Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 14 – July 18, 2025
1) While assessing disability in motor accident compensation claims, there should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of expert
The Court granted enhanced compensation to a skilled mason in a motor accident case after noting that the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability on mere conjectures. It also ruled that there should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an expert, especially in the matter of the assessment of disability.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellant claiming 100% functional disability on account of the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.
Cause Title- Suresh Jatav v. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 821)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
2) Supreme Court grants enhanced compensation to heirs of injured claimant who died due to motor accident during pendency of appeal
In a case of a motor accident where the injured claimant died during the pendency of the Appeal, the Court granted enhanced compensation to the legal heirs. It held that the heirs are entitled to succeed to the enhancement which, if granted before the injured claimant’s death, would have accrued to her estate or rather compensated the loss of her estate.
The injured was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, who died during the pendency of the Appeal. The husband and the two daughters, who are the legal heirs of the original claimant, were substituted as the Appellants. The Appeal was filed for enhanced compensation.
Cause Title- Meena (Dead) Represented Thr. Lrs. v.Prayagraj & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 820)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
3) Supreme Court affirms 9% interest on compensation awarded by MACT; says delay to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest
The Court observed that it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, thus it is to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest.
The Oriental Insurance company filed an SLP against the Order of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court.
Cause Title- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru@ Niharika & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 822)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
4) High Court picked holes in deposition of eyewitness without just cause: Supreme Court while upholding order granting motor accident compensation
The Court set aside an Order disentitling a woman and her three children from any compensation in a motor accident case while noting that the High Court picked holes in the deposition of the eyewitness without just cause.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the wife and the three minor children of the deceased in a motor accident against the Order of the High Court, which found the involvement of the offending vehicle to be suspect. The award of the Tribunal had also been set aside by the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 823)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
5) Aided school teacher is akin to a post under state government for all practical purposes
The Court observed that a teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. It observed that the aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers.
In this case, the Petitioner was the son of a teacher in an aided school, who died while in service. He claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but the same was rejected by the original and appellate authorities as well as the High Court.
Cause Title- Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. And Distt. Wardha & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 824)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
6) No bar on prosecution if criminal offences are made out against parties to civil suit
The Court held that the pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties, is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.
The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the Respondents in two complaint cases registered under Sections 120B, 415, 420, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 818)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
7) Power u/s.482 CrPC not constrained by rigid formula: Supreme Court quashes rape charges based on settlement
The Court quashed two FIRs, including one involving rape charges, in light of the fact that the complainant unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case, and a settlement was arrived at between the parties. It also observed that the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
The Court was considering the Appeals challenging the common Order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants.
Cause Title- Prabhakar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 819)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar
8) Right to appeal accrues on victim from the instance of a court acquitting accused
The Court clarified that the right to Appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the accused.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court’s Single Judge, who dismissed an Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as not maintainable.
Cause Title- Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 828)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
9) Supreme Court upholds conviction of woman accused in her fiancé's murder case; grants time to seek pardon
The Court upheld the conviction of a woman who was accused of being involved in murder of her fiancé in the year 2003 but has also granted her time to seek pardon.
A batch of Criminal Appeals were filed by the accused persons, against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, by which their conviction was upheld for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 830)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
10) Res judicata plea cannot be decided merely on assertions made in application seeking rejection of plaint
The Court held that a plea of Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of the plaint and the objection of Res judicata cannot be taken to bar the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC.
The Court considered an Appeal filed against the decision of High Court of Madras allowing objection to the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground of res judicata.
Cause Title- Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 825)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
11) Necessary to ensure earnest actions: Supreme Court imposes Rs 50k cost for nondisclosure of parallel proceedings before NGT & High Court
The Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Appellants for deliberate nondisclosure of parallel proceedings before the National Green Tribunal and the High Court challenging the same NOC for a petrol pump retail outlet installation.
The Appellants were aggrieved by the setting up of a petrol pump retail outlet on a plot of land situated on Bhopal to Berasia road.
Cause Title- Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 826)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
12) Partnership does not dissolve on partner’s death if there are more than two partners & deed provides otherwise
The Court reiterated that the partnership will be dissolved on the death of the partner only when there are two partners constituting the partnership firm.
The Court reiterated thus in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, which upheld the mandamus issued by the Single Judge directing the IOCL to maintain the supply of kerosene till it is reconstituted or its dealership agreement is terminated.
Cause Title- Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 832)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
13) Conversation recorded without consent & knowledge of person speaking can be admitted as evidence
The Court held that the fact that the conversation was recorded without the consent and knowledge of the person speaking is not a prohibition on the admissibility of the evidence.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed a Civil Revision Petition.
Cause Title- Vibhor Garg v. Neha (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 829)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
14) Abandoning uniformly followed method of selecting assistant professors in higher education with MCQ-based written exam unacceptable
The Court observed that abandoning a time tested and uniformly followed method of selecting Assistant Professors in higher education with Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) based written examination is unacceptable.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Division Bench, which reversed the findings of the Single Judge and upheld the selections made by the State for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree Colleges of Punjab.
Cause Title- Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 834)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
15) Complaint under NI Act maintainable against partners even if partnership firm not named as accused
The Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be maintained against individual partners of a firm even if the firm itself is not named as an accused. It noted that since partners are jointly and severally liable, proceedings against them are valid in law, and such liability does not depend on the firm being separately arraigned.
The Appellant, who was the complainant before the Trial Court, had filed a cheque dishonour complaint against two individuals who were partners of a coir manufacturing partnership firm.
Cause Title- Dhanasingh Prabhu V. Chandrasekar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 831)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
16) No unfettered power on Goa communidade to enter into compromise without tribunal’s sanction
The Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Tribunal to refuse to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by an agricultural association of villagers of Goa while also observing that Article 30 (4) (g) of the Code of Comunidades doesn’t confer an unfettered power on the Communidade to enter into a compromise, without the Tribunal’s sanction.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by a ‘Communidade’ or an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common, and the income derived from these properties accrues in favor of its members. The Appellants were challenging the Judgment by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants stood dismissed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Cause Title- Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez Goa v. State of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 835)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
17) Question of negligence cannot be looked into in a motor accident compensation claim petition u/s. 163A Motor Vehicle Act
The Court observed that while entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the question of negligence cannot be looked into.
An Appeal was filed by the insurance company against the Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court granting compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum.
Cause Title- The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Usha Devi And Others (2025 INSC 836)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
18) Insurer has not challenged chargesheet: Supreme Court affirms compensation awarded by motor accidents claim tribunal
The Court upheld the decision of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowing a claim, and reversed the Judgment of the High Court in favour of the Insurance Company, for the reason inter alia that the Insurance Company did not challenge the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Claimant against the judgment and award by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed and the Claim Petition was dismissed and the award passed by MACT was set aside.
Cause Title- Suhagrani And Others v. Manager Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 INSC 837)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
19) United Spirits engaged in liquor manufacturing is liable for payment of entry tax under M.P. Entry Tax Act
The Court held that the levy of entry tax under the M.P. Entry Tax Act on United Spirits Limited, which holds a license to manufacture and supply beer and IMFL, is perfectly justifiable in law.
The issue before the Court was whether the Appellants were liable for the payment of entry tax under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 [M.P. Entry Tax Act].
Cause Title- M/s United Spirits Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ( Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 833)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
20) Designation of Senior Advocate not a matter of right, cannot be claimed on the basis of seniority or popularity
The Court observed that the designation of a Senior Advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the Court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. It added that the same is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any Advocate claim it merely on the basis of seniority, experience, or popularity.
The Court considered the appointment of Respondents as Senior Advocate by the Orissa High Court.
Cause Title- Orissa High Court & Ors. v. Banshudhar Baug & Ors (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 839)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan
21) Stem cell banks within the scope of ‘healthcare services’; Supreme Court directs refund of Rs. 40 lacs tax deposited
The Court observed that the activity of enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells fell within the scope of exempted “Healthcare Services” and therefore, was not liable to service tax.
The Appellant was a joint venture company of M/s. Stemcyte Inc., USA, M/s. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., and M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and was engaged in the collection, processing, testing, and storage of umbilical cord blood units and their therapeutic application.
Cause Title- M/S. Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd V. Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ahmedabad - III (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 841)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan
22) Mere intimation of death does not satisfy requirement under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC; pleader must disclose legal heirs to enable substitution
The Court set aside a Judgment passed by the Patna High Court, which had abated a Second Appeal due to the non-substitution of deceased Respondents, holding that mere intimation of a party's death does not amount to sufficient compliance with Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court observed that there is an obligation on the pleader not only to inform the court of the death but also to disclose the legal heirs upon whom the right to sue survives.
Cause Title- Binod Pathak & Ors. v. Shankar Choudhary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 842)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan
23) Electricity regulatory commissions not competent to entertain matters on singular ground of public interest
The Court held that the Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are not competent to entertain cases on a singular ground of public interest.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by a company under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which affirmed the Order of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC).
Cause Title- Torrent Power Limited v. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 838)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan
24) Six conditions for granting mandatory injunction under Specific Relief Act: Supreme Court explains
The Court explained certain conditions for granting a mandatory injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA).
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which affirmed the First Appellate Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 843)
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan
25) Promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission: Supreme Court issues directions to all prison authorities
The Court directed all prison authorities to promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed by a physically challenged Advocate, challenging the final Order of the Madras High Court.
Cause Title- L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 844)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan
26) Tenant failed to prove continued possession before issuance of demand notice under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court sets aside order directing restoration of possession
In a case where a tenant failed to produce rent receipts and other evidence regarding continued possession prior to issuance of a demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the Court set aside an Order directing restoration of possession in the tenant’s favor.
The Appellant approached the Court assailing the Judgment of the High Court whereby the secured asset, whose possession was taken by the Appellant, was directed to be handed back to the first Respondent.
Cause Title- PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Manoj Saha & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 847)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
27) When full pension of compulsorily retired employee of central bank of India is reduced, prior consultation with board of directors is necessary
The Court set aside the Orders of the Patna High Court and the Field General Manager reducing the pension of an employee under the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.
It noted that there was no prior consultation with the Board of Directors. The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Patna High Court upholding the reduction of one¬-third of the pension payable to the appellant under the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.
Cause Title- Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 848)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
28) Interest on unpaid penalties is compensatory in nature, not penal
The Court observed that an interest on unpaid penalties is compensatory in nature, not penal and its primary purpose is not to punish the defaulter.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals filed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act), challenging the Judgment of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai, which dismissed the challenge to the notices of attachment.
Cause Title- Jaykishor Chaturvedi & Etc. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 846)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
29) Mere separate registration under different statutes not a basis to claim that units are separate
The Court held that mere separate registration under different statutes cannot be a basis to claim that the units are separate.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by a company, challenging the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which upheld the Order of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.
Cause Title- M/s Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 849)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
30) Supreme Court acquits man who was awarded death penalty; issues directions for cases where DNA evidence is involved
The Court while acquitting a man who was awarded death penalty in murder and rape case, has issued certain directions which shall be followed in all cases where DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Evidence is involved.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by which his conviction under Sections 302, 376, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and death penalty imposed by the Trial Court, were affirmed.
Cause Title- Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 845)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
31) Mere escalation of land prices would not by itself be a ground to deny equitable relief of specific performance
In a case of property dispute, the Court held that by citing escalation of land prices, it could not be contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance of their suit agreement dating back to the year 2001.
The Court observed that mere escalation of land prices would not be a reason, by itself, to deny the equitable relief of specific performance once sufficient grounds are made out for granting such relief. The Appeals before the Court pertained to an agricultural land possessed by the Appellant and later sold to the Respondents.
Cause Title- Krishan Gopal v. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead), Through Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 850)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
32) Can power-of-attorney holder who signs sale deed on behalf of principal become ‘executant’: Supreme Court refers issue to larger bench
The Court referred the issue of whether a power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed on behalf of the principal would become the ‘executant’ thereof and would be covered by Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, to a larger Bench.
The Appeals before the Court challenged the validity of the registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney allegedly executed by one Ranveer Singh and his wife, Gyanu Bai, in favour of their tenant G. Rajender Kumar and the validity of the three registered sale deeds executed by G. Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder, in favour of his wife, G. Shashikala.
Cause Title- G. Kalawathi Bai (Died), Per Lrs. v. G. Shashikala (Died), Per Lrs., and Others Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 851)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
33) Welfare & dignity of both spouses must be prioritized: Supreme Court grants divorce to couple separated for 16 years
The Court while granting divorce to a couple separated for 16 years has reiterated that the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by a Husband against an order wherein the High Court dismissed his Matrimonial Appeal and refused to grant divorce to the parties.
Cause Title- Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 852)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
34) Extremely harsh to expect child to flourish in alien household where biological father is stranger: Supreme Court grants permanent custody to mother who got remarried
The Court granted permanent custody of a child to the mother who got remarried to another man, saying that it would be extremely harsh to expect the child to flourish in an alien household where his own biological father is akin to a stranger to him.
Review Petitions were preferred by the mother before the Court, assailing the common final Judgment of the Kerala High Court.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 853)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
35) Acted in conspiracy with municipal corporation officials: Supreme Court asks authorities to take action against man for raising commercial structure in prohibited zone
The Court upheld the dismissal of a quashing Petition filed by a man accused of raising a commercial structure within a prohibited zone, allegedly with the aid of conniving officials. It noted that he acted in conspiracy with the officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured permissions.
The Appellant had approached the Court assailing the final Judgment dismissing his Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR.
Cause Title- Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 854)
Date of Judgment- July 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
36) "Entitled to family pension under railway rules": Supreme Court grants relief to widow of deceased temporary employee of eastern Indian railways
The Court held that the widow of a deceased railway employee is entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, despite the fact that her husband was a substitute employee who died after serving for over 9 years. It found that the denial of benefits on the ground that the deceased had not completed 10 years of qualifying service was unjustified.
The Appellant was the widow of a substitute Porter appointed by the Indian Railways. Her husband joined in 1986 and was posted as a Guard/Shuntman at Garhara after being medically screened. He served for more than 9 years and 8 months before passing away in harness in 1996.
Cause Title- Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 855)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
37) Constitutional courts must enable statutory regulator to comprehensively regulate all aspects of sector so that remedies aren’t fragmented
The Court observed that the Constitutional Courts must enable the statutory regulator to comprehensively regulate all aspects of the sector such that remedies are not fragmented and certain issues are not left outside the regulator’s domain.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against JSW Hydro Energy Limited.
Cause Title- The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. JSW Hydro Energy Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 857)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
38) Key deficiencies in investigation: Supreme Court acquits man who was awarded death penalty for allegedly killing his 4 family members
The Court acquitted a man who was awarded death penalty for allegedly killing his four family members including two minor children in the year 2013.
Criminal Appeals were preferred by the accused, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld his conviction and confirmed his death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Cause Title- Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 856)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
39) Notice served via registered post deemed to be as per law
The Court while restoring an Ejectment Decree, observed that if Notice is served via Registered Post, it is deemed to have been made in accordance with law.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Order passed by the Additional District Judge was set-aside.
Cause Title- Krishna Swaroop Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 859)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
40) Obligatory to exercise power u/s. 319 CrPC, where evidence reveals complicity of prospective accused: Supreme Court restores summoning order
While setting aside an Order quashing the summons issued against one of the accused persons in a criminal case, the Court observed that if the evidence reveals the complicity of the prospective accused, it becomes obligatory for the authority to exercise the power provided under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Revision quashing the summons issued against the second respondent- Rajendra Prasad Yadav, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Cause Title- Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 860)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
41) Brutality of a crime cannot be the only criterion: Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man convicted for rape & murder of 10-yr-old girl
While observing that the lower Courts only commented on the brutality of the crime and failed to refer to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court commuted the death sentence imposed upon a man who raped and killed a 10-year-old girl. It awarded life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the Appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court affirming the Order convicting the Appellant under Sections 376, 377, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Cause Title- Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 861)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
42) He should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes: Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man who killed wife & children
The Court commuted the death sentence of a man who killed his wife and children and has also ordered that he would await his last breath in prison, without remission.
The Court took note of the mitigating report and the Judgments where the sentence of death has been modified to that of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The Court was considering an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the High Court upholding the punishment of death penalty.
Cause Title- Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaia v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 862)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
43) Absence of consent is sine qua non to sustain a charge u/s. 376 IPC: Supreme Court acquits rape accused
The Court acquitted a man in an alleged case of rape after noting that the prosecutrix only made a positive statement about the occurrence of sexual intercourse and did not imply the same to be against her will. It also ruled that the absence of consent is the sine qua non to sustain a charge under section 376 of the IPC.
The Appeal before the Court arose from a Judgment passed by the Telangana High Court, which confirmed the Judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 363, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, while upholding the Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the High Court reduced the sentence awarded to the Appellant.
Cause Title- Birka Shiva v. The State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 863)
Date of Judgment- July 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
44) Does Limitation Act apply to conciliation & arbitration proceedings initiated u/s. 18 MSMED Act? Supreme Court answers
The Court explained whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to conciliation and arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act).
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court which held that the Facilitation Council cannot entertain time-barred claims for conciliation, and that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to arbitration proceedings under the MSMED.
Cause Title- M/s Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 864)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
45) Omission to mention existence of wife in will raises serious doubt about its genuineness
The Court observed that non-¬mention of wife or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will, is an indication that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence.
The Court dealt with an Appeal filed by the nephew of the Testator of the Will against the order of the High Court stating that the non-mention of wife and the reasons for disinheritance of Wife in the Will exposed absence of ‘free disposing mind’ of the Testator and amounts to suspicious circumstances.
Cause Title- Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through Lr V. Jagir Kaur (Dead) And Anr. Etc (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 866)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
46) Denying female heir right in property only exacerbates gender discrimination: Supreme Court grants relief to tribal woman’s heirs
While holding that the legal heirs of a tribal woman would be entitled to a share in the property of their maternal grandfather, the Court observed that denying a woman her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality and exacerbate gender division.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred against the Judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court affirming the Judgment dismissing the suit of partition filed by the Appellant-Plaintiffs.
Cause Title- Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 865)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
47) License to drive light motor vehicle to be considered 'valid' even for commercial vehicles weighing not more than 7500 kg
The Court held that if a Driver holding a license to only drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), it will however be considered 'valid' for a commercial vehicle weighing not more than 7500 Kg.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which, in turn, was preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.
Cause Title- Sunita & Ors. vs. United India Insurance (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 867)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
48) After a corruption complaint received, independent witnesses of trap team also need to confirm demand made by accused personally
The Court observed that after a complaint related to corruption is received, the independent witnesses of the trap team are also required to confirm the demand made by the accused personally.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which the accused persons were convicted by reversing the finding of acquittal made by the Special Judge.
Cause Title- M. Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 868)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
49) Money can't be recovered in civil disputes by filing FIR, seeking help of police
The Court held that money cannot be recovered by way of filing a First Information Report seeking the help of the Police as the dispute is civil in nature.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order of the Allahabad High Court by which the High Court, in a Writ Petition seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.4 for cheating, directed the parties to go for mediation and simultaneously directed the Appellant to hand over a demand draft of ₹25,00,0000/-.
Cause Title- Shailesh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 14, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
50) Misused process of criminal law in case which was of purely civil nature: Supreme Court imposes ₹10L cost on complainant
The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the Complainant for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.
A Criminal Appeal was filed against the final Order of the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR.
Cause Title- Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 870)
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
51) Consider incorporating rule imposing obligation on accused to disclose his involvement in any other previously registered criminal case in bail applications: Supreme Court to High Courts
While expunging the remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a Judicial Officer, the Court held that every High Court should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal cases previously registered.
The Appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, had approached the Court assailing the strictures passed against him in an Order passed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
Cause Title- Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajashtan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 871)
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
52) whether abatement of appeal on non-substitution of deceased party is partial or whole?: Supreme Court explains
The Court summarized the law governing determination of the issue as to whether abatement of an Appeal on non-substitution of a deceased party is partial or whole.
The Court was hearing a batch of Civil Appeals arising from a Civil Suit which was dismissed by the Trial Court and decreed by the First Appellate Court.
Cause Title- Suresh Chandra (deceased) thr. LRs. & Ors. v. Parasram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 873)
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
53) Any agreement or clause contemplating further consent before reference to arbitration is not an arbitration agreement
The Court upheld an Order dismissing an Application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator and observed that any agreement, or clause in an agreement, requiring or contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to arbitration, is not an arbitration agreement.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Order whereby the Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed on the ground of non-existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.
Cause Title- BGN and M-RPL-JMCT(JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 874)
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
54) Section 32B NDPS Act allows broader discretion to court in sentencing; doesn't restrict it to only those factors listed under it
The Court observed that Section 32-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 uses the term “may deem fit” in addition to the enumerated factors and allows broader discretion to the Court in sentencing.
The Court was considering a Special Leave Petition where the Petitioner was put to trial in a case registered under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
Cause Title- Narayan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 872)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
55) Liberty granted to file fresh suit by High Court would not enable the party to revive cause of action, save limitation
The Court held that the liberty granted to file a fresh suit by the High Court wouldn't enable the party to revive a cause of action and save limitation, so as to enable raking up all grounds earlier raised and rejected by concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal.
The Court was considering a Special Leave Petition against an Order of the High Court affirming the Trial and Appellate Court's findings in a Special Appeal and granting liberty to the Party to file a fresh suit.
Cause Title- Arifa & Ors. vs. Abhiman Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 875)
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2025
Coram- Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
