1) Not conclusive finding that they were not involved: Supreme Court restores Trial Court Order to summon additional accused u/s. 319 CrPC
The Court restored an Order by the Trial Court to summon additional accused while stating that, merely based on police records, it could not be conclusively stated that there was no involvement.
The Court allowed an Appeal against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the Order of the Trial Court to summon the Respondents as additional accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 34 and 25 of the Arms Act.
Cause Title- Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 416)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
2) Is delay a valid ground to scuttle initiation of departmental proceedings? Supreme Court answers
The Court upheld an Order quashing a chargesheet issued to a Tehsildar after 13 years in view of the unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings against him despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the Respondents, reversing the Order of the Single Judge which quashed the chargesheet issued to the Appellant. As a result, the disciplinary proceedings and the charge sheet were revived.
Cause Title- Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 417)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) Section 34 CPC| Exercise of discretion to award interest, whether pendente lite or post-decree must be guided by equitable considerations
The Court observed that while the discretion to award interest, whether pendente lite or post-decree, is well recognized, but its exercise must be guided by equitable considerations and that the rate and period of interest cannot be applied mechanically or at an unreasonably high rate without any rationale.
The Appeals before the Court were filed against the Judgments of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the valuation of shares done by M/s. Ray & Ray at Rs. 640 per share and granting simple interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced valuation of shares, however, rejecting the prayer of the appellants for enhancement of interest rates, costs, and damages.
Cause Title- I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 418)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Supreme Court rejects landowner's plea for release of land from acquisition; directs compensation under Land Acquisition Act despite owner's claim of continuous physical possession
The Court rejected a landowner’s representation, who claimed to be in physical possession of the land, for the release of the said land from acquisition.
The Court directed the compensation for the land acquired to be calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act). The landowner (Appellant) had challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Order dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition, calling in question the Order passed by the State (Respondent) rejecting his representation for release of his land from acquisition.
Cause Title- Kishore Chhabra v. The State Of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 419)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan
5) Findings of quasi-judicial bodies cannot be impeached collaterally; principles of res judicata equally apply
The Court clarified that the principles of res judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies, and therefore, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally.
The Court set aside the impugned Order of the Bombay High Court whereby the Appellant’s Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai (Competent Authority), was dismissed. The High Court had granted unconditional liberty to the Respondent to file a fresh application for the assignment of leasehold rights.
Cause Title- M/S Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 423)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale
6) Applications filed for “fraudulent & wrongful trading” carried on by corporate debtor can’t be termed as “avoidance applications” under IBC
The Court held that the Applications filed in respect of “Fraudulent and Wrongful trading” carried on by the Corporate Debtor (CD) cannot be termed as “Avoidance Applications” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals in which one of the Appeals was filed by the Piramal Capital and Housing Limited (formerly known as DHFL), challenging the common Judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi.
Cause Title- Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 421)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
7) Courts must be slow in interfering with opinion of experts regarding academic standards; judicial review to be exercised where prescribed qualification is arbitrary
While granting relief to the Assistant Professors of Engineering Institutes appointed before March 15, 2000, when Ph.D. was not an essential qualification, the Supreme Court has held that the powers of judicial review should only be exercised where prescribed qualification or condition is against the law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of law.
The Civil Appeals before the Court were filed by the Appellant Society, challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing the Society to extend the benefit of revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission to the Respondent-teachers, who were the original Writ Petitioners before the Bombay High Court. The Respondent-teachers are presently teaching in engineering and technical institutes run and managed by the Appellant-Society, which is a private body and is not under the grant in aid of the Government.
Cause Title- The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) and Ors. v.The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 422)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
8) RERC has jurisdiction under Electricity Act over inter-State transactions even if power originates from another State
The Court held that the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) has jurisdiction under the Electricity Act, 2003 over the inter-State transactions even if the power originates from another State.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals challenging two separate Orders of the Rajasthan High Court, one by the Jodhpur Bench and the other by the Jaipur Bench.
Cause Title- Ramayana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 424)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
9) Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is a sine qua non for fair & transparent selection process
While dismissing the Appeals filed by a candidate whose appointment to the post of “Boat Lascar” was cancelled, the Court observed that equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is a sine qua non for a fair and transparent selection process but such equality was conspicuously absent in the present case.
The Court was considering the Appeals by special leave filed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 425)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
10) High Court in its writ jurisdiction passed the Order out of sympathy: Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC Order in BPCL retail outlet dealership matter
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and observed that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction passed the order out of sympathy.
The Appeal challenged the High Court’s decision, which had affirmed the Trial Court’s Order regarding the grant of a retail outlet dealership of BPCL to the Respondent.
Cause Title- The General Manager Business Network Planning (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v. P. Soundarya (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 426)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
11) Candidates placed relatively lower in seniority list were appointed: Supreme Court directs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company to consider aspirant’s candidature
While affirming the view that candidates with fewer man-days who were placed relatively lower than the aggrieved candidate in the seniority list had been appointed to the Post of Lower Division Clerk, the Court ordered the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company to consider the aggrieved aspirant’s appointment.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ appeal against the order whereby the Appellant was directed to consider the respondent’s appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk or any other suitable post or any other supernumerary post.
Cause Title- The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 428)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
12) Bar on award of interest for delayed payment can’t be readily inferred as express bar to award pendente lite interest by arbitrator
The Court clarified that a bar on award of interest for delayed payment cannot be readily inferred as an express bar to the award of pendente lite interest by an Arbitrator.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the High Court that upheld the setting aside of an Arbitrator's award of pendente lite interest. The Court had to determine whether a contractual clause barring the contractor from claiming any interest on any payment, arrears, or balance due, prevents an Arbitrator from granting pendente lite interest under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act).
Cause Title- M/S Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 429)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
13) Mere breach of promise to repay does not infer dishonest intention u/s. 415 IPC
The Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 420 of the IPC while reiterating that mere breach of promise to repay per se does not infer dishonest intention.
The Court allowed an Appeal against the Order of the Bombay High Court whereby the Appellant’s prayer for quashing the FIR was refused. The High Court refused to quash the proceeding inter alia holding the allegations prima facie divulged ingredients of an offence under Section 415 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Manish v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 430)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
14) Onus not on complainant at threshold to prove his financial wherewithal to make payment in discharge of which cheque is issued in his favour
The Court held that the onus is not on the Complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench which set aside the concurrent findings of guilt and conviction recorded against the accused.
Cause Title- Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 427)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
15) Workers of factory under broad umbrella of a trust involved in charitable work cannot be deprived of benefit of Bonus Act
The Court held that just because a factory comes under the broad umbrella of a trust, which is also involved in some charitable work, the workers cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Bonus Act.
The Court dismissed an Appeal concerning the entitlement of workmen to bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (the Act). The Appellant, a trust known as 'Workshop for Rehabilitation and Training of the Handicapped Trust' (WORTH), which was initially established by the Swedish Red Cross Society.
Cause Title- The Management Of Worth Trust v. The Secretary, Worth Trust Workers Union (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 432)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran
16) “Ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion
While setting aside an Order directing the transfer of investigation in a criminal case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Court observed that the “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.
The Court was considering the Appeal filed by the appellant accused against the Order directing the transfer of investigation to the CBI.
Cause Title- Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 433)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
17) Cannot reignite rights after sleeping for 45 years, suit barred by limitation: Supreme Court upholds rejection of plaint
The Court upheld the Order allowing an Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for the suit being barred by limitation, stating that parties cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
The Court set aside the decision of the High Court, which allowed an Appeal against the decision of the Trial Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC. The High Court held that the issues were triable and could not be dismissed merely on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Cause Title- Uma Devi & Ors. v. Anand Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 434)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
18) Testimony of injured ocular witnesses credible & believable; merely because such witnesses are related, they can’t be termed interested
The Court confirmed the conviction of three accused persons in a case of murder and noted that all the ocular witnesses were injured, which made their testimony credible and believable.
The Court was considering the Appeals confirming the Order of conviction and imposition of life sentence upon the accused persons.
Cause Title- Maukam Singh & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 435)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
19) Economic viability is a pre-requisite or basic condition for grant of registration to co-operative society
The Court emphasised that the economic viability of the Society is a pre-requisite or basic condition for grant of registration to the Society.
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals challenging the common Order of the Bombay High Court which set aside the Orders of the Maharashtra State, directing registration of certain societies.
Cause Title- Shri. Masaidevi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit Warewadi v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 436)
Date of Judgment- April 02, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
20) When inquiry reveals systemic irregularities that undermine integrity of entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety
The Court held that when an inquiry reveals systemic irregularities that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety.
The Court upheld the impugned Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which cancelled the entire 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC) for the recruitment of non-teaching staff in Groups C and D, and Assistant Teachers for Classes IX to XII. The Court, however, added that if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.
Cause Title- State Of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 437)
Date of Judgment- April 03, 2025
Coram- CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
21) Mere excess or overreach in performance of official duty doesn’t disentitle public servant from statutory protection
The Court observed that a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Order of the Karnataka High Court which refused to quash the Order of the Sessions Judge affirming the Summoning Order of the Magistrate against the accused persons under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- G.C. Manjunath & Others v. Seetaram (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 439)
Date of Judgment- April 03, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
22) Section 12(1) Limitation Act applies to Petitions u/s. 34(3) Arbitration Act; excludes date of receiving award
The Court reiterated that Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act applies to the calculation of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but excludes the day on which the arbitral award is received. The Court dismissed an Appeal related to a dispute over the limitation period for filing an Application to set aside an arbitral award.
The Appeal arose from an Order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had allowed the Respondent's Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), and held that the Respondent’s application under Section 34 of the said Act was filed within the limitation period.
Cause Title- The M/S R.K. Transport Company v. M/S Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (BALCO) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 438)
Date of Judgment- April 03, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
23) Where liability is acknowledged for property or right, fresh limitation may be computed from time when acknowledgment was signed
The Court clarified that as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
The Court clarified thus in Civil Appeals preferred by the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed its bunch of Writ Petitions against the District Judge’s Judgment.
Cause Title- New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 440)
Date of Judgment- April 03, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
24) Potentiality of land is also taken into consideration while assessing market value
The Court reiterated that potentiality of the land is also taken into consideration while assessing the market value.
The Court was dealing with a batch of Civil Appeals, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Single Bench which maintained the award of Rs. 55,71,010/- per acre as ordered by the Reference Court.
Cause Title- Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Through His LRs Etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 441)
Date of Judgment- April 03, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
25) Supreme Court upholds grant of pension to UCO Bank’s employee removed from service, relies on bipartite settlement between banks’ association & workmen union
Relying upon a Bipartite Settlement between the Banks’ Association & Workmen Union, the Supreme Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the Order confirming the grant of pension to an employee of UCO Bank who was removed from service due to alleged misconduct.
The Appeal by special leave was directed against the Judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Appellant and upholding the order directing the Bank to process the case of the respondent for pension and release the pensionary dues to him expeditiously.
Cause Title- UCO Bank & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Handa [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 442)
Date of Judgment- April 03, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
26) Interim moratorium u/s. 96 IBC cannot be invoked to stall prosecution in cheque bounce cases u/s. 138 of NI Act
The Court held that an interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC cannot be invoked to stall prosecution in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court held thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred against the Orders of different High Courts, which dismissed certain Petitions and affirmed the Trial Court’s Orders rejecting the Applications filed for staying the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Cause Title- Rakesh Bhanot v. M/s. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 445)
Date of Judgment- April 01, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
27) In case of circumstantial evidence, sequence of events must lead to only one conclusion that it is the accused alone who committed offence
While directing acquittal in a case of murder of a Special Branch Grade-I Constable, the Court observed that in the case of circumstantial evidence when other evidence has been discarded, the sequence of events must be of such a nature which leads to only one conclusion that it is the accused alone who would have committed the offence.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, partly allowing the Appeal of the Appellant acquitting him of the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while sustaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000.
Cause Title- Murugan v. The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 446)
Date of Judgment- April 04, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
28) Excess payments of emoluments or allowances made by employer by applying wrong principle for calculation not recoverable
The Court set aside the Orders by which the retired Stenographers were directed to deposit the excess drawn arrears and reiterated that if the excess amount is made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or based on a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the final Judgment passed by the Orissa High Court dismissing the Appellants’ Writ Petition in which a challenge was made to the Orders of the Special Judge, Special Court, Cuttack and Registrar, Civil Courts, Cuttack directing recovery of Rs 26,034, Rs.40713, Rs. 26539, Rs. 24683 and Rs 21,485.
Cause Title- Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 449)
Date of Judgment- April 04, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
29) Suit for specific performance not maintainable in absence of prayer for declaratory relief that termination or cancellation of agreement is bad in law
The Court held that the agreement to sell cannot be specifically enforced in a case where there is suppression of material fact and absence of a prayer for declaratory relief that termination/cancellation of the agreement is bad in law.
The Court was considering a property dispute matter where an Appeal was filed against the Judgment passed in favour of the Respondent-buyer.
Cause Title- Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 450)
Date of Judgment- April 04, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
30) No blanket ban on all teachers holding 18 months D. El. Ed. through NIOS: Supreme Court directs WB authorities to consider candidature for post of Assistant Teacher
The Court directed the West Bengal State authorities to consider candidature of aggrieved persons for the post of Assistant Teacher.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench which affirmed the Judgment of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 448)
Date of Judgment- April 04, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
31) Benefit of S. 12(2) Limitation Act available only on application for grant of Order’s certified copy being filed till its date of preparation
The Court held that the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available only on an Application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which dismissed the Appeals as a consequence of dismissal of the Applications of condonation of delay on the even date.
Cause Title- A Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 447)
Date of Judgment- April 04, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
32) Candidate seeking public employment must satisfy eligibility requirements in terms of date appointed by relevant service rules
The Court observed that a candidate seeking public employment must satisfy his/her eligibility requirements in terms of the date appointed by the relevant service rules.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals in which the issue involved was related to the appointments to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in the West Bengal State.
Cause Title- Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 451)
Date of Judgment- April 04, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra