitution – Right To Propertyby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 300A – Though Right to Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional right. A person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same. (Para 49)
- B. N. John Vs State Of U.P 2025 INSC 4 – S 195 CrPC – Ss 186,353 IPC – Ss 154,55,195 CrPCby CiteCase
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 195 – Complaint which is required to be filed under Section 195 (1) of the CrPC, can only be before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate who does not have the power to take cognizance of an offence or try such cases. (Para 19)
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 186 ; Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 195 – When no complaint was filed by the concerned public servant as contemplated under Section 195 (1)(a) CrPC, CJM could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 186- A written complaint by a public servant before the court takes cognizance is sine qua non, absence of which would vitiate such cognizance being taken for any offence punishable under Section 186. (Para 15-21) [In this case, complaint was filed before the City Magistrate and not before a Judicial Magistrate- SC held: the requirement of Section 195 (1) of the CrPC was not fulfilled.]
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 353- Not only obstruction but actual use of criminal force or assault on the public servant is necessary- While “disturbance” could also be caused by use of criminal force or assault, unless there are specific allegations with specific acts to that effect, mere allegation of “creating disturbance” cannot mean use of “criminal force” or “assault” within the scope of Section 353 of the IPC. (Para 33)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154- Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed. (Para 25) If vital and crucial facts are missing from the FIR of which the complainant was fully aware of and was already cognizant of, which he could have mentioned at the first instance, it would indicate that any subsequent mentioning of these facts in the case by the complainant would be an afterthought as has happened in the present case. (Para 27)
Constitution of India – Article 141 – In limine dismissal of a Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. (Para 40)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 155(4)- If in the course of the investigation of a cognizable offence, the ingredients of a non-cognizable offence are discovered then the police could have continued the investigation without the written complaint to the court or the order of the court in respect of such non-cognizable offence, as it would also be deemed to be a cognizable offence under Section 155(4) of the CrPC, but where the investigation of the cognizable office itself suffers from legal infirmity and without jurisdiction from the initial stage, the entire investigation would be vitiated. (Para 37)
- Daljit Singh State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 21 – S 174A IPC – S 820 CrPCby CiteCase
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 174A – Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. (Para 8)
- Urmila Dixit vs Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20 -S 23 Senior Citizens Actby CiteCase
Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23- Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. (Para 24)
Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23- In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi – For attracting the application of Section 23(1), the following essentials were expounded: (a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor- The two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature- the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee. (Para 21-25)
- Gopal Krishan vs Daulat Ram 2025 INSC 18 – S 63(c) Indian Succession Act – Willby CiteCase
Indian Succession Act, 1925 -Section 63 (c) – The language of Section 63(c)of the Act uses the word ‘OR’. It states that each Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses who have seen the Testator sign or affix his mark on the Will OR has seen some other persons sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator OR has received a personal acknowledgment from the Testator of his signature or mark etc. What flows therefrom is that the witnesses who have attested the Will ought to have seen the Testator sign or attest his mark OR have seen some other persons sign the Will in the presence of and on the direction of the Testator- There is no reason why the ‘or’ employed therein, should be read as ‘and’ – The part of the Section that employs the term ‘direction’ would come into play only when the attestor to the Will would have to see some other person signing the Will. Such signing would explicitly have to be in the presence and upon the direction of the Testator. (Para 12-14)
Interpretation of Statutes – The word “or” is normally disjunctive while the word “and” is normally conjunctive. Further, it is equally well settled as a proposition of law that the ordinary, grammatical meaning displayed by the words of the statute should be given effect to unless the same leads to ambiguity, uncertainty or absurdity. None of these requirements, to read a word is which is normally disjunctive, as conjunctive herein, are present. (Para 13)
- State, Central Bureau Of Investigation vs A. Satish Kumar 2025 INSC 11 – DSPE Actby CiteCase
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Whether merely because Central Government employee/Central Government Undertaking employee works within the territory of a particular State, to register an FIR by the CBI in connection with commission of an offence under a Central Act whether consent from the State Government concerned is required or not? [This question is answered in the negative] (Para 25- 28)
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajani Sahoo 2025 INSC 6 – Motor Accident Compensation – Police Recordsby CiteCase
Motor Accident Compensation Claims -The question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.
- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division vs Mohd. Syeed Ather 2025 INSC 5 – Land Lawsby CiteCase
Summary – Appeal against HC judgments in writ petitions challenging proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – SC allowed appeal and remanded for re-consideration.
- Lilian Coelho vs Myra Philomena Coalho 2025 INSC 7 – Testamentary Suitby CiteCase
Summary – High Court (Division Bench) reversed the Single Bench judgment in a Testamentary Suit- Allowing appeal, SC observed:A reasoned judgment of a Single Judge cannot be interfered with without a deep consideration-In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the Division Bench in accordance with law.
- Kim Wansoo vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 8 – Art. 226 Constitution – S 482 CrPC – Quashingby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 226 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 -Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Summary – HC refused to quash FIR against a foreign national- Allowing appeal,SC observed: A perusal of the subject FIR would reveal that the same did not disclose commission of offence(s) as alleged without anything being added to the recitals thereof. That apart, besides the vague allegations, the rest of them, even if taken as true, would not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against, the appellant. In such circumstances, asking the appellant to stand the trial will be nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such, non-interference by refusing to exercise the power to quash the FIR and further proceedings based thereon, would result in miscarriage of justice.
- Ajay Singh vs Khacheru 2025 INSC 9 – Art. 226 Constitutionby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 226 – While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.(Para 17)
- Leela vs Muruganantham 2025 INSC 10 – S 63 Indian Succession Act – Willby CiteCase
Indian Succession Act – Section 63 – Will – Mere registration of a Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. (Para 20) – Th88e propounder of the Will has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind and that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature out of his own free will. (Para 23)
- Dalip Ram vs State of Punjab 2025 INSC 12 – Land Lawsby CiteCase
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – ‘Lease’ and ‘allotment’ are different and a person who got possession of subject land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned from whom it got the land on lease. (Para 44)
Practice and Procedure – Non-framing of issues by itself will not make a decision a nullity, if the parties to the lis understood and adduced evidence on the issues actually involved in the matter. (Para 23)
- Jayshree Kanabar vs State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 13 – MCOCA – Bailby CiteCase
Summary: MCOCA accused granted bail by HC- Allowing appeal, SC observed: It is a fact that the grant of bail was not in exercise of power of the High Court as a constitutional Court on the ground of violation of Part-III of the Constitution. It is also a fact that the case on hand involves allegation of commission of offences of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC.
- Sri Mahesh vs Sangram 2025 INSC 14 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Relation Back Principle – Giftby CiteCase
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956- Section 16 – wherever any document registered under the law is produced before the court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the persons mentioned therein, the court should presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the said statute unless and until it is disproved. It was further held therein in view of Section 16 of the Act of 1956 that it would be open to the persons who challenge the registered deed of adoption to disprove the same by taking independent proceedings. (Para 16)
Relation Back Principle- Adoption by a widow would relate back to the date of death of her husband, creating an immediate coparcenary interest in the joint property, meaning that the adopted child is treated as if they were born to the deceased husband, thus entitled to inherit his property. (Para 18)
Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 122 – Two things are necessary to constitute a valid gift, namely, (i) an offer and, (ii) its acceptance. (Para 27)
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand 2025 INSC 15 – Motor Accident Compensationby CiteCase
Motor Accident Compensation -Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.(Para 8) In the case of self-employed persons too, fixation of monthly income, taking the factor of future prospects cannot be denied. (Para 12)
Precedent – When in a decision this Court enunciates a principle of law, it is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency thereof because it is to be assumed that what is enunciated by this Court is, in fact, the law from inception- We shall not be understood to have held that pursuant to enunciation of a principle of law, matters that attained finality shall be reopened solely for the purpose of applying the law thus laid. But at the same time, if the matter is pending, then, irrespective of the stage, the principle cannot be ignored. (Para 9)
- Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd. vs Andappa (D) 2025 INSC 17 – Litigationby CiteCase
Practice and Procedure -If a litigant did not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. (Para 11)
- Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 19 – Ss 354,503 IPC – S 482 CrPCby CiteCase
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 354 – For it to apply, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. (Para 12)
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 503– For an offence u/s 503 to be established, it must be shown that:- (1) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. (2) Such threat must be intentional; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. (Para 13) A mere statement without intention would not attract the offence – For an offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention should be clearly visible, and the same is to be established by evidence on record.(Para 13.2-13.3)
Mens Rea – For mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. (Para 12.4)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482– While considering an application u/s 482 CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language. (Para 10)
- Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd vs Mathias Oram 2025 INSC 22by CiteCase
Summary : Misc. applications filed by the Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal Officer, Claims Commission, Bhubaneswar seeking extension of time to finalise the report of village Ratansara- Dismissed.
- Dinesh Kumar Mathur vs State Of M.P. 2025 INSC 16 – Ss 420, 120B IPCby CiteCase
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 420 – To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved: (i) The representation made by the person was false. (ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false. (iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. (iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.- Referred to in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 120B -In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy which is being hatched and nor is it necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting.- Sections when put into a chargesheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance- Referred to Bilal Hajar v. State (2019) 17 SCC 451. (Para 12)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 197 –Scope and ambit discussed – Referred to Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983) 3 SCC 429 ; Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P (1997) 5 SCC 326 ; in A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma (2023) 8 SCC 711. (Para 10)
- Hyderabad Cricket Association vs Charminar Cricket Club 2025 INSC 23 – BCCIby CiteCase
Sports -Appointment of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer matter- SC observed: Recommendations made by the Single Member Committee which are to be approved/ disapproved in the present case, may be in conflict or not in consonance with the Constitution, Regulations and Guidelines of the BCCI.
- Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/S S.R. Engineering Construction vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 24by CiteCase
Arbitration Act 1940 – Section 14(2) –The precise form of what constitutes as a ‘notice’ of filing the award is unspecified. However, interpreted reasonably, what must be required is that the parties come to know about the existence of the award so that any objections to it may be filed. What appears from the usage of the word ‘notice’ is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step- Section 14(2) merely functions to apprise the parties about the existence of the award. (Para 15)
- Muskan Enterprises vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046 – S 148 NI Act – S 482 CrPC – Res Judicataby CiteCase
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881- Section 148 –Deposit may not be ordered if the Appellate Court finds a case to be exceptional not calling for a deposit and the reasons for not ordering a deposit are recorded in the order- There could arise a case before the Appellate Court where such court is capable of forming an opinion, even in course of considering as to what would be the appropriate quantum of fine or compensation to be kept in deposit, that the impugned conviction and the consequent sentence recorded/imposed by the trial court is so wholly incorrect and erroneous that it is only a matter of time for the same to be set aside and that ordering a deposit would be unnecessarily burdensome for the appellant. Such firm opinion could be formed on a plain reading of the order, such as, the conviction might have been recorded and sentence imposed without adherence to the mandatory procedural requirements of the N.I. Act prior to/at the time lodging of the complaint by the complainant rendering the proceedings vitiated, or the trial court might have rejected admissible evidence from being led and/or relied on inadmissible evidence which was permitted to be led, or the trial court might have recorded an order of conviction which is its ipse dixit, without any assessment/analysis of the evidence and/or totally misappreciating the evidence on record, or the trial court might have passed an order failing to disclose application of mind and/or sufficient reasons thereby establishing the link between the appellant and the offence, alleged and found to be proved, or that the compensation awarded is so excessive and outrageous that it fails to meet the proportionality test : all that, which would evince an order to be in defiance of the applicable law and, thus, liable to be labelled as perverse. These instances, which are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, may not arise too frequently but its possibility cannot be completely ruled out- Referred to Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (2023) 10 SCC 446. (Para 26-27)
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881- Section 148 -Once the Appellate Court is satisfied that a deposit is indeed called for, in an appropriate case, such court’s power is in no way fettered to call upon the appellant to deposit more than 20% of the awarded compensation, but in no case can it be less than 20%- Referred to Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (2023) 10 SCC 446. (para 26)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482-High court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata (Para 15)- Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. (Para 19)
Res Judicata –The principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding – The principle of res judicata, traceable in Section 11 of the CPC, does neither apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in the Cr. PC akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC. the principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding. (Para 14-18)
Interpretation of Statutes – User of the verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index for determining whether such statute is mandatory or directory in character. The legislative intent has to be gathered looking into other provisions of the enactment, which can throw light to guide one towards a proper determination. Although the legislature is often found to use ‘may’, ‘shall’ or ‘must’ interchangeably, ordinarily ‘may’, having an element of discretion, is directory whereas ‘shall’ and ‘must’ are used in the sense of a mandatory provision. Also, while the general impression is that ‘may’ and ‘shall’ are intended to have their natural meaning, it is the duty of the court to gather the real intention of the legislature by carefully analysing the entire statute, the section and the phrase/expression under consideration. A provision appearing to be directory in form could be mandatory in substance. The substance, rather than the form, being relevant, ultimately it is a matter of construction of the statute in question that is decisive- interpretation must depend on the text and the context – the text representing the texture and the context giving it colour – and, that interpretation would be best, which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. While wearing the glasses of the statute-maker, the enactment has to be looked at as a whole and it needs to be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word means and whether it is designed to fit into the scheme of the entire enactment. While no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation, statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. (Para 24-25)
- Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. vs Farooq Ali Khan 2025 INSC 25 – IBC – Writ Petitionsby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 226 -Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016- Unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. (Para 13-15)
- Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 26 – Art. 227 Constitution – Arbitrationby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 -Judicial restraint in interfering with matters governed under Part I of the Act relating to arbitration agreement, composition and jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, coupled with the conduct of the proceedings and making, challenge and enforcement of the award – This objection of restraint on the judicial authority is overriding and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. (Para 12) [Context: HC, allowing a petition under Article 227 granted the claimant one more opportunity to cross- examine the other party’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer- Allowing appeal, SC observed: When no perversity was found in the decision of the Tribunal, there was no justification in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with the directions of the Arbitral Tribunal.]
- Omi @ Omkar Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 27 – S 319 CrPCby CiteCase
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319 – Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC and even those persons named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge- sheet can be summoned to face the trial provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused.
Closure Report – The Court should not keep the closure report pending for consideration for a long time. Such report should be looked into promptly. (Para 20)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319 –The principles of law summarised: a. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. b. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence. c. The power of the court under Section 319 of the CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase ‘any person not being the accused’ occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression. c. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated- Referred to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Another (2021) 12 SCC 608.
- Frank Vitus Vs Narcotics Control Bureau 2025 INSC 30 – Foreigners Actby CiteCase❓Whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (for short ‘the Rules’) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946?
Foreigners Act, 1946 ; Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992- Rule 3 – The authorities under the Act and the Order have no locus to oppose bail application filed by a foreigner unless bail is sought where the allegation is of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The impleadment of the Civil Authority or Registration Officer in all bail applications filed by foreigners may result in unnecessary delay in deciding the bail applications- While granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the State or prosecuting agency, as the case may be, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the Civil Authorities. If such information is furnished, it will enable the authorities under the Act, the Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. (Para 6-8)
- Atul Tiwari vs Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2025 INSC 29 – Motor Accident Compensationby CiteCase
Motor Accident Compensation -Jurisprudence on the assessment of compensation to motor accidents’ victims discussed- Money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money can compensate- The basis for assessment of all damages for person injury is compensation. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that victim has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime’s earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. [Referred to Referred to General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs Susamma Thomas , Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi , R.D. Hattangadi vs Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar , Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd ] (Para 25-35)
- Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs State Of Goa 2025 INSC 31 – S 482 CrPC – S 415 IPCby CiteCase
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 415,420 -If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. (Para 11)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing a First Information Report alleging offence under Section 415, 420 IPC – Allowing appeal, SC observed: The dispute between the parties is predominantly a civil dispute- When there was a dispute over the title, the act of setting in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.
- Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan Vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 28 – Criminal Trial – Legal Maximsby CiteCase
Criminal Trial – On the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc -The accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency. (Para 22)
Criminal Trial – Law relating to material contradiction in witness testimony discussed – Rammi vs State of MP, Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan. (Para 15) – Either a partial, untrue version of one of the witnesses or an exaggerated version of a witness may not be a sole reason to discard the entire prosecution case which is otherwise supported by clinching evidence such as truthful version of the witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapons etc. (Para 18)
Legal Maxims – “Noscitur a sociis” – The meaning of a word can be determined by the context of the sentence; it is to be judged by the company it keeps. (Para 16) –
Legal Maxims – ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’- False in one thing, false in everything- This principle is foreign to our criminal law jurisprudence- the principle ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is not a rule of evidence and if the court inspires confidence from the rest of the testimony of such a witness, it can very well rely on such a part of the testimony and base a conviction upon it. (Para 19) – Only because there are some contradictions which in the opinion of this Court are not even that material, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded as false. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. In a given case, it is also open to the Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons. (Para 26)
Crime – Crime creates a sense of societal fear and it affects adversely the societal conscience. It is inequitable and unjust if such a situation is allowed to perpetuate and continue in the society. In every civilized society, the purpose of criminal administrative system is to protect individual dignity and to restore societal stability and order and to create faith and cohesion in the society. The courts in the discharge of their duties are tasked with balancing of interests of the accused on one hand and the state/society on the other. (Para 10)
- Boltmaster India Private Limited Vs The Board Of Directors Of Union Bank Of India – SARFAESI – RDB – IBCby CiteCase
Post Content
- Punjab National Bank Vs Atin Arora – S 21 CPC – Place Of Suing – Objectionby CiteCase
Post Content
- State Bank Of India vs Pallabh Bhowmick – Banking – Fraudulent Transactionsby CiteCase
Post Content
- Sanjay Sharma vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – S 54 TP Act- Public Auctionby CiteCase
Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Section 54 ; Registration Act, 2008 – Section 17 – Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. The registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to complete and validate the transfer. Until registration is effected, ownership is not transferred- that the conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 2008. Till then, there is no conveyance in the eyes of law. (Para 27-29)
Public Auction – A sale by way of public auction cannot be set aside until there is any material irregularity and/or illegality committed in holding the auction or if such auction was vitiated by any fraud or collusion– Unless there are some serious flaws in the conduct of the auction as for example perpetration of a fraud/collusion, grave irregularities that go to the root of such an auction, courts must ordinarily refrain from setting them aside keeping in mind the domino effect such an order would have. (Para 33)
- Tahsildar vs Renjith George – Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Actby CiteCase
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – New conditions introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act can be enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the conversion of their lands after 30.12.2017- All those applications which had been submitted prior to the amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme. (Para 12)
- Bishwajit Dey Vs State Of Assam 2024 INSC 32 – NDPS Act – Seized Vehicle Returnby CiteCase
NDPS Act- There is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case- Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case – Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 22-23) –
NDPS Act- Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle. (Para 28) – Four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused- Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated. (Para 29-31)
Interpretation of Statutes -The more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. (Para 24)
- Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 34 – Vicarious Liability – Company Directorsby CiteCase
Principle Of Vicarious Liability – There is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is no presumption that every officer of a company knows about the transaction in question. (Para 13) Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that such actions of the director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine corporate duties. (Para 12)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 156(3), 200 –When jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC, the Court concerned should remain vigilant & apply its mind carefully before taking cognizance of a complaint. (Para 15)
Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Section 4,19- The complaint lodged by the Range Forest Officer under Section 4 read with Section 19 of the Act- SC held: There are no allegations worth the name in the complaint that the three appellants before us are directly responsible for uprooting of the trees with the aid of Bulldozers or JCB machines or causing damage to the environment- The impugned complaint and order taking cognizance of the said complaint quashed.
- H. N. Pandakumar vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 37 – Misc. Application For Compounding After SLP Dismissalby CiteCase
Summary: Miscellaneous Application seeking direction for compounding the offense under Section 326 IPC based on a compromise reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition
– Allowing the application, SC observed: While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non- compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise- The conviction recorded by the court’s below is confirmed, however, the sentence of one year RI is reduced to the period already undergone. - Geetha V.M. Vs Rethnasenan K 2025 INSC 33 – Service Law- Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules – Transferby CiteCase❓Whether the option exercised by DHS employees to join DME pursuant to a policy decision of the State of Kerala ought to be considered as an option for absorption or a request for transfer under proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules and in that situation, the inter-se seniority of such employees in the DME shall be reckoned from which date?’
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958- Rules 27(a) and 27(c) – Seniority to be reckoned from the order of his first appointment and the inter-se seniority be determined as per the date of first effective advice made for his appointment in service, class, category or grade as the case may be. The proviso of Rule 27(a) is merely an exception to the said Rule of maintaining the seniority from the date of appointment in the cases of ‘on request’ and mutual transfer. The said exception does not attract in a case of transfer by way of absorption made by the Government in public interest or in administrative exigencies. Thus, proviso to Rule 27(a) is an exception to the transfer on administrative grounds in public interest. (Para 37) – the transfer by way of absorption on exercise of option as specified in Appendix I and Appendix II contained in G.O. dated 25.10.2008 does not attract the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules, which only deals with the transfer on request or on mutual request. Thus, the action taken in public interest due to administrative exigency even on option is different than the action done on request. In our view, the proviso to Rule 27(a) does not attract in case of a transfer by way of absorption done by the Department in furtherance to the policy decision of the Government. Therefore, transfer by way of absorption in public interest cannot be equated with the transfer on request in contingencies as specified in proviso to Rule 27(a) or applied mutually. (Para 47)
Service Law – Transfer – The transfer of an employee is an incidence of service if it is in public interest. It cannot be disputed that the Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of an employee. Simultaneously, if employee makes a request due to some hardship and if the authority or the Government as the case may be is satisfied, it may post such employee as per request, but such transfer cannot be termed as transfer in public interest because it is on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the public administration- If transfer is by absorption, then such employee becomes part and parcel of the department absorbing him and partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees. In other words, absorb clearly indicates to suck up, to imbibe to draw as a constituent part and consume. (Para 39-42)
Service Law- Option & Request – ‘Option’ gives a right to choose with freedom of choosing amongst the choices presented to the person concerned, whereas a ‘request’ is the desire of a person to be granted something by asking or is a demand or requirement of the employee. (Para 46)
- Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai vs Century Textiles And Industries Limited 2025 INSC 36 -Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Actby CiteCase
Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 – Section 48(a) and 51(2) – Under general provisions, the lessee has to leave the premise on completion of the period of lease, however, it will have a right to get the conveyance executed at the end of the lease, provided there has been no default, after paying the cost of the said premise- the interplay between Sections 48(a) and 51(2) of the 1925 Act is resolved through a construction that acknowledges the necessity of leaving the premises in good condition at the expiration of lease, while recognizing that a conveyance can be contemplated only where such a course is unequivocally aligned with the lease terms and the statutory framework as a whole. (Para 52)
Interpretation of Statutes – No provision of a statute should be rendered nugatory or superfluous. A statute must be construed as a coherent whole, ensuring that each part has meaningful content and that the legislative scheme remains workable. Where two provisions appear to be in tension, the proper course is to adopt a construction that reconciles them, allowing both to operate and giving effect to the underlying legislative intent. (Para 48)
Constitution of India – Article 226- Delay and laches being non-condonable while filing petition – Discussed. (Para 58- 62)
- Mahesh Singh Banzara vs State Of Madhya Pradesh – Fundamental Right Of Appeal Against Convictionby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 21; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 374– The right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution- Right of Appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right- Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528 and Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2). (Para 6)
Summary: SC held: High Court’s order dismissing the appeal solely due to delay, without properly examining the reasons for the delay, therefore, warrants reconsideration- There is a necessity of examining the reasons for delay in filing an appeal since the dismissal of the appeal based on mere technicalities, without a substantive assessment of the appellant’s reasons, was erroneous.
- United India Insurance Company Limited Odisha Hydra Power Corporation Ltd – Remedy Against Dismissal Of Arbitration Appealby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 136,226,227 ; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Section 34,37 – SLP filed against order in Arbitration Appeal filed by District Judge -SC held: When an arbitral award is confirmed in a petition under Section 34 and in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has to be circumspect. As a remedy under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned judgment, SLP disposed by permitting the petitioner to avail the remedy before the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution- Referred to Deep Industries Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (2020) 15 SCC 706.
- Alisha Berry Vs Neelam Berry – Domestic Violence Act – Bailable Warrants – Quasi Criminal Proceedingsby CiteCase
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – The proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order.[SC held: there is no justification whatsoever for the Trial Court to have issued bailable warrants in an application filed under the provisions of the D.V. Act., Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.]
- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 vs Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 38 – S 2(47) Income Tax Act –by CiteCase
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 2(47) –The reduction in share capital of the subsidiary company and subsequent proportionate reduction in the shareholding of the assessee would be squarely covered within the ambit of the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in Section 2(47) the Income Tax Act, 1961- Relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. While the taxpayer continues to remain a shareholder of the company even with the reduction of share capital, it could not be accepted that there was no extinguishment of any part of his right as a shareholder qua the company – A company under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 has a right to reduce the share capital and one of the modes which could be adopted is to reduce the face value of the preference share- When as a result of the reducing of the face value of the share, the share capital is reduced, the right of the preference shareholder to the dividend or his share capital and the right to share in the distribution of the net assets upon liquidation is extinguished proportionately to the extent of reduction in the capital. Such a reduction of the right of the capital asset clearly amounts to a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). (Para 12(c))
- Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh Panjikrit Sanstha vs State of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 41by CiteCase
Summary: SC disposed an appeal while modifying the judgment and decree of the Courts below in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
- Namami Gange And Rural Water Supply Department vs Om Prakash Singh 2025 INSC 40 – Service Lawby CiteCase
Summary: SC dismissed SLP against HC judgment quashing certain orders passed by the authorities.
- Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs Sri Bala 2025 INSC 42 – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Article 113 Limitation Act – Rejection Of Plaintby CiteCase
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Caselaws discussed (Para 6.1) -Normally the question of limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact. Hence, usually, on a reading of the plaint it is not rejected as being barred by the law of limitation. However, the above is not an inflexible rule. (Para 8.8) – while considering the question of rejection of the plaint, it is the plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in the written statement. It is also necessary sometimes to consider the documents annexed to the plaint for a holistic and comprehensive reading of the plaint in order to decide whether the plaint ought to be rejected or not. (Para 8.2)
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -Order VII Rule 13 – Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar fresh suit on the same cause of action provided the right of action is not barred by the law of limitation. (Para 7.4)
Limitation Act 1963 – Article 113 – If a suit is not covered by any of the specific articles prescribing a period of limitation, it must fall within the residuary article. The purpose of the residuary article is to provide for cases which could not be covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act. The residuary article is applicable to every variety of suits not otherwise provided for under the Limitation Act. It prescribes a period of three years from the date when the “right to sue” accrues- The expression “when the right to sue accrues” in Article 113 of the Limitation Act need not always mean “when the right to sue first accrues”. For the right to sue to accrue, the right sought to be vindicated in the suit should have already come into existence and there should be an infringement of it or at least a serious threat to infringe the same – the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for a suit to be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues and not on the happening of an event as stated in Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. (Para 9)
Limitation Act 1963 – Section 9 – Section 9 is based on the general principle that when once limitation has started to run, it will continue to do so unless it is arrested by reason of any express statutory provision. Period of limitation can be extended, inter alia, when cause of action was cancelled such as by dismissal of a suit. Ordinarily, limitation runs from the earliest time at which an action can be brought and after it has commenced to run, there may be revival of a right to sue where a previous satisfaction of a claim is nullified with the result that the right to sue which has been suspended is reanimated. (Para 9.10)
- Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das Vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 43 – Juvenile Justice Actby CiteCase
Juvenile Justice Act 2015- Section 9(2) -The plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court, meaning thereby that there is no question of finality in this regard until and unless an application filed, invoking this provision, is determined in accordance with the 2015 Act and the relevant rules. When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner. A due determination must be made by judiciously considering the material available on record. The Court is expected to travel an extra mile to satisfy its conscience as to whether the case on hand would attract the provisions of the 2015 Act and, for the aforesaid purpose, the process enumerated thereunder will have to be necessarily followed- .Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently. This is for the simple reason that the plea of juvenility has not attained. finality. So long as the right of a party subsists, one can never say that finality has been attained. In a case where a plea has been raised, but not adjudicated upon, the decision rendered thereunder would not amount to attaining finality. Likewise, when such a plea is not treated as one under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act in compliance with the procedural mandate specified thereunder, an order rejecting such a plea would not be termed as a final one. To put it differently, even assuming a plea of juvenility was raised but not considered appropriately at the time of disposal of a Special Leave Petition/Statutory Criminal Appeal, a Review Petition, or a Curative Petition thereafter, it would not bar a competent Court from deciding the said issue by following due procedure.- If an adjudication is based on due determination, then there may not be any room for another round of litigation. But, in a case where the plea was not treated as an application under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act and, the procedure mandated thereunder was not followed, the principle as aforesaid would certainly apply as the right of raising the plea of juvenility has not ceased and, therefore, subsists. (Para 22)
Constitution of India – Article 32, 226, 72 and 161 – Power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution is not appellate or revisional in nature. It is an executive power travelling on a different channel, which cannot be termed as a power of appeal or review. .A challenge to the exercise of power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution would involve limited judicial review on grounds such as inadequate application of mind, amongst others. (Para 30-31)
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -Section 9(2) – When a challenge is made to an executive order, with an independent prayer for exercising the power under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act, they being distinct and independent, refusal of judicial review of the former will not obliterate the mandatory duty pertaining to the latter. (Para 32)
Truth, Court and Law – Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools- When procedural law stands in the way of the truth, the Court must find a way to circumvent it. Similarly, when substantive law, as it appears, does not facilitate the emergence of the truth, it is the aramount duty of the Court to interpret the law in light of its teleos. Such an exercise is warranted in a higher degree, particularly while considering a social welfare legislation- In its journey, the Court must discern the truth, primarily from the truth, primarily from the material available on record in the form of pleadings, and arguments duly supported by documents. It must be kept in mind that the entire judicial system is meant for the discovery of the truth, it being the soul of a decision. For doing so, a Presiding Officer is expected to play an active role, rather than a passive one. (Para 4-6)
Juvenile Court- Court is expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child not as a delinquent, but as a victim, viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the society – Thus, a Juvenile Court is a species of a parent. A delinquent, who appears before the Court, is to be protected and re-educated, rather than be judged and punished. It is for this purpose, that the Court will have to press into service the benevolent provisions for rehabilitation introduced by the Legislature. A Juvenile Court assumes the role of an institution rendering psychological services. It must forget that it is acting as a Court, and must don the robes of a correction home for a deviant child. (Para 10-11)
Legal Maxims – Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – No one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court. A mistake committed by the Court cannot stand in the way of one’s rightful benefit. It is not the party which commits a mistake, but rather the Court itself. Hence, such a mistake cannot act as a barrier for the party to get its due relief. However, we make it clear that the mistake must be so apparent that it does not brook any adjudication on the foundational facts. (Para 28)
- S. Rajaseekaran vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 45 – Golden Hour Scheme – S 162 MV Actby CiteCase
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 162 – The provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution- Central Government directed make a scheme in terms of Sub- Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025. (Para 8)
- Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General Of Registration vs P. Babu 2025 INSC 44 -S 47A Stamp Actby CiteCase
Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Section 47A – Registering Officer, after registration of the document, can refer the same for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there was deliberate undervaluation of the property. Such a reference is not a mechanical act, but the Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding of undervaluation of the property. Duty is enjoined upon the Registering Officer to ensure that Section 47-A(1) does not work as an engine of oppression nor as a matter of routine, mechanically, without application of mind as to the existence of any material or reason to believe the fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper Stamp Duty. The expression ‘reason to believe’ is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer. The belief must be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose of the section -The word ‘reason to believe’ means some material on the basis of which the department can re-open the proceedings. However, satisfaction is necessary in terms of material available on record, which should be based on objective satisfaction arrived at reasonable (Para 21)
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 39by CiteCase
Summary: Appeal filed by Insurance Company -SC directed Appellant to pay interest as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal @ 12% per annum with effect from 06th March, 2010.
- Bhagwati Medical Hall vs Central Drugs Standard Control Organization 2024 INSC 1048 – S 26A Drugs & Cosmetics Actby CiteCase
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 26A & 22(1)(d) – Section 22(1)(d) is not a substitute for Section 26A of the D&C Act, 1940. While an Inspector may inspect premises, verify licenses, ensure proper record-keeping, and take action against specific offenses under the Act, the Inspector cannot supplant the Central Government’s prerogative by effectively banning a drug simply because of alleged misuse in certain quarters- If upon gathering evidence and seeking expert advice, the authorities believe that the drug poses health risks serious enough to warrant prohibition, their proper recourse is to move the Central Government to consider exercising its powers under Section 26A of the D&C Act, 1940. Until such a notification is issued, the drug cannot be unilaterally banned at the local level. (Para 11-12)
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Any restriction on a licensed medicinal preparation must rest on a firm statutory footing. (Para 13)
- Daliben Valjibhai Prajapati vs Kodarbhai Kachrabhai 2024 INSC 1049 – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Art. 59 Limitation Actby CiteCase
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 ; Limitation Act 1963 – Article 59 – Suit for cancellation of sale deed – In impugned judgment, HC noted that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself- High Court not justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself.
- Pradhan Babu vs Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam 2024 INSC 1047- Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Actby CiteCase
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 – The law permits a planning authority to come out with a Layout Plan or a Master Plan for an area in which certain area may be reserved for public purposes. Given how our cities are fast expanding, the salutary purpose and objective behind Section 36 of the Act is obvious. Read with Section 2(36), ‘public purpose’ has been given a very wide connotation and could even include keeping the identified land as open spaces to act as lungs for the city in view of environmental considerations. However, the caveat is that though the planning authority can include private land, the way ahead to acquire the land, either by way of resort to land acquisition laws as modified by the Act or by way of agreement with the person(s) concerned [Section 37], but in accordance with the procedure as laid out in Chapter IV of the Act. (Para 22)
Legal Maxims -Nemo dat quad non habet – No one can give what they do not possess. (Para 22)
- State Of Uttar Pradesh vs R.K. Pandey 2025 INSC 48 – Arbitration Act – Arbitration Agreementby CiteCase
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 -An arbitration agreement is sine qua non for arbitration proceedings, as arbitration fundamentally relies on the principle of party autonomy; – the right of parties to choose arbitration as an alternative to court adjudication – ‘Existence’ of the arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for an award to be enforceable in the eyes of law. (Para 20)
- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam vs Mathew K Cherian 2025 INSC 51 – S 143 Railways Act – S 482 CrPCby CiteCase❓Whether the act of creating fake/multiple user IDs by an individual, who may or may not be an authorized railway agent, with the intention to procure and supply online tickets through IRCTC portal would constitute an offence under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989?
Railways Act, 1989 – Section 143 –Taking active steps, however faithfully, in order to acquire and provide tickets to third parties but without being a railway servant or an authorised agent would attract the expression ‘procure and supply’ as in Section 143 – Section 143 makes no distinction between physical and online sale of tickets and criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply- Mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets- The net of its coverage is wide enough to encompass regulation of the conduct of ticketing agents and to protect the public from unscrupulous elements trying to defraud them by sale of valueless tickets. (Para 27-29)
Railways Act, 1989 – Section 143 – Section 143 does not criminalise creating multiple user IDs. It penalises the actions of only the unauthorised agents and not unauthorised actions of the authorised agents – Any breach has to be remedied by civil action and not criminal action.
Interpretation of Statutes – No court can refuse to enforce a provision on the sole basis of the provision predating any subsequent development- If it can be demonstrated that a statutory provision is broad enough to envelop the subsequent developments, even if the developments were not envisioned by the legislature, the provision would stay operational. (Para 21) – If the language of the particular statute under consideration is clear and unambiguous, it is not for the courts to add to or delete any words from the statute in the guise of ascertaining what could have been the legislative intent. (Para 26)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of a criminal proceeding can take place, inter alia, if the first information report does not reveal a crime or if the fact situation be such that continuance of the criminal proceedings would result in abuse of the process causing injustice to the accused. This power of quashing, however, is not unfettered or unlimited and as the old adage goes – “judicial discretion has to be exercised judiciously”. (Para 33)
- Mamta Kaur Vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 49 – Anticipatory Bailby CiteCase
Summary: HC rejected anticipatory bail – Allowing appeal, SC grants anticipatory bail.
- State Of Punjab vs Hari Kesh 2025 INSC 50 – S 482 CrPC – S 19 PC Act – Sanction Order Quashingby CiteCase
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 19 – High Court quashed Sanction Order – Allowing Appeal, SC observed: Whether the Sanction has been granted by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence. Further, as per the Explanation to sub-section (4), for the purpose of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority to grant Sanction.”- High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity. There is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order. The High Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses- Referred to State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda. (Para 8)
- Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 46 – Probation Of Offenders Actby CiteCase
Summary: Supreme Court allowed appeal by directing the release of the appellant by extending the benefit of Section 4 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
- Naushad Ahmad Ansari Vs State Of Uttarakhand – S 482 CrPCby CiteCase
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 –The dismissal of a previous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not bar a subsequent petition, under the said Section from being entertained, if the facts so justify. [ SC set aside HC judgment that quashed criminal proceedings observing thus: The record is silent as to which facts persuaded the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction for a second time when one such petition already stood dismissed and such order, confirmed by this Court.]
- Jayanandan vs Varkey – Motor Accident Compensationby CiteCase
Motor Accident Compensation – The ascertainment of permanent disability, more specifically its effect on actual earning capacity has been discussed in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343- Pain and suffering is not only on account of physical pain but also suffering on account of what has been lost as a result of the accident – desire of economic betterment, social betterment, etc. Once a person is unable to partake in his profession of choice, for no fault of his all these desires are unceremoniously ground to a halt- Referred to Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi
- Goverdhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 47 – Criminal Trial – Reasonable Doubt –by CiteCase
Criminal Trial – “Reasonable doubt”- It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense (Para 21) -The concept of reasonable doubt has to be also understood in the Indian context, keeping in mind the social reality and this principle cannot be stretched beyond a reasonable limit to avoid generating a cynical view (Para 23) -The requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense. (Para 26)
Criminal Trial – Non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses. (Para 70) the testimony of the police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness. (Para 71) Merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used. (Para 76)
Constitution of India – Article 136 -Unless the findings are perverse and rendered in ignorance of material evidence, this Court should be slow in interfering with concurring findings. (Para 2)
- Vijay Prabhu vs S.T. Lajapathie 2025 INSC 52 – S 12(3) Specific Relief Act – Relinquishmentby CiteCase
Post Content
- NBCC (India) Ltd vs State Of West Bengal 2025 INSC 54 – S 18 MSMED Act – Referred To Larger Benchby CiteCase
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18 – Whether an MSME cannot make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18 of the Act if it is not registered under Section 8 of the Act before the execution of the contract with the buyer? – Section 18 is not restrictive and is a remedy for the resolution of disputes, and as such, it is kept open-ended to enable ‘any party’ to refer the dispute to seek redressal. For the reasons to follow- Rejected the submission that ‘any party to a dispute’ is confined to a ‘supplier’ who has filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the Act- Issue referred to larger bench.
Constitution of India – Article 141 – Supreme Court performs the twin functions of decision-making and precedent-making. A substantial portion of our jurisdiction under Article 136 is reflective of regular appellate disposition of decision making. Every judgment or order made by this Court in disposing of these appeals is not intended to be a binding precedent under Article 141. Though the arrival of a dispute for this Court’s consideration, either for decision-making or precedent-making is at the same tarmac, every judgment or order which departs from this Court lands at the doorstep of the High Courts and the subordinate courts as a binding precedent. (Para 28)
- Abdul Nassar vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 35 – Rape and Murder Case – Death Sentence – Circumstantial Evidenceby CiteCase
Circumstantial Evidence – Principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows: (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. (Para 30)
Summary: Supreme Court upheld conviction of man accused of rape and murder of 9 year old girl in 2012 – the question of execution of death sentence awarded to the appellant rendered otiose, considering the fact that he has passed away during pendency of appeal.
- Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena … vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato 2025 INSC 55by CiteCase❓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?
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125(4) – Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the istinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125- Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings. (Para 30)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125- A wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.
- My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 56 – S 34(3) Arbitration Act -S 4 Limitation Actby CiteCase
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996- Section 34(3) ; Limitation Act 1963 – Section 4 ; General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 10 – Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA.- Section 4 of the Limitation Act benefits a party only when the “prescribed period’’, i.e. the 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) expires on a court holiday. In such a situation, the application under Section 34 will be considered as having been filed within the limitation period if it is filed on the next working day of the court- Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not come to the aid of the party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a day when the court was working. The 30-day condonable period expiring during the court holidays will not survive and neither Section 4, nor any other provision of the Limitation Act, will inure to the benefit of the party to enable filing of the Section 34 application immediately after reopening- Since Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the ACA, the applicability of Section 10 of the GCA stands excluded in view of the express wording of its proviso that excludes the applicability of the provision when the Limitation Act applies. (Para 35)
- H.Guruswamy vs A. Krishnaiah 2025 INSC 53 – S 5 Limitation Act – Condonation Of Delayby CiteCase
Limitation Act 1963- Section 5 –While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay – The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time- Concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation- The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not- The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. (Para 13-17)
- State Of West Bengal vs PAM Developments Private Limited 2025 INSC 69 – Ss 12, 80 CPCby CiteCase
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 12 & Order XXIII Rule 1 – No suit lies on the same cause of action if the plaintiff has abandoned their claim – This principle is not attracted when the circumstances give rise to a continuous cause of action resulting in a situation where both the amendment applications were filed at different points of time and the former was not adjudicated on merits. – A cause of action is continuing when the act alleged to be wrongful is repeating over a period of time, and consequently extending the limitation period. Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right. (Para 21-24) When subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed, as it does not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit. (Para 22)
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 80 – When amendment sought amounts to a continuous cause of action and maintains the nature and character of the suit and to that extent, Section 80 of the CPC is irrelevant. (Para 26)
- Premshila Kuer vs Dr. Amrendra Narayan Yadav & Connected Cases – 2025 INSC 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 68 – Service Lawby CiteCase
Summary: Contempt Petitions aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others” disposed.
- Dr. Sharmad vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 70 – Service Law – KS & SSRby CiteCase
Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Rule 10 is entirely irrelevant and immaterial for appointment on promotion in the Administrative and Teaching Cadres of the Medical Education Services – Rule 10(ab) (Para 20)-‘Recruitment Rules’ is used in Rule 10(ab) as an alternative to Special Rules, without the same being defined. To understand what ‘Recruitment Rules’ would mean in the context, one may simultaneously read Rule 10(a)(i) extracted supra – Without ‘Recruitment Rules’ being defined, it can take colour from Rule 10(a)(i) and be understood to mean and include executive orders of the Government in a case where Special Rules are absent- in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken. (Para 13)
Interpretation of Statutes – No word, no phrase and no expression used in a legislation should be excluded as surplusage, while the courts embark on a course of interpretation. (Para 20) – The intention of the rule framer has to be assessed on both parameters i.e. the words used and that of necessary implication. (Para 26)
Legal Maxim – Expressio unius est exclusio alterius – Whatever has not been included has impliedly been excluded. (Para 22)
- National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Maya Devi 2024 INSC 1050 – Insurance Law – Fraudby CiteCase
Fraud – Fraud vitiates everything, but merely alleging fraud does not amount to proving it. For, it has to be proven in accordance with law by adducing evidence etcetera, the onus of which would also lie on the person alleging fraud. (Para 13)
Insurance Policy – Effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time. (Para 12) – Insurance companies with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (Para 10)
- Pandurang Vithal Kevne vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 2024 INSC 1051 Litigation – Forum Shoppingby CiteCase
Litigation – Forum Shopping – Right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. When litigants engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system. (Para 3) It is in interest of justice that genuine and timely claims are addressed efficiently, without being hindered by such unscrupulous litigation.(Para 18) It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation. (Para 22)
- ABC vs XYZ 2024 INSC 1052 – S 376 IPC – Rape – Promise To Marryby CiteCase
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 376 -When contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry -Under these admitted facts no case is made out under Section 376 IPC. (Para 6)
- Chinu Rani Ghosh Vs Subhash Ghosh – Will – Proofby CiteCase
Will – How a testament or a Will has to be proved by a propounder and in what manner the approach of the Court should be while considering such a document – Referred to H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443.
- Ram Pyarey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh – S 113B Evidence Actby CiteCase
Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 113B- When the Courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.
- State (GNCT Of Delhi) vs Vipin @ Lalla – S 376 IPC – Rape Case Quashedby CiteCase
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 375,376 -In the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the nature of an injured witness which is given a very high value by the Courts. But nevertheless when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the Courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court.
- Utkal Highways Engineers And Contractors vs Chief General Manager – Art. 226 Constitution – Writ Jurisdiction – Money Claimsby CiteCase
Constitution of India – Article 226 – It is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie – Throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence. (Para 8)
- Krushna Chandra Behera Vs Narayan Nayak – Civil Suit – Injunction Simpliciterby CiteCase
Civil Suit – If the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been prayed for. (Para 18)
- Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale vs State Of Karnataka – NDPS Act – Taxi Driver Acquittedby CiteCase
NDPS Act – Appeal filed by Taxi Driver convicted in an NDPS case as ganja which was packed in two visible bags was seized from his vehicle – Allowing his appeal and acquitting him, SC observed: The Courts below have convicted the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant was not able to give details of the passengers. Ordinarily, since it is not disputed that the appellant was a taxi driver and that the contraband was seized from the taxi while he was carrying two passengers who fled from the scene, it cannot be said with any certainty that the appellant himself was carrying the contraband or has connived to carry the said contraband in his vehicle. It was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner before allowing the passenger to board the taxi ask for such details from the passenger(s). Moreover, no effort was made to search out the two passengers who may reveal the truth. Considering the fact that no incriminating material was seized from the person of the appellant and that he had not made any effort to run away, moreover, the two bags from which the contraband was seized were not found to be hidden but were rather visible, we find no material on record to link the appellant-driver with the aforesaid contraband so as to prosecute and convict him for any offence under the NDPS Act.