Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 22 – September 26, 2025
1) No reliance can be placed on extra judicial confessions made in police station before police officers & other people
While acquitting the accused persons in a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court held that no reliance can be placed on extrajudicial confessions made in the police station before the police officers and various other people.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the accused persons convicted in an alleged case of murder.
Cause Title- Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1135)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2025
Coram- Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
2) Apex Court sets aside order cancelling bail of 5 RSS men booked in PFI leader Shan's murder case, says antecedents can’t constitute ground for denying bail
While observing that the criminal antecedents of the accused by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail, the Court set aside an Order cancelling bail of 5 RSS workers in Popular Front of India (PFI) Leader Shan’s murder case.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Kerala High Court setting aside the Orders granting bail to 5 of the 10 accused persons.
Cause Title- Abhimanue v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1136)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) SARFAESI Rules do not speak of any separate or distinct notice of sale required to be issued by secured creditor
The Court held that Rule(s) 8(6), the Proviso thereto, Rule 8(7) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (SARFAESI Rules) do not speak of any separate or distinct notice of sale that is required to be issued by the secured creditor for the transfer of the secured asset.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, which allowed a Writ Petition and quashed the Sale Certificate in favour of Auction Purchasers.
Cause Title- M. Rajendran & Ors. v. M/S KPK Oils And Protiens India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1137)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Second SLP not maintainable if no such liberty was granted while permitting withdrawal of first SLP
The Court clarified that permitting a second SLP after the unconditional withdrawal of the first would amount to sitting in Appeal over previous Orders of the Court which have attained finality, therefore defeating the principle that litigation must come to an end.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals filed under the SARFAESI Act, challenging Orders of the Kerala High Court. The Appellant had previously filed an SLP against the same High Court Order, but had withdrawn it without obtaining liberty to file afresh.
Cause Title- Satheesh VK v. The Federal Bank (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1140)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
5) Service provided by airports authority in respect of export cargo would be taxable
The Court upheld an Order of the CESTAT taxing the services rendered by the Airports Authority of India in relation to export cargo as a taxable service under sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act,1994.
The Court held that any kind of services, whether in respect of export cargo provided by the Airports Authority to any person after inclusion of subclause (zzm) would be a taxable service. The Appeal before the Court was filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Judgment pronounced by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Cause Title- Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1141)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
6) MP High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while reviewing earlier order: Supreme Court directs earliest conclusion of civil judge recruitment process
The Court asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to conclude the Civil Judge recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement of 2023 at the earliest. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while reviewing the earlier Order, as well as the contentions which were duly considered before the review.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, through its Registrar General, approached the Court, challenging the exercise of review jurisdiction by the Division Bench of the High Court in proceedings relating to the recruitment of Judicial Officers under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
Cause Title- High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Jyotsna Dohalia (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1137)
Date of Judgment- September 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
7) Grant of residence can’t obstruct or defeat pension & retiral benefits
While granting relief to a former Government employee, the Supreme Court held that the grant of residence is only for a limited time, till such a person is holding that position, and it cannot obstruct or defeat the pension and retirement benefits.
In the Appeal before the Court, the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh challenged the Judgment passed in a Writ Appeal questioning the Order whereby the Respondent’s Writ Petition seeking to quash a recovery of residence Rs 1,56,187 (penal house rent) and Rs 1,46,466 (excess payment of salary), was allowed.
Cause Title- Panchayat and Rural Development Department & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Shrivastava (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1142)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
8) Criminal proceedings maliciously instituted with ulterior motive liable to be quashed
The Court quashed an FIR and subsequent chargesheet, holding that the criminal proceedings in the matter were initiated with the object of wreaking personal vengeance, emphasising that when proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed the Appellant’s Petition seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet under Section 376 IPC, observing that it was premature to intervene at that stage.
Cause Title- XYZ v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1143)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
9) No relief can be granted on a case not founded in pleadings; can’t entertain entirely new case at appellate stage
The Court reiterated that no relief can be granted on a case not founded in the pleadings and it cannot entertain an entirely new case at the appellate stage.
The Court reiterated thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the common Judgment of the Bombay High Court in an issue pertaining to the recission of land grants relating to properties situated in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
Cause Title- Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1145)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
10) Mere identification of deponent in an affidavit does not make Advocate responsible for its contents
The Court ruled that the mere act of identifying a deponent in an affidavit does not render the Advocate responsible for the contents of the affidavit.
The Court was hearing connected Petitions arising out of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa against an Advocate for purportedly attesting the affidavit filed in a civil suit.
Cause Title- Bar Council of Goa and Maharashtra v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1147)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Arbitrator’s role confined to enforcing interest regime once parties agree on it; courts can’t rewrite award by introducing further interest
The Court reiterated that the Arbitrator’s role is confined to enforcing the interest regime once parties agree on the same and the Courts cannot rewrite the award by introducing further interest.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal filed by a company against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court, which set aside the Order of the Principal Special Court.
Cause Title- HLV Limited v. PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1148)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
12) No principle of law that interest in default charged by builder can never be granted to buyer
The Court asked a builder to refund the requisite amount to a buyer alongwith an enhanced rate of interest of 18% for its inaction in allotting the plot. The Apex Court made it clear that there is no principle of law that an interest in default charged by the builder can never be granted to the buyer.
The Appeal before the Court was filed challenging the Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, disposing of a consumer complaint lodged before it by the Appellant.
Cause Title- Rajnesh Sharma v. M/s. Business Park Town Planners Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1149)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
13) High Courts duty bound to intervene where civil disputes are given criminal colour
The Court held that while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it must nevertheless be invoked to prevent misuse of criminal law, as continuation of such proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the Appellant’s Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR and the consequent chargesheet.
Cause Title- Anukul Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1153)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
14) Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specific details not sufficient for attracting offence u/s. 498A IPC
The Court quashed a dowry harassment case against a brother-in-law of a woman and observed that mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Appeal before the Court arose from an Order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of an FIR filed by the complainant/second respondent, against her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Cause Title- A v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1152)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
15) Mere breach of contract cannot amount to cheating in absence of dishonest intention at inception
The Court ruled that a mere allegation of failure to execute an agreement for sale or refund of money does not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement under Section 420 IPC, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is proved.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of the Order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had dismissed a Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the Appellant seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, in relation to a property transaction.
Cause Title- Arshad Neyaz Khan v. The State of Jharkhand And Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1151)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) When a tax merely differentiates and not discriminates?: Supreme Court clarifies position of law
The Court clarified the position of law as to when a tax merely differentiates and not discriminates.
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the assessees against the separate Orders of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in three Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- M/s. U.P. Asbestos Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1154)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
17) Reply or defence cannot be allowed to come on record in summary suit without leave of court
While explaining the sequence of steps mandated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 sub-Rules (1) to (7) of the CPC, the Court observed that reply or defence cannot be allowed to come on record in a summary suit without the Leave of the Court.
The Appeal before the Court was filed at the instance of the Plaintiff in a Commercial Summary Suit before the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- M/s. U.P. Asbestos Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1154)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
18) Revert to practice of conducting trial on day to day basis: Supreme Court issues guidelines
The Court asked all the High Courts to issue a circular to the respective District Judiciaries with respect to the expeditious proceedings in every inquiry or trial.
A Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging the Order of the High Court, which granted bail to a rape accused.
Cause Title- The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1155)
Date of Judgment- September 22, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
19) Parties are bound by their pleadings & case put forth by them; court can't substitute its notion of what case should be
The Court reiterated that parties are bound by their pleadings and the case put forth by them on the strength thereof and it is not for the Court to substitute its own notion of what that case should be.
The Court reiterated thus in Civil Appeals filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, challenging the common Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), New Delhi.
Cause Title- Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1160)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
20) Jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court & exercised wherever justice of case demands
The Court observed that the jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every Court and will be exercised wherever the justice of the case demands.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the Order of the Delhi High Court, by which it dismissed its Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Corporation Bank & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1161)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
21) Necessary to consider due conclusion of sales & payment before examining consequences of annulment u/s. 37 of Provincial Insolvency Act
While considering a matter relating to the transfer of shares of a firm, the Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, cannot partake the character of a civil court deciding a suit for specific performance.
The Court also held that before examining the consequences of annulment as contemplated under Section 37, it is necessary to enquire whether sales and dispositions of the property, and payments done are duly made or not. The Appeals before the Court were filed against the reversing Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, setting aside the common Order passed by the Additional District Judge under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
Cause Title- Singamasetty Bhagavath Guptha v. Allam Karibasappa (D) by Lrs./allam Doddabasappa (D) by Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1159)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
22) Cash transactions above ₹20,000 can also constitute "legally enforceable debt" u/s.138 NI Act: Supreme Court overrules Kerala HC judgment
While setting aside a Kerala High Court ruling, the Court clarified that a debt created by a cash transaction above Rs. 20,000 falls within the definition of “legally enforceable debt”. The Court also held that any violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 because such a person, assuming him/her to be the payee/holder in due course, is liable to be visited by a penalty only as prescribed.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the ex-parte Judgment and Order of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitting the Respondent Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and reversing the concurrent Judgments of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.
Cause Title- Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S.Borcar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1158)
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria
23) Supreme Court applies pay & recover principle in motor accident case even though offending vehicle driver's licence was invalid
While referring to the pay and recover principle, the Court allowed an Appeal against an Order absolving the Insurance Company from the liability to pay motor accident compensation where the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred by the Appellant-claimants challenging the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court enhancing the compensation payable to the Appellant-claimant and absolving the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the amount, fastening the same on the Respondents– driver and the owner.
Cause Title- Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals Through Incharge Officer/ Competent Officer (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1162)
Date of Judgment- September 24, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
24) Foreign arbitration award won’t be automatically enforceable in India
The Court held that a Foreign Award would not be automatically enforceable in India and the Court must be satisfied that such an award is enforceable under Part-II Chapter-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court held thus in a batch of six Civil Appeals preferred under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by erstwhile promoters and various Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor against the common final Judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Cause Title- Kalyani Transco v. M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1165)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
25) Unethical practices can always be checked; right to form associations not absolute: Supreme Court allows CCI’s appeal against Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation
While allowing an Appeal against the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF), the Court emphasised that unethical practices can always be checked since the right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution is not absolute and reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Article 19(4).
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), challenging the Judgment of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).
Cause Title- Competition Commission of India v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1167)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
26) Mere threat to inflict harm in isolation would fall short of proof of conspiracy to commit murder: Supreme Court upholds acquittal order
While upholding an Order acquitting the accused persons in an alleged case of murder, the Court held that mere threat to inflict harm may constitute an incriminating circumstance, but in isolation, the said circumstance would fall short of proof of conspiracy to commit murder.
The Appeals before the Court were filed by the Appellant-State of Rajasthan assailing the Judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court, acquitting the accused-Respondents in a case registered under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B, 143 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1166 )
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
27) Vague & general allegations cannot form prima facie case: Supreme Court quashes FIR u/s. 498A IPC against in-laws
The Court quashed FIR under Section 498A IPC lodged by a woman against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law observing that vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case.
The Court reiterated that, in the absence of intention to cause grave injury or to drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself, the ingredients for the offence of cruelty cannot be made out.
Cause Title- Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1168)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice B.R Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
28) Supreme Court asks Telangana High Court to declare results of some candidates of 2023 District Judge exam "as a special case"
The Court asked the Telangana High Court to declare the results and appoint the candidates who qualified the 2023 recruitment examination for appointment as District Judges without unsettling the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023.
The Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions before the Court were filed by the judiciary aspirants challenging the common Judgment of the Telangana High Court.
Cause Title- Usha Kiran Kshatri v. The State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1169)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
29) Arbitral tribunal discriminated between parties: Supreme Court upholds setting aside of arbitral award
The Court upheld the setting aside of an Arbitral Award, saying that the Arbitral Tribunal discriminated between the parties, showcasing violation of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation against the Judgment of the Orissa High Court.
Cause Title- SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1171)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
30) Supreme Court upholds quashing of proceedings in bribery allegations linked to Telangana Legislative Council elections
The Court quashed the proceedings initiated against one of the accused in a bribery case linked to elections for the Telangana Legislative Council, observing that the records did not disclose his involvement in the alleged inducement of a legislator.
The Court was hearing Special Leave Petitions filed by the State questioning the validity of the High Court’s Order that had set aside the registration of the crime against the accused. The Petitioners argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the High Court erred in quashing the case at the threshold.
Cause Title- The State of Telangana Anti-Corruption Bureau v. Jerusalem Mathai And Elvis Stephenson (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1173)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
31) Prayers seeking clubbing of "future FIRs" & FIRs from various States overambitious & illegal
The Court, while disposing of a Writ Petition seeking the clubbing of FIRs registered in different States and FIRs that may be registered in future, observed that such prayers are “overambitious and outright illegal” and that no court of law can grant a prayer relating to future FIRs.
The Court was hearing Writ Petitions filed by the management and partners of a firm against which multiple FIRs had been registered in several States, alleging diversion of investor funds. The Petitioners had sought consolidation of all FIRs into one investigation, including those that may be filed in the future.
Cause Title- Odela Satyam & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1174)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
32) Minimum wages for assessing motor accident compensation cannot be fixed solely based on educational qualification
The Court ruled that minimum wages, when applied for determining compensation in motor accident claims, cannot be assessed based on the victim’s educational qualification alone. The Bench clarified that the determination must take into account the nature of the work carried on by the deceased/claimant.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of a motor accident compensation claim, where the dispute pertained to the computation of loss of income based on minimum wages.
Cause Title- Sharad Singh (Dead) Through LR v. HD Narang and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1164)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
33) Preponderance of probabilities arising from FIR against offending vehicle’s driver would lose probity if suspicion is raised on FIR
While upholding the rejection of a claim petition in a motor accident case, the Supreme Court held that an FIR registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle can be relied on to find the accident having been caused by him but the preponderance of probabilities that arise from such an FIR would not have the same probity if there is a valid suspicion raised on its registration.
The Appeals before the Apex Court were filed by the claimants, challenging the Judgment rejecting their Claim Petition, after reversing the award of the Tribunal.
Cause Title- Rajamma v. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1176)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
34) Legal representatives can claim motor accident compensation even if injured dies during proceedings for reasons unrelated to injuries sustained
While granting an enhanced compensation of over Rs 20 lakh in a case of motor accident, the Court held that the right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident survives on the legal representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained.
The original claimant, who was injured in a motor accident, had filed an Appeal before the Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and further enhanced by the High Court. The claimant, who was rendered 100% disabled by reason of the accident, unfortunately died during the pendency of the Appeal, and the legal representatives substituted themselves in place of the deceased claimant/injured.
Cause Title- Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (Dead) v. Nasir Khan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1177)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
35) Can’t apply parameters of Workmen’s Compensation Act for fixing income when compensation is fixed by tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act
The Court restored an Order of the Tribunal in a motor accident case and held that the High Court could not have applied the parameters under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 regarding fixing of income when the compensation was assessed and fixed by the Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by applying principles under the said Act.
The Appeal before the Court preferred by the original claimant was directed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court whereby the High Court allowed in part the Appeal of the insurance company, reducing the amount of compensation, and giving consequential directions.
Cause Title- Mohammed Masood v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1179)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
36) Manner of granting bail reveals procedural irregularities at grassroots level of judiciary: Supreme Court directs judicial officers to undergo special training
The Court directed some Judicial Officers to undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven (7) days on account of the manner in which bail was granted to the accused in a case.
The Court was hearing twin Criminal Appeals preferred by a company against the common final Order of the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge. The Court said that technically, once the bail applications were taken up for hearing and the accused had appeared before the Court, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Court concerned, unless a specific Order was passed directing their release – either on regular basis or in the interim.
Cause Title- M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1181)
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti