Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 28 – August 1, 2025
|1) Highest of exemplars will be considered even where there are several exemplars regarding similar lands
The Court reiterated that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction will be considered.
The Court reiterated thus in a batch of Civil Appeals, challenging the common Judgment of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the First Appeals of the claimants.
Cause Title- Manohar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 900)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
2) Evident pattern of vindictiveness: Supreme Court quashes criminal case against national-level badminton players accused of falsification of birth records
While taking note of the evident pattern of vindictiveness that permeated the complaint, the Court quashed a criminal case against national-level badminton players Chirag Sen and Lakshya Sen.
The allegations were related to falsification of birth records to secure benefits and selections in age-restricted badminton tournaments. The Appeals before the Court arose from a common Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court whereby the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants accused.
Cause Title- Chirag Sen and Another Etc v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 903)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar
3) Accident occurring to employee while commuting from his residence to place of employment or vice versa covered under Employees’ Compensation Act
The Court held that an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment or vice versa, is covered under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act), provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the family members of the deceased employee against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Cause Title- Daivshala & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 904)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
4) If driver intends to stop vehicle on highway he has to give signal to others: Supreme Court in motor accident compensation claim matter
While granting compensation of over Rs 91 lakh to an engineering student who suffered amputation of his leg in a motor accident, the Court held that on a highway, if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road.
The Appellant had approached the Court challenging the impugned Order whereby the Madras High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the Appellant in a motor accident case from Rs. 73,29,653 to Rs 58,53,447.
Cause Title- S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 905)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar
5) Supreme Court strikes down order blacklisting Kerala cricketer, revives proceedings on implementation of model byelaws
The Court set aside an Order blacklisting and imposing a life ban on Kerala Cricketer Santhosh Karunakaran. It revived the proceedings on implementation of the Lodha Committee recommended Model ByeLaws in the Districts.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Appeal filed by the former Ranji Trophy player.
Cause Title- Santhosh Karunakaran v. Ombudsman Cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Cricket Association and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 906)
Date of Judgment- July 29, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Right to safe & motorable roads is part of fundamental right to life; State’s responsibility to develop & maintain roads
The Court held that the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, which allowed the Writ Petition of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) and quashed the Orders of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) and the Arbitral Tribunal, respectively.
Cause Title- Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 907)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) Lending bank not prohibited under 2015 framework from classifying account of defaulting MSME as NPA without identification of incipient stress
While dismissing a Petition filed by an Enterprise, the Court observed that the Notification dated May 29, 2015, containing the ‘Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises’ does not prohibit the lending bank/secured creditor from classifying the account of the defaulting MSME as NPA and from issuing demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act without identification of incipient stress in the account of the defaulting borrower (MSME).
The Writ Petition before the Court was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by an enterprise registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Cause Title- Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution v. The Board of Directors of Nkgsb Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 908)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Classifying employees at verge of retirement based on past experience from universities within or outside State lacks discernible object
While granting the benefit of a Notification extending the retirement age to a Professor, the Court held that classifying employees based on past teaching experience from Universities within or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge of retirement, after having served for decades, lacks nexus and discernible object.
The Appellant challenged the Division Bench decision of the High Court, upholding the University and State's stance that a government Notification dated February 24, 2021, extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years is inapplicable to him due to non-satisfaction of the 10-year continuous teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal.
Cause Title- Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. The State of West Bengal Service & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 910)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
9) Entries in balance sheets can constitute valid acknowledgement of debt u/s 18 of Limitation Act
The Court reiterated that the entries in Balance Sheets could constitute a valid acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal filed by a company in which the question arose as to whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the NCLT were justified in dismissing the Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
Cause Title- IL & FS Financial Services Limited v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 911)
Date of Judgment- July 30, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
10) Supreme Court questions mechanism of entrusting speaker to decide disqualification issues on defection ground
The Court observed that it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker or Chairman of the Legislative Assembly to decide the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection, is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections.
The Court observed thus while allowing Civil Appeals filed by BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) leaders challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to direct the Assembly Speaker to decide disqualification Petitions against MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) who defected to the ruling Congress party.
Cause Title- Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Others Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 912)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Supreme Court directs Trial Courts & High Courts to not grant bail relying on undertakings by accused
The Court directed Trial Courts and High Courts not to pass any Order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs and only stick to merits of case.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order of the High Court whereby interim application was allowed and Bail Order was modified.
Cause Title- Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 913)
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwla and Justice R Mahadevan
12) Criminal breach of trust would arise only where accused is entrusted with property, not where property belongs to them: Supreme Court quashes FIR over property dispute
While quashing a criminal case relating to a property dispute, the Supreme Court held that as per Section 405 of the IPC, criminal breach of trust would arise only where the accused in any manner has been entrusted with property. It said that the very foundation for invoking this provision will fall to the ground where the subject property belongs to the accused.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the final Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, dismissing the Petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the accused persons under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 504, 506, 384 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- S. N. Vijayalakshmi v. State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 917)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
13) Disguising of civil dispute as criminal not permissible: Supreme Court quashes two-decade old cheating case arising out of property claim
The Supreme Court while quashing a Cheating Case arising out of a two-decade old property claim observed that disguising a civil dispute as criminal is not permissible in law.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order of the High Court by which the Application of the Appellant seeking quashing of the complaint case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- Urmila Devi & Ors. vs. Balram & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 915)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Vishwanathan
14) They were exercising right to freedom of speech & expression: Supreme Court quashes criminal case against Telugu actor Manchu Mohan & son
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Telugu actor Manchu Mohan Babu and his son and observed that they were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully.
An FIR was lodged against the Appellants and other participants invoking Sections 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act as the Appellants congregated together to conduct a rally by raising slogans against the-then Government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting student fee reimbursements.
Cause Title- Manchu Mohan Babu V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 916)
Date of Judgment- July 31, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
15) Neither headmaster nor school records qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’: Supreme Court sets aside order holding murder accused as juvenile
The Court set aside an Order holding a murder accused as juvenile on the ground that neither the Headmaster/Principal nor school records qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which it dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and upheld the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), declaring the accused as ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act).
Cause Title- Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 918)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
16) Employees acquiring disabilities during service must not be abandoned or prematurely retired even in absence of contractual rights
The Court reaffirmed that even in the absence of contractual rights, employees who acquire disabilities during service must not be abandoned or prematurely retired without being afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment.
A Civil Appeal was preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court, which allowed the Writ Appeal of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC).
Cause Title- Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 920)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
17) Is claim u/s. 163A MV Act restricted to third party risks?: Supreme Court doubts its earlier rulings; refers issue to larger bench
The Court referred the issue concerning the liability of the insurer in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 qua the owner/insured to a Larger Bench.
The Court noted that the non-obstante clause of Section 163A is in suppression of the entire Act, the other laws in force and any instrument valid in law. The claimant, who lost her parents in a motor accident, had approached the Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.
Cause Title- Wakia Afrin (Minor) v. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 919)
Date of Judgment- August 1, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran