1) Regulatory or adjudicatory fora can’t rewrite contractual framework or superimpose obligations alien to agreement
The Court reiterated that regulatory or adjudicatory fora cannot, under the guise of equity or fairness, rewrite the contractual framework or superimpose obligations alien to the agreement.
A Civil Appeal was preferred against the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), New Delhi by which it affirmed the Order of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).
Cause Title- Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (CESC) v. Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1034)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) Written arbitration agreement covered under Sections 44 & 45 A&C Act needn't be signed
The Court clarified that under Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which governs the enforcement of foreign awards, an arbitration agreement must exist in writing but does not require signatures if a valid written record is available and the conduct of the parties demonstrates mutual acceptance of its terms.
Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s Orders, the Court held that the exchanges between Glencore International AG and M/s Shree Ganesh Metals, coupled with their subsequent actions, demonstrated a clear consensus on the terms, including the arbitration clause, making the agreement binding on both parties.
Cause Title- Glencore International AG v. M/s Shree Ganesh Metals and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1036)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
3) Presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation rebuttable only by unimpeachable evidence
The Court held that prolonged and continuous cohabitation between a man and a woman gives rise to a presumption of a valid marriage. It clarified that this presumption, while rebuttable, can only be displaced by unimpeachable evidence.
The case arose from a dispute over ancestral and self-acquired properties of a deceased individual, leading to competing claims of inheritance.
Cause Title- Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another Versus Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1038)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
4) Place matter before Chief Justice if reserved judgment is not delivered within 3 months: Supreme Court to High Courts' registrar generals
Expressing shock and concern over the delay in the delivery of Judgments by the High Courts, the Court issued directions to combat such a problem. It directed that if a reserved Judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matter before the Chief Justice for Orders, and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the Order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter shall be assigned to another Bench.
The Appeals before the Court were preferred against the impugned interim orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, by which the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Respondent was not taken up for hearing.
Cause Title- Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1039)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
5) Bar contained in Sec.79A,B & C of Karnataka Land Reforms Act repealed in 2020; objection relating to misrepresentation as agriculturist not significant
While upholding the auction sale proceedings, the Court held that the bar contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, stood repealed in 2020 with retrospective effect from March 1, 1974 and thus, the objection relating to the litigant’s misrepresentation as an agriculturist would lose its significance.
The Appeals before the Court arose from an Order passed by the Karnataka High Court.
Cause Title- R Raghu v. G M Krishna (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1040)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
6) “Child abuse” offence u/s.8 Goa Children's Act not attracted to every trivial or isolated incident involving a child
While acquitting a man convicted for the commission of an offence under Section 8 (2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, the Court held that the offence of “child abuse” as provided under Section 8 cannot be attracted to every trivial or isolated incident involving a child. The Court added that the same must necessarily co-relate with acts involving cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment, or conduct intended to cause harm.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the accused Appellant, who was convicted by the Children’s Court of the State of Goa.
Cause Title- Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1041)
Date of Judgment- August 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) “Lackluster & shabby” investigation: Supreme Court acquits accused in minor’s rape & murder case; sets aside death sentence
The Court acquitted two men out of whom one was awarded death sentence in a case involving rape of a 12-year-old girl in the year 2012.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Lucknow and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which confirmed the death penalty.
Cause Title- Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1042)
Date of Judgment- August 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
8) Supreme Court asks High Court to first deal with issue raised by bank on first charge & priority over EPFO under Provident Fund Act
While considering a matter relating to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Court asked the Karnataka High Court to first deal with issues raised by the Bank on first charge and priority over and above EPFO to satisfy its dues from the secured property in view of Section 35 of SARFAESI Act.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant and directing that the amount deposited be transmitted to the account of the Respondent.
Cause Title- M/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited v. Regional PF Commissioner II And Recovery Officer, RO Bengaluru (Koramangala) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1045)
Date of Judgment- August 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
9) Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not debar suit being filed against proprietor
While upholding an Order allowing an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court explained that once the proprietor has been impleaded as a party representing the proprietorship, no prejudice is caused rather the interest is well protected and taken care of by the only and only person, who owns the proprietorship. It also held that Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor.
The Appeal before the Court was filed challenging the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the Respondent’s application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, and the plaint of Original Suit was rejected.
Cause Title- Dogiparthi Venkata Satish v. Pilla Durga Prasad (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1046)
Date of Judgment- August 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
10) Majesty of Constitution lies not in might of State but in its restraint: Supreme Court sets aside death sentence in 4-yr-old girl’s rape & murder case
The Court set aside the death sentence of a man who was accused of raping and killing a four-year-old minor girl in the year 2008 in Nagpur, Maharashtra.
A Writ Petition was filed by the accused under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death affirmed against him and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in the case of Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023).
Cause Title- Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1043)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Court must embark on fact-finding inquiry when called upon to decide reference under Article 317 of Constitution
The Court observed that when called upon to decide a Reference under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, the Court must embark on a fact-finding inquiry to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the allegations against the Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission (PSC) would amount to misbehaviour.
The Court observed thus in a Reference made by the President of India under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, pertaining to a member who was nominated to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) and there were allegations of misbehaviour against her.
Cause Title- In Re: Mepung Tadar Bage, Member, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1047)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
12) Executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of Constitution can’t override act done under statute & rules
The Court held that executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals questioning the validity of the Judgment passed by the Tripura High Court, relating to cancellation of the ongoing recruitment process of ‘Enrolled Followers’ midway on the pretext of a policy decision of the State Government.
Cause Title- Partha Das & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1049)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) Settlement commission’s findings are conclusive: Supreme Court imposes ₹2L costs on revenue for continuing prosecution when assessee was granted immunity
While observing that, in terms of Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act, the findings of the Settlement Commission are conclusive with respect to the matters stated therein, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the Revenue for continuing prosecution when the assessee was granted immunity from the levy of penalty.
The Appellant approached the Court challenging the dismissal of the Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Revenue, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 276C(1)2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (IT Act) for assessment year 2017- 2018.
Cause Title- Vijay Krishnaswami @ Krishnaswami Vijayakumar v. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1048)
Date of Judgment- August 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
14) If motor vehicle is not used or kept for use in "public place", owner can’t be burdened with motor vehicle tax
While upholding an Order directing the refund of taxes paid under protest, the Court held that if a motor vehicle is not used in a ‘public place’ or not kept for use in a ‘public place’ then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure and he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.
The Appeal before the Court arose from an Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in the context of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963.
Cause Title- M/s. Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1052)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
15) Reputation of force amongst civilians affected: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with penalty imposed on CISF Constable
The Court, while denying relief to a CISF Constable posted at a camp accused of indulging in some unwarranted activity, observed that the same has affected the reputation of the Force amongst the civilians.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Central Industrial Security Force-CISF Constable aggrieved by the penalty imposed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Respondents.
Cause Title- Const. Amar Singh vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1055)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2025
Coram- Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar
16) Word spreads faster than wind about daughter-in-law’s harassment: Supreme Court acquits mother-in-law in Section 498A IPC Case
While acquitting the mother-in-law of a deceased woman in a case of dowry harassment registered under Section 498-A of the IPC, the Court observed that the word spreads faster than the wind about a daughter-in-law being harassed for dowry by the parents-in-law.
The Court took into consideration the deposition of the neighbour. The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellant convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
Cause Title- Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1051)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
17) Absence from duty on various occasions in short tenure of service is gross indiscipline: Supreme Court upholds dismissal of constable
The Court upheld the dismissal of a Constable from Punjab, saying that the absence from duty on various occasions in short tenure of service is gross indiscipline.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by the State, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Cause Title- State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1056)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
18) Generating company and distribution licensee cannot by private agreement stipulate tariff without electricity regulatory commission's approval
The Court clarified the statutory mandate governing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between generating companies and distribution licensees, holding that the parties cannot unilaterally or mutually decide the tariff payable for electricity supply without obtaining the prior approval of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
The case arose from a Power Purchase Agreement executed in 2000 between the appellant, a small hydropower generating company, and the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) for the sale of electricity at a tariff of ₹2.50 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). At the time of execution, the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission had not yet been constituted.
Cause Title- M/s KKK Hydro Power Limited v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1057)
Date of Judgment- August 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
19) Supreme Court clarifies its encroachment removal direction in Zudpi jungle land case
The Court issued a clarification on direction pertaining to removal of encroachment issued in its earlier Judgment in In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands.
The Court was considering an Interim Application seeking modification of the judgment and final order dated May 22, 2025 on use of Zudpi Jungle Land.
Cause Title- In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1054)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2025
Coram- CJI BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih