1) Objection petition u/s 47 CPC should not invariably be treated as commencement of new trial
The Court held that the Objection Petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by a company against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed objections filed under Section 47 of CPC as well as an application under Order XXI Rule 29 of CPC seeking stay of the enforcement proceedings.
Cause Title- MMTC Limited v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1279)
Date of Judgment- November 3, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
2) IS-RT agreement by its very nature is agreement between two States but not a law under Motor Vehicles Act
The Court held that an Inter-State Reciprocal Transport Agreement (IS-RT Agreement) by its very nature is an agreement between two States but not a law under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals arising out of the Judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the sole Writ Petition seeking enforcement of rights under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution.
Cause Title- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1281)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) Even if injunction order substantially set aside, consequences for its breach when it subsisted could still befall upon violator
The Court reiterated that even if an injunction order is subsequently set aside, consequences for breach/violation of the same when it subsisted, could still befall upon the violator.
The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals seeking to challenge the Judgments of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, by which the Petitions of the accused were allowed.
Cause Title- Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1282)
Date of Judgment- November 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
4) Non-furnishing information of criminal antecedents by candidate creates impediment in free exercise of voter’s electoral right
The Court observed that non-furnishing information of criminal antecedents by an election candidate has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.
The Court observed thus in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a woman who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), however failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor.
Cause Title- Poonam v. Dule Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1284)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
5) Appellate court's decree passed in favour of dead appellants who had expired before appeal was heard is nullity
While restoring the execution proceedings in a case of property dispute, the Court held that the Appellant was justified in seeking execution of the decree passed by the Trial Court on the premise that the decree passed by the First Appellate Court was a nullity, having been passed in favour of dead persons.
The Appellant, who was the legal heir of the original Plaintiffs, sought to execute the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the original Plaintiffs. The Executing Court, however, refused to permit execution of the decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Appeal preferred by the Defendants could not be stated to have abated notwithstanding the death of the Defendants prior to the hearing of the first Appeal.
Cause Title- Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade Appellant v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1283)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
6) Unregistered partition deed including palupatti may be relied upon for limited collateral purposes of proving severance of joint family status
The Court reiterated that an unregistered partition deed, including the palupatti, may be relied upon for the limited collateral purposes of proving severance of the joint family status and title.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising from the Judgment and Decree of the Karnataka High Court by which it affirmed the Judgment and preliminary decree of the Principal Civil Judge.
Cause Title- P. Anjanappa (D) By LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1286)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
7) Case shouldn’t be thrown out on mere technicalities: Supreme Court gives opportunity of hearing to former Chhattisgarh CM’s son in NCP leader’s murder case
The Court granted an opportunity of hearing to Amit Aishwarya Jogi, son of Ajit Jogi-former Chief Minister (CM) of Chhattisgarh in a case involving murder of Ramavatar Jaggi, leader of the National Congress Party (NCP).
A batch of Criminal Appeals were preferred before the Court by the State, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Complainant, assailing the final Order of the Chhattisgarh High Court’s Division Bench.
Cause Title- State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1285)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
8) Informing grounds of arrest mandatory for all offences; must be communicated in writing atleast 2 hrs prior to production of arrestee before Magistrate
The Court held that informing the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is mandatory in all offences including the ones under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and that the said grounds shall be communicated in writing at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals in which the main issue was the alleged violation of the accused’s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)/ Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Cause Title- Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1288)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
9) HC approach amounted to conducting mini trial: Supreme Court sets aside order quashing dowry harassment case against husband, in-laws
While holding that the approach adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court amounted to conducting a mini-trial, which is not required at the stage of quashing, the Court set aside an Order quashing the case of dowry demand and harassment registered against a woman’s husband and her in-laws.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred against the Order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing the proceedings emanating from an FIR registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against private Respondents.
Cause Title- Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1287)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
10) Mere use of word 'arbitration' in clause of agreement not clinching or decisive; ad idem intention of parties is paramount
While upholding the dismissal of an application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Court held that the mere use of the word “arbitration” in a clause of an agreement is not clinching or decisive.
The Court also held that arbitration, being the creature of a contract, the ad idem intention of the parties is paramount to determine whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement. The Appeals before the Court were filed against the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Cause Title- M/S Alchemist Hospitals Ltd. v. M/s ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1289)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Registration of document recording purchase of immovable property doesn’t confer guaranteed title of ownership
The Court observed that the registration of a document recording purchase of immovable property does not confer guaranteed title of ownership, instead it only serves as a public record of the transaction having presumptive evidentiary value, but it is never a conclusive proof of ownership.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals arising out of the Judgment of the Patna High Court, which dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the vires of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, introduced through the 2019 amendment to the Rules.
Cause Title- Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1292)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
12) Split multiplier concept is foreign to Motor Vehicles Act; not to be used by tribunal or courts in calculation of compensation
While awarding enhanced compensation to the wife and children of a man who died in a motor accident, the Court held that the split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in the calculation of the compensation.
The Appeals before the Court were directed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court against the Order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Cause Title- Preetha Krishnan v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1293)
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
13) Rewriting contract for parties would be breach of fundamental principles of justice: Supreme Court allows IRCTC’s pleas against caterers
The Court allowed the Appeals of the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) in which the scope and ambit of interference with an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) arose for consideration. It reiterated that rewriting a contract for the parties would be a breach of the fundamental principles of justice, entitling a Court to interfere as it would shock its conscience and would fall within the exceptional category.
The Court was hearing 17 sets of Appeals arising out of the common Judgment of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench in a batch of 18 Appeals filed under Section 37 of A&C Act.
Cause Title- Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. M/s. Brandavan Food Products (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1294)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
14) Misinterpretation of tender conditions reducing competition and revenue justifies court intervention
The Court held that the Courts are duty-bound to intervene where a tender condition is misinterpreted in a manner that narrows competition and deprives the State of legitimate revenue. It said that the public auctions are an exercise of public trust, and any interpretation that diminishes public value cannot be sustained.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals arising out of a tender dispute concerning the grant of a five-year sand quarry lease in Odisha, wherein the bid of the highest bidder was rejected on the ground of alleged non-compliance with Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.
Cause Title- M/S Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Odisha & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1295)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) Unsavoury state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely: Supreme Court constitutes committee to resolve 20-yr-old fraudulent housing scheme case
The Court constituted a Committee to resolve a 20-year-old case of fraudulent housing scheme involving the office bearers of Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti.
Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, by which a Writ Petition was disposed of without granting any substantive relief as sought for.
Cause Title- Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1291)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
16) Notice granting time for objections can’t co-exist with final decision u/s 35(1) Indian Forest Act without rendering statutory hearing illusory
The Court held that a notice that grants time for objections cannot coexist with a final decision under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA) without rendering the statutory hearing illusory.
The Court held thus in a batch of 96 Civil Appeals arising from the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, which declined to interfere with the revenue mutations and annotations that described the subject lands as affected by forest proceedings and as having vested in the State.
Cause Title- Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1296)
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale