Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: February 10 – February 14, 2025
1) Court u/s 37 A&C Act must only determine whether S. 34 Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly, without exceeding its scope
The Court reiterated that the Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) must only determine whether Section 34 Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly, without exceeding its scope.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal in which the issue arose was whether the husband could have been made a party to the arbitration that was invoked by the registered stock broker and held to be jointly and severally liable for the debit balance that had accrued in the wife’s account.
Cause Title- AC Chokshi Share Broker Private Limited v. Jatin Pratap Desai & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 174)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Arbitrariness in public employment goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality
The Court remarked that arbitrariness in a public employment goes to the very root of the Fundamental Right to Equality.
The Court remarked thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the two Judgments of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench.
Cause Title- Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 176)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Prosecution failed to dislodge his version that it was natural death due to illness: SC acquits man in wife’s murder case after he spent 10 years in jail
The Court acquitted a man in his wife’s murder case observing that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to dislodge his claim that it was a natural death due to illness.
The Appellant accused was convicted by the lower courts for the murder of his first wife by strangulation. Therefore, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Ravi v. The State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 170)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
4) Issue of non-payment of wages is so trivial a matter so as to compel anyone to commit murder: SC acquits murder accused
The Court acquitted a man sentenced to life in a murder case while observing that the discord in connection with non-payment/untimely payment of wages is not of such a nature which may lead to a drastic action on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Appellant convict who was booked under Section 302 IPC for murdering one Ramlal. He had been awarded life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 178)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
5) Can’t equate notional income of student to that of an unskilled worker: SC enhances motor accident compensation
The Court fixed Rs 10,000 as the notional monthly income of a student who suffered grievous injuries in an accident and reiterated that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course should not be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker.
The Appeal before the Court was filed at the instance of the claimant-appellant, who was aggrieved by the amount of motor accident compensation awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Cause Title- Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 179)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
6) If MACT doubts correctness of medical certificate, it can have it reasessed; but it can’t by itself go into details of determination of disability
The Court granted enhanced compensation of over Rs 48 lakh in a case of motor accident and held that if the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability.
The Appeal before the Court was filed at the instance of the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in a motor accident claim case. The claimant-appellant was aggrieved by the fact that the opinion of the Medical Board computing disability had been ignored and the Tribunal had substituted its own view.
Cause Title- Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 180)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
7) Will mere mention of Section 307 IPC in criminal proceedings force a Court to adopt a ‘hands-off approach’ when parties come forward with a settlement? SC explains
The Court explained whether the mere mention of Section 307 of the IPC in the criminal proceedings forces the Court to adopt a “hands-off approach” when parties come forward with a settlement.
The Court also had to determine the duty of the Court and the tests to be applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted and in which cases it would not be. In the present case, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants thereby setting aside the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Cause Title- Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 182)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti
8) Order XXII CPC| Total time-frame for filing an application for substitution and for setting aside abatement is 150 days
The Court held that the total time-frame for filing an application for substitution and for setting aside abatement is 150 (90 + 60) days.
The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision abating the second Appeal by the deceased plaintiff in a decades-old property dispute. The Bench clarified that the prayer for setting aside of abatement can be read in a prayer for substitution.
Cause Title- Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 183)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
9) It’s only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered
The Court emphasised that it is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the Canara Bank against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench by which it dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal.
Cause Title- Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 184)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
10) Conduct of lottery scheme a betting & gambling activity; service tax not leviable on transactions between purchaser of lottery tickets & Sikkim Govt
The Court held that the service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the purchaser of the lottery tickets and the Sikkim Government and that the conduct of lottery scheme is a betting and gambling activity.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the Orders of the Sikkim High Court in several Writ Petitions filed by the assessees.
Cause Title- Union of India & Others v. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 181)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
11) Section 366A IPC penalizes inducement of minor girl under age of 18 years; accused can’t be absolved even if there is consent
The Court observed that Section 366-A of the IPC penalizes inducement of a minor girl under the age of 18 years and the accused cannot be absolved of criminal liability even if there is consent.
The Appeal before the Court arose from an Order of the Revisional Court which confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as handed over by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
Cause Title- Akula Raghuram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 185)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
12) Essential ingredient of demand of dowry absent; suicidal death though unnatural not akin to murder: SC upholds husband’s acquittal
The Court upheld an Order of acquittal passed in favour of the husband in a dowry death case after finding that the essential ingredient of a demand of dowry under Section 304B of the IPC was absent in the matter.
The Court was considering the State’s Appeal challenging the Order of acquittal in a case of the death of a young bride.
Cause Title- The State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju@prem Prakash (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 187)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
13) Tax returns can be taken into account for determination of income in motor accident cases
The Court awarded enhanced compensation for the death of a mechanical engineer in a motor accident case and reiterated that the determination of income can proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return when the same is available on record.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court pertaining to a motor accident case.
Cause Title- Vijayalaxmi @ Roopa V. Shenoy & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 186)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
14) Can rely on statement of victim’s wife to establish income in absence of material to discard oral evidence: SC enhances compensation in motor accident case
The Court granted over Rs. 37 lakhs as compensation in a road accident case while fixing the monthly income of the victim as Rs 10,000 based on the oral evidence of his wife.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the victim’s salary ought to have been taken as Rs. 10,000 per month.
Cause Title- Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 191)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
15) Major, married & earning children of deceased victim have right to apply for motor accident compensation
The Court reiterated that the major, married, and earning children of a deceased victim, as the legal representatives, have the right to apply for motor accident compensation.
The Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) award by increasing the compensation awarded to the dependants of the deceased. The Bench allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which did not include the Appellants as the dependants of the deceased.
Cause Title- Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 192)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
16) Date of filing of Claim Petition is date for fixing rate of exchange for computing motor accident compensation
The Court reiterated that the date of filing of the accident claim petition is the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange for computing the motor accident compensation. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to the claimants (Appellants) in a motor accident claim.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Telangana High Court which affirmed the findings of the MACT and the multiplier to be applied was reduced from 14 to 10 on account of the deceased earning in foreign currency.
Cause Title- Shyam Prasad Nagalla & Ors. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 193)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Senior’s admonition at workplace not “intentional insult with the intent to provoke” u/s 504 IPC
The Court held that a senior’s admonition at a workplace is not an “intentional insult with the intent to provoke” under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the same relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court.
Cause Title- B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 194)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Uncomfortable statements or questions during Court proceedings can’t be misconstrued as humiliating; Court's duty to reach the truth of matter
The Court observed that it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such an exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.
The Court was considering a matter where the Petitioner claimed that she was humiliated and defamed in open court due to the statements made by the police officials regarding her matrimonial life.
Cause Title- Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 196)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
19) Permanent alimony & maintenance u/s 25 HMA can be granted even if marriage has been declared void
The Court held that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the HMA is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the HMA.
Similarly, the Court held that even if a Court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, it is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) are satisfied.
Cause Title- X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 197)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih
20) Every statute is prima-facie prospective in nature unless it’s expressly made to have retrospective operations
The Court reiterated that every statute is prima-facie prospective in nature unless it is expressly made to have retrospective operations.
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the Maharashtra State against the Judgment of the High Court by which it allowed a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prism Cement Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 199)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
21) FIR instituted with ulterior motive only because husband preferred Divorce Petition: SC quashes criminal case against man & his family
In a case of matrimonial discord where the wife lodged an FIR against her husband and his family members just about two months after the divorce petition was registered by the husband, the Court quashed the criminal case in view of the general and omnibus allegations made by the woman.
The Appeal before the Court arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application preferred by the Appellants seeking quashing of the Chargesheet and the cognizance order passed in a case registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Cause Title- X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 203)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
22) There must neither be deviation from statutory requirements nor advertisement inviting applications unless power to relax qualifications exist
The Court held that there must neither be any deviation from the statutory requirements nor the advertisement inviting applications unless power to relax qualifications exist.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Appellate Judgment and Order of the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench, concerning the appointment to the high office of Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH).
Cause Title- Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 201)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
23) Right to life & liberty under Article 21 can’t be overlooked only because criminal cases are registered against a person
The Court held that the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked just because criminal cases are registered against a person.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal, challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench by which it refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Cause Title- Jay Kishan and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 198)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
24) Award of interest u/s 34 CPC is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations
The Court reiterated that under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal filed by a company against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court by which it set aside the concurrent findings of the lower Court and dismissed the suit seeking declaratory relief.
Cause Title- M/s. Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 207)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
25) 10% penalty u/s 271 AAA of Income Tax Act is normally not leviable when assessee admits, substantiates undisclosed income & pays tax with delay
The Court held that if the assessee admits as well as substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and also pays the tax together with interest on such income even with delay, then a penalty at the rate of 10% under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is normally not leviable.
The Appeal before the Court was filed challenging the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Cause Title- K. Krishnamurthy v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 208)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan
26) Prior statement used for contradicting witness must be proved through investigating officer; otherwise, it cannot be reproduced in witness's deposition
The Court clarified that the prior statement used for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer; otherwise, it cannot be reproduced in the witness's deposition.
The Court acquitted the Appellant who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC holding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench explained that the correct procedure is for the Trial Judge to mark the portions of the prior statements used to contradict the witness. “The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved,” it further explained.
Cause Title- Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 209)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
27) Twin conditions for bail u/s 45 PMLA mandatory: SC sets aside Patna HC Order in money laundering case
The Court set aside a Patna High Court Order granting bail to an accused in a case of money laundering. The Court observed that any casual or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender involved in the offence of money laundering and granting him bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA, cannot be vindicated.
The Appellant-Union of India through the Enforcement Directorate challenged the legality of the impugned judgment passed by the Patna High Court whereby the respondent Kanhaiya Prasad was released on bail.
Cause Title- The Union of India Through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 210)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
28) Visitor not merely a titular head; appointment of person as CMJ University's Chancellor by sponsor valid only upon visitor's approval
The Court while upholding a Dissolution Order against the CMJ University, held that the Visitor is not merely a titular head and the appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court’s Division Bench by which it quashed the Single Judge’s Judgment and remanded a case to take appropriate decision regarding the validity of the Order dissolving the Chander Mohan Jha (CMJ) University within 6 months.
Cause Title- CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 211)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
29) Rule-making power of legislature cannot be nullified by application of concept of ‘functus officio’
The Court observed that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of ‘functus officio’.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it quashed the Government Office Memorandum (GOM) issued by the Andhra Pradesh State.
Cause Title- P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 212)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
30) Possession taken before date of agreement implies acquisition of possessory rights; requires payment of proper stamp duty
The Court explained that possession given before the date of agreement implies acquisition of possessory rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act which requires payment of proper stamp duty.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the Appellant, upholding the impounding of a sale agreement and the recovery of stamp duty and penalty under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (the Act). The Court held that the document in question was liable for stamp duty as a conveyance under Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of the Act.
Cause Title- Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 213)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
31) No locus standi: Supreme Court dismisses suit by former students to handover school building & property to government
The Court dismissed a suit filed by former students of a School seeking handing over of possession of school building and property to the Government.
The Appellant preferred the Appeal before the Court assailing the Judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Cause Title- M/s. B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 214)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
32) While Courts must restrain in exercising power of judicial review in contractual commercial matters, doctrine of proportionality applies when error merits grant of relief
The Court reiterated that while Courts must exercise restraint in exercising the power of judicial review in contractual commercial matters, the doctrine of proportionality applies when an error is writ large and equity merits relief.
The Court set aside the forfeiture of a bank guarantee in a tender dispute between M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and the Border Roads Organisation (BRO/Respondent). The Court held that “This is an avoidable litigation” wherein the Appellant had made an obvious and unintentional error in its bid, which BRO failed to acknowledge in a “pragmatic” manner.
Cause Title- M/S. ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 215)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan
33) Principle of Res Judicata applies even to Petitions arising for decision in writ jurisdiction under Article 226
The Court reiterated that the principle of Res Judicata applies even to Petitions arising for decision in the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the companies against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench by which it declined to grant the relief of rebate of 25% on the electricity tariff.
Cause Title- Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 217)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
34) Back wages to dismissed employee not an automatic relief: SC explains how employee can discharge his "burden of proof"
The Court held that, ordering back wages to be paid to a dismissed employee is not an automatic relief and explained how an employee can discharge his "burden of proof".
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, allowing a Review Petition.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 218)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
35) Corroboration to testimony that is partly reliable & partly unreliable should be insisted upon: SC quashes murder conviction
The Court quashed the conviction in a murder case while holding that the corroboration of the testimony which falls in the category of being “partly reliable and partly unreliable” should be insisted upon.
The Court acquitted the Appellants who were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was “largely unreliable” and lacked corroboration.
Cause Title- Mehatar v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 216)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran
36) Section 74 Contract Act| Claim for damages will remain confined to as per agreement: SC rejects plea of company
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal of a company, saying that the claim for damages will remain confined to as per the agreement in view of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA).
The issues in the Appeal were limited but the litigation had a chequered history.
Cause Title- Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 219)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
37) TIP report would lose its evidentiary value if witness identifying person or article is not examined during trial
The Court observed that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is only corroborative evidence and if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purpose of identification.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Cause Title- Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 220)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
38) "Why prosecution wants to examine 100 witnesses?": Supreme Court raises concern over delay in conclusion of trial in UAPA case
The Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and questioned why the Public Prosecutor wanted to examine 100 witnesses and who are such witnesses.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court declining to release the appellant-accused on bail in a case registered under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 8(2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 120B, 201 and 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 222)
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
39) Non-executive director with no financial responsibilities or involvement in day-to-day operations of company not liable u/s.138 of NI Act in absence of specific evidence
The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a non-executive director having no financial responsibilities or involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company in a cheque bounce case after finding that the complaints did not contain any specific averments against him.
The Court was considering the Appeals against the common Judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
Cause Title- Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia v. India Ener-gen Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 223)
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2025
Coram- Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
40) Accused must be sharer in both ‘criminal act’ & ‘common intention’ u/s 34 IPC: SC upholds conviction of mother-in-law; acquits husband in woman’s murder case
The Court upheld the conviction of a mother-in-law who was accused of killing her daughter-in-law by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. However, it acquitted the deceased woman’s husband who was allegedly present in the house at the time of the said incident.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused persons (mother-in-law and husband) against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench by which it set aside their acquittal.
Cause Title- Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 221)
Date of Judgment- February 11, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
41) Benefit of revised pay scale can’t be denied on account of some technicality
The Court granted relief to an employee, who was promoted to the post of Draughtsman in 1983, and held that he cannot be denied the benefit of a revised pay scale on account of some technicality.
The Court was considering an Appeal against the Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court dismissing the Contempt Petition filed by the Appellant.
Cause Title- Dharamvir Singh v. Shri Rajiv Mehrishi and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 224)
Date of Judgment- February 12, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih
