1) Intellectual property disputes not confined to private realm; counterfeit innovation deceives consumers, taints marketplace
The Court held that intellectual property disputes are not limited to private commercial conflicts but carry a significant element of public interest, given their direct impact on consumer trust and market integrity.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by a Denmark-based engineering firm against the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision rejecting its commercial suit on the ground of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Cause Title- Novenco Building And Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering Solution Private Limited & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1256)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Enquiry officer's findings were perverse: Supreme Court upholds CAT order quashing Railway TTE’s dismissal
While upholding an Order quashing the dismissal of a Railway Travelling Ticket Examiner in a 37-year-old case involving charges of bribery, the Court held that the CAT was fully justified in setting aside the Order of penalty when the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and based on completely misleading materials.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the final Judgment of the Bombay High Court, whereby the High Court had reversed the Judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, setting aside the dismissal order of the Appellant (now deceased) and directing his reinstatement.
Cause Title- V.M. Saudagar (Dead) v. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1257)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
3) Special courts can entertain application for interim custody or release of seized conveyance in NDPS cases
The Court held that the Special Courts cannot be divested of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance in NDPS cases.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by which the prayer for interim custody of lorry was rejected.
Cause Title- Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1258)
Date of Judgment- October 27, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) Police can register FIR for threatening witness to give false evidence u/s. 195A IPC
The Court ruled that an offence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with threatening a person to give false evidence, is a cognizable offence and does not mandatorily require a complaint from a Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. It clarified that the police may register an FIR and investigate such offences under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court was hearing Appeals arising from decisions of the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court, both of which had quashed proceedings on the ground that cognisance under Section 195A IPC could only be taken upon a Court’s complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
Cause Title- State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1260)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
5) Court’s request to refrain from further submissions is to be respected by counsel: Supreme Court waives ₹2l costs imposed on State Election Commission
While accepting an unconditional apology, the Court expunged adverse remarks relating to the conduct of an arguing counsel and waived the cost of Rs 2 lakh imposed upon the Uttarakhand State Election Commission.
The Court held that once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected. The Court was considering a Petition filed by the State Election Commission seeking modification of an earlier Order.
Cause Title- State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1261)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Preference shareholder is not a creditor; his application u/s 7 IBC is not maintainable
The Court held that a preference shareholder is not a creditor and his application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is not maintainable.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment and Order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which confirmed the Order of the Adjudicating Authority-National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Cause Title- EPC Constructions India v. M/s Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1259)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Non recovery of weapon, FIR filing delay not fatal: Supreme Court upholds conviction in four decades old double murder case
Confirming the conviction of several persons for causing the death of two individuals in an incident that occurred more than four decades ago, the Court dismissed Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court.
The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals challenging concurrent findings of guilt under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Cause Title- Om Pal & Ors v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1262)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
8) Statutory presumption u/s.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not automatic & same arises when foundational facts of demand & acceptance are proved
While restoring an Order of acquittal of an erstwhile Assistant Commissioner of Labour in a corruption case instituted in the year 1999, the Court affirmed that the statutory presumption under Section 20 is not automatic and it arises only once the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversing the Order of acquittal passed by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. The Appellant, who was the accused before the Trial Court, was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of ₹10,000 on each count.
Cause Title- P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1263)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
9) Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence in furtherance of common object: Supreme Court upholds life imprisonment for co-accused in a murder case
The Court upheld the conviction of two co-accused in a murder case, reiterating that once participation in an unlawful assembly is proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.
The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals challenging a Judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had overturned acquittals under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for a fatal assault in which one person died and two others sustained grievous injuries.
Cause Title- Haribhau Bhausaheb Dinakar Kharuse v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1266)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
10) Plea regarding maintainability of suit can be raised in appeal even if not raised in written statement when no new facts or evidence required
The Court clarified that a plea regarding maintainability of the suit can be raised in Appeal, even if not raised in Written Statement, particularly when no new facts or evidence is required to address the same.
The Court clarified thus in Civil Appeals arising from two Suits instituted for specific performance of agreement for sale.
Cause Title- Annamalai v. Vasanthi and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1267)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
11) Dying declaration can’t be ignored merely because of minor discrepancies in prosecution witness’s version with regard to such declaration
While upholding the conviction of a woman in an alleged case of murder, the Court held that merely because there are minor discrepancies in the version given by the prosecution witness with regard to the dying declaration and with regard to the manner of occurrence of the incident, the dying declaration given by the deceased before the independent witness cannot be ignored.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the final Order of the Gujarat High Court convicting the Appellant/accused for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Jemaben v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1268)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
12) Medical evidence proving loss of life not enough to convict a person in vicinity: Supreme Court acquits man in 85-yr-old lady’s rape & murder case
The Court acquitted a man who was accused of raping and killing an 85-year-old elderly woman in the year 2016 at Coimbatore.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court, which upheld the conviction under Sections 302, 449, 376, and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Mohamed Sameer Khan v. State represented by Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1269)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
13) Denying compensation to victims or dependents simply because accident took place outside purview of insurance policy offensive to sense of justice
While upholding an Order of the Karnataka High Court applying the pay and recover principle in a motor accident case, the Court held that to deny the victim/dependents of the compensation simply because the accident took place outside the bounds of the permit and, therefore, is outside the purview of the insurance policy, would be offensive to the sense of justice.
The Appeals before the Court were directed against the final Judgment of the Karnataka High Court involving a Motor Accident Claim Petition.
Cause Title- K. Nagendra v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1270)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
14) No purpose in perpetuating legal relationship that has ceased to have meaning: Supreme Court dissolves marriage; asks husband to pay ₹1cr as permanent alimony
While exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage of an estranged couple subject to the condition that the husband would pay a sum of Rs 1 crore to the wife as permanent alimony and as a full and final settlement of all claims.
The Court held that there was no purpose in perpetuating a legal relationship that had ceased to have any meaning. The Appeal before the Court filed by a wife arose from a Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court pertaining to a matrimonial dispute.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1265)
Date of Judgment- October 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
15) Once accidental fire and loss are established and no fraud is alleged, cause of fire is immaterial for insurance claim
The Court held that in a fire insurance claim, once it is established that the insured has suffered loss due to fire and there is no allegation or finding of fraud or instigation, the cause of the fire becomes immaterial.
The Court was hearing cross-Appeals arising from an Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had partly allowed the insurer's liability but reduced the quantum awarded. The dispute involved a claim for damage caused in a fire that occurred in 2010, where the insurer had repudiated the claim, alleging a lack of proof that the fire was accidental.
Cause Title- Orion Conmerx Private Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1271)
Date of Judgment- October 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
16) Law must yield to cause of justice: Supreme Court quashes POCSO case where victim married accused on condition of no desertion in future
Adopting a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy, the Court quashed a POCSO case where the marriage between the accused and the victim of the crime was solemnised and a child was born. Observing that the case at hand was one where law would yield to the cause of justice, the Court asked the accused not to desert his wife and child and maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by a man who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 10 years in a case registered under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Appellant’s Appeal before the Madras High Court came to be dismissed.
Cause Title- K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1272)
Date of Judgment- October 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
17) Upper floors can be converted only on payment of conversion charges: Supreme Court rejects plea seeking de-sealing of ‘commercial premises’
The Court rejected the prayer seeking de-sealing of the ‘commercial premises’ at plot No.106 situated in New Rajinder Nagar Market (LSC), New Delhi, admeasuring approximately 89 sq. yards.
A Writ Petition and an Interlocutory Application was filed before the Court, relying on the common Order of the Judicial Committee appointed by the Apex Court in a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1274)
Date of Judgment- October 31, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
18) Terms of NIT must be clear & unambiguous: Supreme Court directs reconsideration of bidder’s technical bid
The Court directed the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad to reconsider a bidder’s technical bid while setting aside the Parishad’s rejection order, which was based on the ground that the bidder’s certificate was not issued by the District Magistrate.
The Court reiterated that the terms of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) must be clear and unambiguous. The Appellant approached the Court challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court refusing to set aside the decision of the first Respondent, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, rejecting the Appellant’s technical bid on the ground that the ‘haisiyat praman patra’ submitted by it had not been issued by the District Magistrate.
Cause Title- Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1276)
Date of Judgment- October 31, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
19) IOs shall not issue summons to Advocates who represent accused to know case details, unless covered u/s 132 BSA exceptions
The Court directed that the Investigating Officers (IOs) shall not issue summons to Advocates who represent the accused to know the details of the case, unless it is covered under any of the exceptions under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
The Court was deciding a suo-motu case arising out of a Reference made by a Bench of two Judges of the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against a notice issued against an Advocate under Section 179 of BSA.
Cause Title- IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1275)
Date of Judgment- October 31, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
20) What is effect of undue & unexplained delay in pronouncement of arbitral award upon its validity? Supreme Court explains
The Court explained as to what is the effect of undue and unexplained delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award upon its validity.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals in which following two questions arose for consideration –
(i) What is the effect of undue and unexplained delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award upon its validity?
(ii) Is an arbitral award that is unworkable, in terms of not settling the disputes between the parties finally while altering their positions irrevocably thereby leaving them no choice but to initiate further litigation, liable to be set aside on grounds of perversity, patent illegality and being opposed to the public policy of India? If so, would it be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution?
Cause Title- M/s. Lancor Holdings Limited v. Prem Kumar Menon and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1277)
Date of Judgment- October 31, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma