1) Money laundering is a continuing offence; PMLA covers ongoing transactions
The Court reaffirmed that money laundering is a continuing offence, holding that the Act does not conclude with a single instance but persists as long as the proceeds of crime are concealed, utilized, or projected as legitimate property. Emphasizing the legislative intent behind the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the Court said that the law aims to combat financial crimes that inherently involve transactions spanning over time.
The Court made the observations in an Appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to discharge a former government official from prosecution under PMLA.
Cause Title- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. (Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 349)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
2) Preliminary inquiry not required before registering FIR in cognizable offences
The Court held that there is no requirement for a preliminary inquiry to be conducted before the registration of an FIR when allegations squarely fall within the category of cognizable offences.
The Court upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court whereby the Petitioner’s plea seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any FIR against him for acts performed in his official capacity was dismissed.
Cause Title- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 350)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale
3) Cause of action u/s.138 of NI Act arose after commencement of insolvency process: Supreme Court quashes summoning order against former director
The Court quashed a summoning order issued against a former Director of a company after noting that the cause of action under section 138 of the NI Act arose after the commencement of the insolvency process and the Director was suspended from his position as soon as the interim resolution professional was appointed.
The Appellant approached the Court challenging the order of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the appellant’s petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the appellant, had been dismissed.
Cause Title- Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s Shakti Trading Company (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 346)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
4) There’s need for ‘sustainable development’ harmonising & striking golden balance between right to development & clean environment
The Court emphasised that there is a need for ‘Sustainable Development’ harmonising and striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment.
The Court emphasised thus in Civil Appeals filed by the Auroville Foundation against the Judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai.
Cause Title- The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 347)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
5) Doctrine of clean hands & non-suppression of material facts is applicable with full force to every proceeding before any judicial forum
The Court observed that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceeding before any judicial forum.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the Auroville Foundation, challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which it set aside the Notification containing a Standing Order issued by the said Foundation.
Cause Title- The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 348)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
6) ‘Lex Contractus’ is strong indicator of law governing arbitration agreement being part of main contract unless there are contrary indications
The Court enunciated that the ‘lex contractus’ is a strong indicator of the law governing the arbitration agreement which is a part of the main contract, unless there are indications to the contrary.
The Court was deciding an Arbitration Petition filed by a company incorporated in Bogota, Colombia against a company incorporated in Gujarat, India.
Cause Title- Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 352)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Principle that act of Court should not prejudice anyone was disregarded: Supreme Court permits BAMS student to complete his course
While reaffirming the settled principle that an act of the Court should, ordinarily, not prejudice anyone, the Court permitted a BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) student to complete his course and internship in Shaskiya Swasashi Dhanwantari Ayurvedic Medical College, Ujjain.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the appellant student who had almost completed his education under the protection of interim orders granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court but was ultimately shown the door, when his Writ Petition was dismissed and his review plea too met with the same fate.
Cause Title- Zaid Sheikh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 353)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Person joining as an Assistant Engineer in Kerala Water Authority can migrate to either degree or diploma quota
The Court held that once a person joins as an Assistant Engineer in Kerala Water Authority, they have the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota.
The Court allowed an Appeal by the employees (Appellants) of the Kerala Water Authority by setting aside the Judgment by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The High Court, upholding the decision of the Single Bench, had held that an Assistant Engineer who had opted for the diploma quota at the time of promotion could not later switch to the degree quota for further promotion.
Cause Title- Sajithabai & Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority And Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 354)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
9) Delay by tribunal in release of compensation in motor accident cases results in loss of interest to claimant
The Court observed that the delay for any reason in release of compensation in motor accident cases by the Tribunal results in loss of interest to the claimant.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Cause Title- Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 361)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
10) Victim’s tears must be understood for what they are worth: Supreme Court sets aside acquittal of man in 1986 minor’s rape case
The Court set aside the acquittal of a man who was accused of raping a minor girl in the year 1986, nearly forty years ago.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal preferred by the State against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court’s Single Judge, which acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Chatra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 360)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
11) Motor Vehicles Act seeks to provide compensation as per individual’s contemporaneous position: Supreme Court awards enhanced compensation
While reiterating that the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives, the Court has awarded enhanced compensation of over Rs 35 lakh in a motor accident case.
The Appeals before the Court were directed against the Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court challenging the award passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation of Rs 25,49,000 to Rs 20,61,320.
Cause Title- Shivaleela Vs The Divisional Manager (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 357)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
12) If principal prayer for estate administration is rejected as non-maintainable, any other prayer for partition cannot be granted without impleading proper parties
The Court held that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate is rejected as non-maintainable, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition cannot be granted until the proper parties are impleaded in the suit.
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the validity of a sale deed executed in 1969 concerning a property dispute. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had reversed the Trial Court’s decision that declared the sale deed null and void.
Cause Title- Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 355)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
13) "A Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR": Supreme Court orders strict verification of Advocate appearances
The Court pronounced Judgment on a Miscellaneous Application filed by SCAORA and SCBA, addressing concerns regarding the recording of appearances of Advocates in the Apex Court.
The Court noted that there has been a troubling practice of marking numerous advocate appearances in case records without proper verification of their physical presence or authorization to represent a party.
Cause Title- Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 364)
Date of Judgment- March 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
14) No inhibition to accept age of deceased as per post-mortem report: Supreme Court grants enhanced compensation in motor accident case
The Court observed that there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report in Motor Accident Compensation cases.
The Appeal before the Court mounted a challenge to the Impugned Order passed by a Single Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (MACT) was enhanced from Rs.4,31,680 to Rs.5,96,761.
Cause Title- Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 366)
Date of Judgment- March 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
15) Statutory Board can’t enter into private agreement after land acquisition to reverse usage of state’s power of eminent domain
The Court observed that when the State uses its sovereign power of eminent domain and acquires land for the establishment of a grain market under the control of a statutory Board, such an exercise cannot be set at naught by the beneficiary of such acquisition, viz., the statutory Board, by entering into a private agreement.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board in a land acquisition matter.
Cause Title- Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, through its Chairman v. Bhagwan Devi (Dead), through her LR (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 367)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
16) Limited rights of transferee pendent lite can’t obstruct full claim of decree holders to execute decree in their favour
The Court held that the limited rights of the transferee pendent lite cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist the full claim of the decree holders to execute the decree in their favour.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the judgement passed by the Madras High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.
Cause Title- Raju Naidu v. Chenmouga Sundra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 368)
Date of Judgment- March 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
17) Plaintiff claiming absolute ownership of property must plead correct property number, extent and boundaries
The Court held that a person claiming absolute ownership of a property must provide the correct property number, extent, and boundaries with cogent and acceptable evidence before the Court.
The Court upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court wherein it was held that the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff were not title deeds and were only assessment extracts which did not suggest their ownership over the scheduled property. The High Court had held that without title deeds, the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing the suit, cancelling the sale deed, or ordering possession.
Cause Title- Naganna (Dead) By Lrs./ Smt. Devamma & Ors. v. Siddaramegowda (Since Deceased) By Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 369)
Date of Judgment- March 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale
18) Relief can be granted in belated claims for pensionary benefits by restricting arrears in case of continuing wrongs not impacting third-party rights
The Court clarified that even though service-related claims filed after a long delay should be rejected, but if such a claim involves a continuing wrong that does not impact third-party rights, then arrears can be limited to balance equities.
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Respondents were held entitled to pensionary benefits under the ‘Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana’ (the Scheme). The Court upheld the decision of the High Court while further clarifying that the benefit of arrears of pension can be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 370)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
19) Considerations of sympathy, grace, compassion & charity beyond scope of High Courts’ writ powers
The Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s judgment that allowed an employee’s pension application after the deadline, holding that discretion should not be coloured by sympathy, grace, compassion, or charity when no valid justification for the delay is proffered.
The Court allowed an Appeal against the Telangana High Court's Division Bench’s decision, which had permitted a retired Bank of India employee to submit a pension application after the deadline prescribed in the policy circular under the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995.
Cause Title- Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 373)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
20) State doesn’t have the authority to frame rules to prescribe qualifications for the post of FSO; exclusive domain of Central Govt
The Court clarified that the State Government is not permitted to transgress into the field of prescribing the qualifications for the posts of FSO, which lies within the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
The Court quashed the Jharkhand High Court’s Judgment, which disqualified the Appellants—candidates with postgraduate science degree holders—from the Food Safety Officer (FSO) post, on the grounds that their Master’s degrees could not be considered valid qualifications for selection in Jharkhand.
Cause Title- Chandra Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 372)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
21) Complainant having no privity of contract with opposite party, cannot be termed a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act
The Court clarified that a complainant not having a privity of contract with the opposite party cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Court set aside the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) whereby M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited (Appellant) was directed to refund litigation cost to the Respondent. The Appellant challenged this Order, arguing that there was no privity of contract between the parties.
Cause Title- M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited v. Snehasis Nanda (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 371)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanuallah
22) Not an authority under Article 12 of Constitution: Supreme Court directs CRRID to pay withheld salaries of employees from its own resources
The Court directed Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID) to pay salaries to all its employees which were withheld between April 2021 to March 2023, from its own resources.
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals challenging the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Division Bench. The Appeal filed by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) was taken up as the lead case.
Cause Title- Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) v. Neetu Gaur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 374)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
23) Income tax dues of corporate debtor which were not a part of approved resolution plan will stand extinguished
The Court allowed an appeal in a case pertaining to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and reiterated that all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code) challenging the judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Cause Title- Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 375)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
24) Procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye: Supreme Court upholds acquittal of JKSLF members in TADA case
The Court upheld the acquittal of the members of a banned militant organization Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF) in relation to the offences under Sections 118, 302, 368, and 365 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 (RPC) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act).
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 19 of TADA Act by the State (CBI) i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jammu, which acquitted the accused persons.
Cause Title- State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 376)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
25) Old age of accused & long lapse of time from commission of offence can be a ground to give priority to appeals against conviction
While dismissing an Appeal in a 36-year-old alleged case of murder, the Supreme Court has observed that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred by the State Government challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the respondents-accused who were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment were let off with the sentence already undergone.
Cause Title- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 377)
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih
26) Can’t discard testimony of witnesses merely because they are relatives of deceased & are interested witnesses
While converting the conviction of the appellant-accused from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC, the Court held that the testimony of interested witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the final judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 378)
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
27) Mere presence of accused at the spot or their arrest therefrom not sufficient to prove that they were part of unlawful assembly
The Court upheld the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court and observed that on the basis of the mere presence of the accused persons at the scene of crime, an inference could not have been drawn that they were a part of unlawful assembly.
The Appeals before the Court challenged the common judgment of the Gujarat High Court whereby it maintained the acquittal of 12 out of 19 accused who were put on trial but convicted the appellants for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 381)
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
28) Minor child can’t decide what is best for him: Supreme Court grants father visitation rights; takes note of mother’s conduct in obstructing it
Taking note of the conduct of the mother in attempting to obstruct visitation rights granted to the father and the fact that the minor child was not in a position to decide what was best for him, the Court asked the father to visit his 11-yr-old son every Sunday for 2 hours.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred by the Appellant against the Final Judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court by which the appeal filed by the Respondent had been allowed thereby setting aside the order of the Principal Family Court in Execution Petition and remanding the matter to the Family Court.
Cause Title- X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 358)
Date of Judgment- March 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
29) State can’t be given undue indulgence as compared to ordinary litigant especially in matters of limitation
The Court observed that the State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Single Bench (Gwalior Bench), which allowed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal.
Cause Title- Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 382)
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
30) Relief can be granted under Article 226 even in cases of disputed questions of fact if they can be decided based on affidavits
The Court granted relief to the employees of the District Judiciary who had put in eight years of service and observed that the Court is not expected to be hypertechnical while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the plea of an employee who worked as a Stenographer.
Cause Title- Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 379)
Date of Judgment- March 18, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih