Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: August 4 – August 8, 2025
1) Price at which power is procured by distribution licensee from generating company not a matter of consensus
The Court held that under the Electricity Act, 2003, the price at which power is to be procured by a distribution licensee from a generating company is not a matter of consensus and private agreement between the parties as it is to be fixed statutorily by the appropriate Commission.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL), assailing the common Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), New Delhi.
Cause Title- Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Green Infra Corporate Wind Private Limited and Others Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 922)
Date of Judgment- August 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
2) Pollution control boards can impose and collect as restitutionary & compensatory damages fixed sums of monies
The Court held that the Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) against the Judgment of the High Court’s Division Bench, which held that it is not empowered to levy compensatory damages in exercise of powers under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on the ground that such an action amounts to imposition of penalty provided for in Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts, and as such, procedure contemplated thereunder will be the only method for imposing and collecting compensatory damage.
Cause Title- Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 923)
Date of Judgment- August 4, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
3) No ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts for recovery of fees found to be reasonable: Supreme Court allows school’s appeal
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by Apeejay School and restored the Trial Court Order directing recovery of hiked fees, subject to the outcome of the decision of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee. The Court also made it clear that there is no ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Haryana School Education Act, 1995 insofar as the recovery of fees is concerned, which are found to be reasonable.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the unaided private school against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Cause Title- Apeejay School v. Dhriti Duggal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 925)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria
4) Can maintain herself: Supreme Court refuses to grant alimony to wife on ground of husband becoming unemployed
The Court refused to grant alimony to a wife, considering the fact that the husband became unemployed. The Bench said that the claim of alimony is not justified, especially looking at the husband’s status which as of now is of an unemployed person.
A Criminal Appeal was preferred by a man asserting that his wife got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier divorce and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 926)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
5) When rape victim’s story is creditworthy, acceptable testimony would prevail over apparent insufficiency of medical evidence
The Court upheld the conviction of a man in a POCSO case and ruled that in cases of offences committed under Section 376 of the IPC, when the story of the victim girl is found credit-worthy, the acceptable testimony of the victim would prevail over the apparent insufficiency of medical evidence.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed against the Order of the Chhattisgarh High Court convicting and sentencing the accused Appellant under Sections 376 (2), 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Cause Title- Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 929)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice N.V. Anjaria
6) Objections regarding suit maintainability & trial court’s jurisdiction can be raised during execution proceedings
The Court clarified that at the stage of execution proceedings, objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the Trial Court can be raised for consideration.
The Court clarified thus in a Civil Appeal filed by Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC) against the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which dismissed its Writ Petition challenging the civil proceedings regarding the computation of interest on the decretal amount and the consequential execution proceedings.
Cause Title- Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Vigyan Chemical Industries and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 928)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) IBC| Commercial wisdom of CoC must be given primacy during CIRP
The Court ruled that commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors must be given primacy during the CIRP and its decisions must be given the respect that is lawfully due to it.
The Court was considering an Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against an Order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of National Company Law Tribunal directing for delivery of possession of the property in question to the Appellants.
Cause Title- Sincere Securities Private Limited & Ors. v. Chandrakant Khemka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 931)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
8) Self-serving evidence can't discharge onus of proof placed on plaintiff to prove existence of valid agreement in suit for specific performance
The Court held that the onus of proof placed on Plaintiff to prove an existence of a valid agreement in Suit for Specific Performance cannot be discharged with a self-serving evidence.
The Court was considering an Appeal against decree and the judgment of the High Court whereby findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court concluding that agreement to sell was not genuine were reversed.
Cause Title- Harish Kumar v. Amar Nath & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 924)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti
9) Court of session can summon person to stand trial even if he isn’t charge-sheeted & whose complexity in crime appears in evidence on record
The Court held that under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Court of Session can summon a person as accused to stand trial even if he has not been charge-sheeted by the police and whose complexity in the crime appears in the evidence available on record.
The Court held thus in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred against the Order of the Allahabad High Court, which affirmed the Order of the Fast Track Court in a case arising out of the offence under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 930)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
10) Suit u/s 92 CPC is representative suit of special nature since action is instituted on behalf of public beneficiaries
The Court observed that a Suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal arising out of the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed an Appeal against the Single Judge’s Judgment allowing an Application under Section 92 CPC.
Cause Title- Operation ASHA v. Shelly Batra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 932)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
11) Courts must follow S. 11(6A) A&C Act & their scrutiny must be confined to examination of existence of arbitration agreement
The Court emphasised that the Courts must follow the mandate of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and their scrutiny must be confined to the examination of the existence of arbitration agreement.
The Court was deciding a batch of various Civil Appeals arising out of the Judgment of the Patna High Court which allowed the Applications under Section 11 of A&C Act and appointed Arbitrators in several cases.
Cause Title- The Managing Director Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 933)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
12) Is FIR of confessional nature made by accused admissible in evidence?: Supreme Court explains
The Court held that an FIR (First Information Report) of a confessional nature made by an accused person is inadmissible in evidence against him, except to the extent that it shows that he made a statement soon after the offence.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which partly allowed his Appeal challenging conviction.
Cause Title- Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 927)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
13) Supreme Court quotes Manusmriti while upholding conviction of father who raped minor daughter, says verse reflects constitutional vision
The Court, while refusing to interfere with the conviction and sentencing of a father convicted of raping his minor daughter, has quoted from the Manusmriti, stating that the quoted verses reflect not merely a cultural principle but a Constitutional vision.
The Court was considering a Special Leave Petition against a Judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.
Cause Title- Bhanei Prasad @Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 934)
Date of Judgment- August 4, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Kumar
14) HC while hearing application u/s. 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence expected to examine whether accused has fair chance of overturning conviction
While setting aside the Order of suspension of sentence of a POCSO convict, the Court observed that the High Court while hearing an Application under Section 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence is expected to examine whether, prima facie there was anything palpable on the record to indicate if the accused had a fair chance of overturning the conviction.
The Appeal filed by the father of the prosecutrix challenged the Order of the Rajasthan High Court suspending the sentence imposed on the Respondent-convict till the final disposal of the Appeal and releasing him on bail, subject to certain conditions imposed on him by Special Judge (POCSO) Karauli (Rajasthan).
Cause Title- Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan And Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 935)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
15) Testimony being unreliable, can be treated as hearsay evidence: Supreme Court acquits woman accused of killing her children
The Court acquitted a woman accused of killing her children after finding the testimony of a shop owner, who made the allegations, to be unreliable. The Court held that his testimony could be treated as hearsay evidence.
The Appeal was filed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a Criminal Appeal convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 936)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
16) Inclusion or exclusion of allowances in deceased’s salary to be determined by MACT on facts & extent of dependency
The Court ruled that while determining whether the allowances form a part of the salary or not, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal by looking into the facts of each case and by considering the extent of dependency of the claimants on the salary of the deceased including the allowances, has to determine whether these allowances should be excluded from determination of the income of the deceased.
The Appellants before the Court were the claimants (wife and children of deceased) in a Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and they sought enhancement of compensation.
Cause Title- Kavita Devi v. Sunil Kumar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 938)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar
17) Self-employed persons entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects in motor accident claims
The Court reiterated that Claimants with self-employed status are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future prospects in motor accident claims.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order and Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court whereby it partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Insurer, dismissed the Claimant’s Appeal for enhancement, and modified the quantum of compensation while affirming the finding of 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
Cause Title- Lokesh B v. Suryanarayana Raju Jaggaraju & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 939)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar
18) Tariff shall be cost-reflective: Supreme Court issues directions under Electricity Act
The Court issued certain directions related to tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003.
The Court was hearing a batch of Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals, challenging the manner in which the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) determined the tariff for retail supply of electricity over the years, leading to the creation and continuation of a ‘regulatory asset’.
Cause Title- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 937)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
19) Witnesses may react in different ways on seeing gruesome incident: Supreme Court reverses acquittal of men accused of killing 2 baby girls
The Court reversed the acquittal of two men who were accused of killing two baby girls while they were asleep at night.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals preferred by the State, challenging the Judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which quashed the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
Cause Title- The State of Bihar now Jharkhand v. Nilu Ganjhu @ Nilkant Ram Ganjhu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 942)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
20) In-house inquiry not removal mechanism, much less extra-constitutional mechanism: Supreme Court while dismissing Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea
The Court while dismissing the Writ Petition of Allahabad High Court Judge-Justice Yashwant Varma, held that the in-house inquiry is not a removal mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional mechanism.
Justice Varma had challenged the in-house procedure and its outcome, including the recommendation forwarded by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.
Cause Title- XXX v. The Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 943)
Date of Judgment- August 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
21) Show 'special concern' to suspending sentence if appeal cannot be disposed of expeditiously: Supreme Court to appellate courts
The Court held that where an Appeal cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the Appellate Court must show special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence, so as to make the Appeal right, meaningful and effective.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order of the High Court by which it declined to suspend the substantive Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Aasif @Pasha vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 944)
Date of Judgment- August 6, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
22) High Court Chief Justice is master of roster; but Supreme Court may step in when matters raise institutional concerns affecting rule of law
While recalling the direction barring an Allahabad High Court Judge from taking up criminal matters, the Court held that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster but when matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, it may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps.
The Court made such observations while acting upon an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India with a request to reconsider the directions passed in an earlier Order.
Cause Title- M/S. Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 945)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
23) Supreme Court refers question on applicability of S.153 to proceeding u/s 144C Income Tax Act regarding limitation period to larger bench
The Court referred the question on applicability of Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) to a proceeding under Section 144C of ITA namely whether the period of eleven months should be over and above the limitation prescribed, to a larger Bench.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals in which the dispute raised the important questions of law relating to the interpretation and interplay between Section 144C and Section 153(3) of ITA, more specifically, what are the periods of limitations prescribed for the revenue authorities to take action against an assessee and how the limitation periods and procedures prescribed in these two Sections coexist.
Cause Title- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Others v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 946)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
24) Witnesses were related & residing in same neighborhood: Supreme Court acquits woman in 26-yr-old murder case
The Court granted acquittal to a woman in a 1999 murder case after noting that the witnesses were related and residing in the same neighborhood.
The Court also took note of the admitted dispute on partition in the family of the deceased and the lack of clarity on the exact time of death. The Appellant, along with her husband, was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court was considering the woman’s Appeal.
Cause Title- Shyam Kali Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 947)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria
25) Registered owner liable to compensate victims of motor accident, same has to be indemnified by insurer
The Court held that when the ownership was with the registered owner at the time of the accident, it is his liability to compensate the victims in the accident, and the same has to be indemnified by the insurer.
The Appeals before the Court arose from the Orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein the Order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting compensation with respect to the death/injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident was challenged by both the insurance company and the claimants.
Cause Title- Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 948)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria
26) No straight jacket formula for adopting income in case of children involved in motor vehicle accidents
The Court held that there is no straight jacket formula as to the income to be adopted in the case of children when they suffer injuries or succumb to death, in a motor vehicle accident, for computing compensation.
The Court was considering an Appeal wherein the parents were aggrieved by the Judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court whereby it reduced the compensation awarded for the death of their son in a motor accident.
Cause Title- Thangavel & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 949)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
27) Benefit of future prospects’ component for motor accident compensation can also be given to self-employed foreign national
While considering a motor accident case involving a self-employed foreign national, the Court extended the benefit of future prospects’ component for the compensation payable to him as per the principles enumerated in the Judgment in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017).
The Appellants-original claimants had approached the Court challenging the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to the extent that the High Court, even while enhancing the compensation in respect of accidental death, disregarded the count of future prospects’ in computing the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants/heirs.
Cause Title- Kulwinder Kaur v. Parshant Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 950)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
28) Insurance company can be asked to pay compensation to motor accident claimants & thereafter recover the same in case of policy cancellation
The Court affirmed that cancellation of an insurance policy issued in favor of the third party for covering third party risk, because of bouncing of cheque for premium or non-payment of premium, would absolve the insurer from liability to pay the motor accident compensation. The Court can direct the insurance company to make payment of compensation to the claimants and thereafter to permit it to recover the same.
The Court was considering an Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment passed in a Motor Accident Claims Appeal by the Delhi High Court, which confirmed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Cause Title- National Insurance Company Limited v. Sunita Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 951)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
29) Plea of adverse possession to be specifically raised in pleadings, it can’t be flung as surprise for the first time in appeal
The Court ruled that the plea of adverse possession has to be specifically raised in the pleadings, put in issue, and such plea cannot be allowed to be flung as a surprise, on an unsuspecting defendant, for the first time in Appeal.
The Petition before the Court arose from the Judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court in Second Appeal filed by the Respondents (original Defendants), which came to be allowed, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by the First Appellate Court preferred by the petitioners (original Plaintiffs).
Cause Title- Kishundeo Rout & Ors. v. Govind Rao & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 956)
Date of Judgment- August 8, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Not possible for ministry of environment to consider projects from all states of country: Supreme Court upholds 2025 office memorandum
The Court while upholding the Office Memorandum dated January 30, 2025 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), observed that it is not possible for the said Ministry to consider projects from all States of the country.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the notification dated January 29, 2025 as well as the aforementioned Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF&CC.
Cause Title- Vanashakti v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 961)
Date of Judgment- August 5, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
