Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: February 17 – February 21, 2025
1) Rule 21(8) Punjab VAT Rules| A provision cannot have retrospective effect when vested right accrued in respect of purchase & sale made prior to its insertion
The Supreme Court, with respect to Rule 21(8) of the Punjab VAT Rules, held that a provision cannot have a retrospective effect when vested right accrued in respect of purchase and sale made prior to its insertion.
The Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the State of Punjab, upholding the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax (VAT) Rules, 2005 was enforced by the State without any statutory sanction. It had to determine whether Rule 21(8) of the Punjab VAT Rules could have been introduced when there was no enabling provision in the parent statute i.e. the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Punjab VAT Act).
Cause Title- State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 231)
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
2) Criminal case conviction not necessary for forfeiture of gratuity if employee’s misconduct constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude
The Court held that conviction in a criminal proceeding is not a necessary requirement for forfeiture of gratuity, if the misconduct alleged & proved against employee constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.
The Court upheld the forfeiture of gratuity of the employee while holding that the terminated employee whose employment itself was illegal cannot seek the fruits of his employment by way of gratuity.
Cause Title- Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 233)
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran
3) No indefeasible right can be claimed on basis of grant which was illegal: SC upholds withdrawal of NOC to commence Ayurvedic Medical Hospital
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust challenging the withdrawal of No Objection Certificate to commence Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital and held that no indefeasible right can be claimed on the basis of the grant issued, which was clearly illegal.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the withdrawal of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to commence Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, in the private sector.
Cause Title- Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 232)
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
4) Employee’s Compensation Act| Interest liability arises on default of employer, 12% simple interest per annum has to be applied
The Court observed that under Section 4A(3) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the interest liability arises on default of the employer, in paying the admitted compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due and if there is such default, necessarily interest would run at the rate provided which is 12%.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the appellants challenging the interest awarded under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Cause Title- Shanti & Ors. ¬v. National Insurance Company (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 234)
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
5) Conditions imposed in order granting permanent remission must ensure that convict’s ‘criminal tendencies’, if any, remain in check
The Court held that the conditions imposed in an order granting permanent remission must ensure that the ‘criminal tendencies’ of a convict, if any, remain in check.
The Court issued guidelines on the grant of remission for convicts, directing those States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months. The Bench delved into the issue regarding the nature of conditions imposed while granting remission.
Cause Title- In Re: Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 239)
Date of Judgment- February 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
6) Media, particularly individuals in key positions, must exercise utmost caution & responsibility: SC quashes defamation case against TOI editorial director
The Court quashed the defamation case against Jaideep Bose while observing that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions.
The Court set aside the Order of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed the Petition for quashing the defamation proceedings against Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.’s ex-Editorial Director Jaideep Bose.
Cause Title- Jaideep Bose v. M/S. Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 241)
Date of Judgment- February 18, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
7) Reasons for rejecting application u/s. 437(6) CrPC must be ‘different & little more weighty’ than reasons for refusing bail at initial stage: SC grants bail in crypto scam case
The Court granted bail in a crypto currency scam case while clarifying that the reasons for rejection of an application under Section 437(6) of the CrPC have to be “different and little more weighty” than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage.
The Court directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. 35 lakh with the Trial Court within six months as a condition to his bail. The Prosecution alleged that approximately 2000 investors had lost nearly Rs. 4 crore through a cryptocurrency scheme operated by the Appellant and other co-accused.
Cause Title- Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 242)
Date of Judgment- February 18, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
8) Supreme Court summarises principles regarding permissibility of registration of second FIR
The Court summarised the principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR (First Information Report).
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the State against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by which the accused’s prayer for quashing an FIR was allowed.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 248)
Date of Judgment- February 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
9) Supreme Court grants bail to PMLA accused citing V.Senthil Balaji's case; says trial not likely to be concluded within few years
The Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in light of the fact that he had already suffered incarceration for over a year and the trial was not likely to be concluded within a few years.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellant, who had been arrested for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Cause Title- Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 247)
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
10) Senior designation cannot be monopoly of Advocates practising in higher Constitutional Courts
The Court while issuing certain guidelines regarding the obligations of Senior Advocate and Advocates-on-Record (AORs), observed that the Senior Designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 cannot be the monopoly of Advocates practising in higher Constitutional Courts.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal in which two important issues arose. The first issue was about the conduct of an AOR who filed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) out of which the Appeal arose and the second issue was about the conduct of an Advocate who appeared in the case as a counsel and was later designated as a Senior Advocate.
Cause Title- Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 249)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
11) Court must exercise restraint while determining equivalence between qualifications; conditions of recruitment to be viewed reasonably
The Court allowed the Appeal of the candidates selected for the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in Lakshadweep’s Department of Electricity and observed that it is the appointing authority which has to decide whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence.
The Court was considering the Appeals filed by the candidates whose selections were set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Cause Title- Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 251)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
12) Scope of judicial review in contractual matters involving State or its instrumentality with private participation is limited
The Court held that the scope of judicial review in matters concerning contractual relationship of the State or its instrumentality with private participation, particularly as regards the scope and ambit of work and finances, is limited.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed by a private company against the Order of the Madras High Court by which it disposed of various Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against the conduct of Formula 4 Racing in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, in which certain directions were issued.
Cause Title- Racing Promotions Private Limited v. Dr. Harish & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 252)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
13) Adjudicating authority need not decide jurisdictional questions regarding existence of debt before appointing RP u/s. 97 IBC
The Court observed that the Adjudicating Authority does not adjudicate any point at the stages envisaged in Section 95 to Section 99 of the IBC and need not decide jurisdictional questions regarding the existence of the debt before appointing the resolution professional under Section 97 IBC.
The Court set aside the Order of the Karnataka High Court where it invoked judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution by quashing personal insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against a personal guarantor (Respondent). The Bench restored the Bank of Baroda’s (Appellant) Application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), allowing them to proceed from the stage of the resolution professional's (RP) appointment. It was held that a High Court cannot exercise its Writ jurisdiction to interdict personal insolvency proceedings regarding the existence of a debt under the IBC.
Cause Title- Bank Of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 253)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
14) Conservation Of Paddy Land & Wetland Act| Supreme Court sets aside Kerala HC Judgment that held that 'reclamation fee' is calculable for portion of land in excess of 25 cents
The Court set aside the Kerala High Court Judgment that held that the fee payable by a person would be calculable for the portion of land that is in excess of 25 cents, since that much stands exempted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The issue in these Appeals was the construction of a Government Notification exempting the payment of a fee upon reclamation of land originally reflected in the records of the State as ‘paddy land’ in accordance with the aforesaid 2008 Act.
Cause Title- State of Kerala & Ors. v. Moushmi Ann Jacob (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 255)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
15) Prescription in NMC guidelines such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism: Supreme Court confirms MBBS admission of candidate with disability
The Court while confirming the MBBS Admission of a candidate with disability, observed that a prescription such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by the said candidate against the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench by which it rejected his claim and upheld the denial of his admission to the MBBS Course.
Cause Title- Anmol v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 256)
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2025
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
16) Supreme Court upholds conviction of Traffic Superintendent under Prevention of Corruption Act for forging airline tickets
The Court upheld the concurrent conviction of a Traffic Superintendent accused of forging Indian Airlines tickets thereby obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself and causing loss to the Airlines.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the appellant convicted concurrently by the Trial Court and the High Court, under the impugned judgment, for committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) of 1989 and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each of the offence.
Cause Title- Surinder Dogra v. State Through Director CBI (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 258)
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) Preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Court held that if a superior officer finds a case prima facie disclosing a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry may be avoided under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
The Court allowed the Appeal preferred by the State challenging the Order of the Karnataka High Court which quashed an FIR against the Deputy General Manager (Vigilance)/Executive Engineer (Electrical) at BESCOM (Respondent) who had allegedly acquired assets amounting to over 3 Crores, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Cause Title- State Of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 229)
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Clear distinction exists between work¬-charged & job contract employees: Supreme Court on Odisha Civil Services Pension Rules
The Court held that there is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work¬-charged establishment vis-à-vis those who are in job contract establishment, under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
The Court held thus in a batch of various Civil Appeals preferred by the Odisha State, challenging the Order of the Orissa High Court, Division Bench by which Writ Appeals were dismissed due to inordinate delay in filing the same.
Cause Title- State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 259)
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
19) Personal presence of any party in proceedings under Domestic Violence Act not required unless there is breach of Protection Order
The Court held that there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), except when there is a breach of a Protection Order.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by a husband against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court by which it dismissed Criminal Revision of his authorized representative i.e., his sister.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 254)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta
