1) Cheating case can only be filed by defrauded purchaser of property, not third parties who are not purchasers under Sale Deed

The Court reiterated that if someone sells a property they do not own, defrauding the purchaser, only the purchaser can file a complaint of cheating, not a third party who is not the purchaser under the sale deed.

The Court quashed an FIR registered against Jit Vinayak Arolkar (Appellant), an MLA in Goa, saying that the allegations of cheating did not constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that the Appellant, as a power of attorney, had sold portions of the property without the consent of all legal heirs.

Cause Title- Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State Of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 31)

Date of Judgment- January 6, 2024

Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Read further…

2) Order granting bail to 'foreigner' under Foreigners Act has to be immediately communicated to Registration Officer

The Court directed that while granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the concerned court shall issue direction to the State or prosecuting agency to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned Registration Officer who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the Civil Authorities.

The sole issue for consideration before the Court was whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Cause Title- Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau And Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 30)

Date of Judgment- January 6, 2024

Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Read further…

3) Money cannot substitute life lost but effort has to be made for granting just compensation: SC enhances motor accident compensation

The Court enhanced the motor accident compensation granted to a victim after reiterating that even though money cannot substitute a life lost, an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation.

The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the Appellant, enhancing the compensation granted for injuries sustained in a motor accident to Rs. 48,00,000/-. It held that the High Court “utterly failed” in not delving into the correctness of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under other heads apart from ‘Loss of Income’.

Cause Title- Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 29)

Date of Judgment- January 6, 2024

Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Read further…

4) “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” principle doesn’t apply to Indian criminal jurisprudence

The Court observed that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” i.e., “false in one thing, false in everything” does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence while upholding the murder conviction of some persons in 2002 case.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court by which some accused persons were acquitted while others were convicted.

Cause Title- Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 28)

Date of Judgment- January 6, 2024

Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Read further…

5) In NDPS cases, Trial Courts have discretion to release of seized vehicle in the interim

The Court observed that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

The Criminal Appeal, before the Court, was filed challenging the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court whereby the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed.

Cause Title- Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 32)

Date of Judgment- January 7, 2024

Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan

Read further…

6) No provision must be rendered nugatory; statute must be construed as a coherent whole ensuring that each part has meaningful content

The Court emphasized that no provision of a statute should be rendered nugatory or superfluous and a statute must be construed as a coherent whole, ensuring that each part has meaningful content.

The Court emphasized thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and its officers against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which allowed a Writ Petition.

Cause Title- The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 36)

Date of Judgment- January 7, 2024

Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Read further…

7) Exceptional circumstances: SC gives effect to compromise after affirming conviction in case involving offence u/s. 326 IPC

The Court allowed a petition seeking a direction for compounding of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on a compromise reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.

The Court observed that the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warranted the exercise of the Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise.

Cause Title- H. N. Pandakumar The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 37)

Date of Judgment- January 7, 2024

Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Read further…

8) Article 113 Limitation Act| A suit must be instituted within 3 yrs from the date the right to sue accrues, not from the occurrence of the event

The Court held that under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, a suit must be instituted within 3 years from the date the right to sue accrues, not from the occurrence of an event as stated in Article 54.

The Court had to determine whether a second suit for specific performance of an agreement, filed after the rejection of a previous suit, was maintainable under the law.

Cause Title- Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 42)

Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024

Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Read further…

9) Court is a search engine of truth with procedural and substantive laws as its tools

The Court in its Judgment, remarked that the Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by a person who was charged for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder in 1994.

Cause Title- Om Prakash @Israel @Raju @Raju Das v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 43)

Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024

Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar

Read further…

10) "It will save the lives of several injured persons": Supreme Court directs Centre to formulate 'golden hour' scheme on cashless treatment for motor accident victims by 14 March 2025

The Court directed the Centre to frame the 'Golden Hour' scheme on cashless treatment for motor accident victims by 14 March 2025. It observed that the provision made in Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also asked the GIC to expeditiously complete the work of setting up the portal which can inform the concerned States about the deficiencies in the documents.

Cause Title- S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 45)

Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024

Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

Read further…

11) ‘Existence’ of arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for an award to be enforceable in the eyes of law

The Court observed that ‘existence’ of the arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for an award to be enforceable in the eyes of law.

The Appeal before the Court arose from an Order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a First Appeal.

Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. R.K. Pandey & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 48)

Date of Judgment- January 9, 2024

Coram- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan

Read further…

12) Section 143 Railways Act can be invoked against illegal sale of e-tickets

The Court held that the mere fact that the system of e-reservation and e-tickets was introduced after the enactment of the Railways Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets.

The Court restored the criminal proceedings under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 (the Act) against the Respondent, which were earlier quashed by the Kerala High Court. The Respondent, whose office was raided by the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was accused of creating multiple user IDs on the IRCTC portal to sell railway tickets without authorisation.

Cause Title- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 51)

Date of Judgment- January 9, 2024

Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Read further…

13) Merely because witnesses turn hostile, their evidence doesn’t necessarily be thrown out entirely

The Court observed that merely because the witnesses turn hostile, their evidence does not necessarily be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the High Court by which it upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon two persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and acquitted the third accused.

Cause Title- Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 47)

Date of Judgment- January 9, 2024

Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Read further…

14) Sec.12(3) Specific Relief Act | Relinquishment can be made at appellate stage also

The Court clarified that the 'relinquishment' under Section 12(3) of Specific Relief Act can be made at any stage of the litigation including the Appellate stage.

The Court further explained that the sub-section is applicable only when the party cannot for any reason perform the whole of what he has promised. The inability may arise by any cause whatsoever including any statutory limitations.

Cause Title- Vijay Prabhu v. S.t. Lajapathie & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 52)

Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024

Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Read further…

15) Whether an unregistered MSME can make a reference to the facilitation council for dispute resolution u/s 18 MSME Act: SC refers issue to larger bench

The Court referred the issue of whether an MSME can make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18 of the MSME Act if it is not registered under Section 8 to a three-Judge Bench.

The Court rejected the submission that the Facilitation Council cannot entertain a reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (the Act) if the enterprise is not registered under Section 8.

Cause Title- NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 54)

Date of Judgment- January 10, 2024

Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Read further…

16) Wife’s refusal to return to matrimonial home upon husband securing restitution of conjugal rights decree does not disqualify her for maintenance u/s 125(4) CrPC

The Court observed that a husband securing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not absolved of paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125(4) of the CrPC if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and refuses to return to her matrimonial home.

The Court set aside the decision of the Jharkhand High Court which held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as Section 125(4) of the CrPC came to the husband’s rescue in light of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights decreed in his favour.

Cause Title- R v. D & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 55)

Date of Judgment- January 10, 2024

Coram- Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Read further…

17) Fresh suit not to be filed when subsequent events form continuous cause of action & don’t change nature as well as character of civil suit

The Court clarified that a fresh suit is not to be filed when subsequent events form a continuous cause of action as such events don’t change the nature and character of the Civil Suit.

The Appellants approached the Court challenging the order whereby the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the application filed by the present Respondent/original Applicant seeking amendment of plaint and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure Procedure,1908 for incorporating the amendment and prayer by way of amendment in the original plaint.

Cause Title- The State of West Bengal & Ors. V. Pam Developments Private Limited & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 69)

Date of Judgment- January 9, 2024

Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Read further…

18) Recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken in absence of rules

The Court allowed an Appeal in a service dispute matter and reiterated that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken. It also observed that no word, no phrase and no expression used in legislation should be excluded as surplusage, while the Courts embark on a course of interpretation.

The Appeal, by special leave, carried by the appellant Dr. Sharmad took exception to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowing a writ petition presented by one of the respondents Dr. Jyothish. The High Court set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing the original application of Dr. Jyothish.

Cause Title- Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 70)

Date of Judgment- January 10, 2024

Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Read further…

19) No wholesale exclusion of Sections 4-24 of Limitation Act when calculating limitation period u/s 34(3) of A&C Act

The Court held that there is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when calculating the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court by which it dismissed a Petition as barred by limitation.

Cause Title- My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 56)

Date of Judgment- January 10, 2024

Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Read further…

20) Concepts of ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice oriented approach’, ‘substantial justice’ not to be employed to frustrate substantial law of limitation

The Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court condoning the delay of about 2200 days and reminded the District judiciary as well the High Courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.

The Appeal before the Court arose from the judgment of the High Court whereby the order rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 was set aside.

Cause Title- H.Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 53)

Date of Judgment- January 8, 2024

Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Read further…

21) SC explains principles that Courts must adhere while appreciating & evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence

The Court while upholding the conviction of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, has explained the principles that Courts must adhere while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court in an Appeal and Death Sentence Reference which arose out of the Judgment of the Sessions Judge.

Cause Title- Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 35)

Date of Judgment- January 7, 2024

Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Read further…

22) Sec.19(4) of Prevention Of Corruption Act | Error includes ‘competency of authority to grant sanction’: SC sets aside Judgment quashing Sanction Order

The Court set aside a judgment quashing a Sanction Order in a corruption case and held that the quashing petition should not have been entertained when the prosecution had already examined 7 witnesses and there was not a whisper about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the Sanction Order.

The Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant­-State against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the petition filed by the respondent­-accused seeking quashing of a Sanction Order in a case registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was allowed.

Cause Title- The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 50)

Date of Judgment- January 7, 2024

Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Read further…