Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 13 – May 16, 2025
1) Absence of direct seizure not dispositive where there exists a pattern of covert coordination: Supreme Court denies bail to Mundra Port Drug Case accused
The Court denied bail to the Mundra Port drug case accused, while remarking that even though no heroin or narcotic substances were directly recovered from the consignment linked to the accused, the absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination.
The Court dismissed an Appeal against the decision of the Gujarat High Court that denied regular bail to the accused in connection with an FIR registered by the National Investigation Agency under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), Sections 17, 18, and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Section 120B of the IPC.
Cause Title- Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 662)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
2) Restricts legal right to derive commercial benefit from property: Supreme Court vacates injunction against land owner in tenancy case
Expounding on the law governing the grant of an interim injunction, the Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court's Order restraining the owner of the property from creating any third-party interest in the disputed premises in a tenancy case.
The Court held that injunction significantly circumscribed the owner’s legal right to derive commercial benefit from his property. The Appeal was directed against the Order passed by the Bombay High Court restraining the Appellant from dispossessing the first Respondent or creating any third-party interest in the disputed premises.
Cause Title- Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 663)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
3) Forging Court records which are not in custody of Court does not attract Section 195 CrPC
The Court held that the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not apply where Court records are forged or tampered with after the conclusion of judicial proceedings.
In this case, the Appellant, acting as the power of attorney holder for a financial partnership firm, filed a Civil Suit for recovery of money against a borrower.
Cause Title- Tushar Parshottam Shantilal Chaddarwala v. State Of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 664)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
4) Bail cannot be granted to murder accused merely because no overt act is attributed to him in FIR
The Court held that merely because no overt act is attributed to an accused in the FIR, the same cannot be the sole consideration for the grant of bail in a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It set aside the bail granted to an accused who allegedly hired a contract killer to get another man murdered during a wedding procession.
The Court set aside the Impugned Order of the Rajasthan High Court, which had earlier allowed the bail Application of the accused on the basis of parity, observing that two co-accused in the case had already been granted bail on the same set of allegations. The Prosecution alleged that the accused had hired a contract killer to kill the victim in a “planned and pre-meditated manner” in the middle of a marriage procession.
Cause Title- Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 666)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Prasanna B Varale
5) Should practice of 'senior gown' be discontinued? Supreme Court asks High Courts to take a call
The Court left it on the High Courts to take a call regarding the practice of designated Senior Advocates using different type of gowns.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2025 INSC 249) in which earlier a two-Judge Bench expressed certain concerns regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates laid down in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017).
Cause Title- Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 667)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
6) Can’t bisect claims as arbitrable & non-arbitrable while appointing arbitrator u/s. 11
While reiterating that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of the Arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of a prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, the Court allowed an Appeal against a Delhi High Court Order whereby certain claims were excluded by holding them as non-arbitrable.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the Judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby, while appointing an arbitral tribunal in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court excluded certain claims by holding them to be non-arbitrable/excepted matters in view of clause 50 and 50.2 of the agreement.
Cause Title- Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 665)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
7) Section 4 Competition Act doesn’t per se prohibit dominance; effects-based analysis is obligatory component of every inquiry
The Court held that Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, does not per se prohibit dominance and effects-based analysis is an obligatory component of every inquiry under the said provision.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and another under Section 53T of the Act, challenging a Common Order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).
Cause Title- Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 668)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
8) Supreme Court asks homebuyer to pay over Rs 1.4 crore to developer in lieu of clearance of dues of alternate apartment offered
In a case where an alternate apartment was offered by the Developer in place of the original flat allotted to the homebuyer, the Court asked the buyer to pay over Rs 1.4 crore to the developer in lieu of clearance of the dues of the alternate flat.
The Court noted that the buyer had taken possession, subject to the earlier Orders of the Court. It further held that there needed to be some adjustment of equities between the parties as the Appellant-developer had been maintaining the apartment and paying the essential charges to the respective bodies/ associations. The Developer had approached the Court with a Miscellaneous Application seeking appropriate directions.
Cause Title- Jawala Real Estate Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Haresh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 669)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
9) Denying pension solely on ground of employees’ origin in societies amounts to unjust discrimination: Supreme Court grants relief to absorbed employees of MPSEB
The Court granted relief to employees of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board observing that denying pension to the employees solely on the ground of their origin in the societies amounts to unjust discrimination.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Full Bench, Jabalpur in a bunch of Writ Appeals.
Cause Title- Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 670)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
10) Growing tendency to append every relative of husband casts serious doubt: Supreme Court acquits accused in S. 498A IPC case
The Court acquitted an accused in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) saying that the growing tendency to append every relative of the husband casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the wife.
The Court was dealing with Criminal Appeals filed by a man against the Order of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld his conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).
Cause Title- ABC v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 671)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
11) Delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity
The Court observed that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity.
The Court set aside the Impugned Order by the Madras High Court, which allowed the Revision preferred by the Appellant against the decision of the Trial Court, which had allowed the Application by the Respondents for condonation of delay. It held that the repetition of grounds in applications for condonation of delay, even if filed under different provisions of the law but already scrutinised and held untenable, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Cause Title- Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 672)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
12) Offence u/s 13(1)(e) PC Act can also be abetted by any person who is not a public servant
The Court held that an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can also be abetted by any person who is not a Public Servant.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the ex-wife (Appellant) of an accused in a corruption case who was held guilty by the Trial Court of abetting her husband in acquiring such disproportionate assets. The Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court, holding that even a non-public servant can be convicted under Section 109 of the IPC read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act).
Cause Title- P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 674)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
13) Married daughter not eligible for loss of dependency compensation under Motor Vehicles Act unless she proves financial dependence on deceased
While upholding the Order reducing the compensation awarded to a married daughter of a woman who died in a motor accident, the Court reiterated that a married daughter may be considered as a legal representative but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven that she was financially dependent on the deceased.
The Appeals before the Court challenged the common Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court reduced the compensation payable to the married daughter of the deceased and dismissed the claim in so far as it related to the deceased’s mother (second Appellant) in a case arising out of a Claim Petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Cause Title- Deep Shikha & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 675)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) Supreme Court asks BSE to withhold sale value of shares of company allegedly involved in fraudulent transaction
The Court set aside an Order directing the release of over Rs 15 lakh in favour of a company alleged to be the main beneficiary of a fraudulent transaction involving the trade of shares/securities.
The Court noted that the release of the sale value of the shares may vitiate the entire investigation. The Appellant company assailed the Order passed by the Delhi High Court allowing a Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) filed by the Respondent company, thereby directing the release of Rs 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) as payout for the sale of certain shares.
Cause Title- NDA Securities Ltd. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 676)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
15) Unskilled worker entitled to claim monthly income of ₹10,000: Supreme Court awards enhanced compensation in motor accident case
While observing that an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim a monthly income of Rs. 10,000, the Court awarded over Rs. 35 lakhs as compensation to a man left bedridden after a motor accident.
The claimant, in this case, had already asserted an annual income of Rs. 9,000. The Appellant worker had approached the Court seeking enhanced compensation.
Cause Title- Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 673)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
16) State must get maximum value of its resources when State-owned assets are passed over to private entities
The Court reiterated that the State ‘must’ get the ‘maximum value’ of the resources, especially when State-owned assets are passed over to private individuals/entities.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the State of Telangana, setting aside a High Court Judgment that favoured a charitable trust in a land dispute. The Court's decision centred on whether the transfer of land was a sale or an allotment and the validity of conditions imposed on the land's use.
Cause Title- The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 679)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
17) Party not having privity to contract cannot be made liable for any terms & conditions unrelated to it
The Court clarified that a party not having privity to a contract cannot be, unless the context otherwise makes it apparent, made liable for any terms and conditions unrelated to it.
The Court allowed an Appeal by the HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC Ltd), setting aside a judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and restoring the order of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) in a dispute concerning the cost of constructing a Bay at a switching station.
Cause Title- The HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 680)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
18) MSMED Act has overriding effect over Arbitration & Conciliation Act
The Court reiterated that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006 has an overriding effect over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that even the agreement between the parties stands overridden by the statutory provisions under the MSMED Act.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Order passed by the Karnataka High Court whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent was allowed, and it was held that the Delhi Arbitration Centre lacks jurisdiction to manage arbitral proceedings as the contract between the Appellant and the Respondent provides that the seat for arbitration shall be at Bengaluru.
Cause Title- M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 689)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
19) Eyewitnesses' failure to identify accused in Court is fatal to prosecution's case: Supreme Court acquits 8 accused in murder case
The Court acquitted eight accused persons in a murder case on the ground that the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the Court is fatal to the prosecution's case.
The Court was hearing a batch of Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which confirmed the Sessions Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 683)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
20) Supreme Court directs reconsideration of Brigadier’s case for promotion to rank of Major General, directs expunction of figurative ratings of ACR
While directing the expunction of figurative ratings made in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR), the Court directed the reconsideration of a case of a Brigadier’s promotion to the rank of Major General.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by a Brigadier aggrieved by his non- empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major General.
Cause Title- Brig Sandeep Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 685)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih
21) Crude degummed soyabean oil not an agricultural product; distinct from soyabean
The Court held that a crude degummed soyabean oil cannot be treated as an agricultural product.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by a trading company namely Noble Resources and Trading India Private Limited, against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
Cause Title- Noble Resources and Trading India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 684)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
22) Restrictive covenant prescribing minimum employment term not unreasonable: Supreme Court upholds condition asking bank employee to pay Rs. 2 lakhs on untimely resignation
The Court upheld a clause in an appointment letter issued by a Bank imposing liquidated damages to the tune of Rs 2 lakh in the event of pre-mature resignation. It held that the restrictive covenant prescribing a minimum term couldn’t be said to be unconscionable or in contravention of public policy.
The Appellants approached the Court challenging the Judgment passed by the High Court quashing clause 11(k) of the appointment letter whereby the Respondent-employee was required to pay liquidated damages of Rs 2 lakh in the event of leaving employment of the first Appellant-bank prior to three years and consequentially the bank was directed to refund the said sum to the Respondent.
Cause Title- Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 691)
Date of Judgment- May 14, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
23) Pensionary benefit can’t be treated as pecuniary advantage liable to be deducted for computation of motor accident compensation
The Court clarified that pensionary benefit cannot be treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for the purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).
The Court modified the Order of the Karnataka High Court by enhancing the motor accident compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the Appellant. The Court clarified that any amount receivable on account of PF, pension or insurance cannot be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose of determining the income or loss of earning for calculating compensation.
Cause Title- Hanumantharaju B (Dead) By LR. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 682)
Date of Judgment- May 13, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
24) High time that arbitration clauses are worded with piercing precision & clarity; not couched in ambiguous phraseology
The Court observed that arbitration clauses must be worded with piercing precision and clarity and not couched in ambiguous phraseology. It advised the legal fraternity against engaging in such practices, resulting in a “criminal wastage of precious judicial time.”
The Court remarked, “Indeed, their professional credentials will not earn any stripes if they indulge in such juggling of words.”
Cause Title- South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. SMS Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 693)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
25) Secured creditors cannot claim priority of interest against properties attached under MPID Act
The Court held that the Secured Creditors cannot claim priority of interest against the properties attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition challenging the validity of the Orders passed by the Supreme Court Committee.
Cause Title- National Spot Exchange Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 694)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
26) Adhere to POCSO Act timelines; create dedicated Courts to try POCSO cases: Supreme Court to Centre & State Governments
The Court observed that timelines stipulated under the POCSO Act should be adhered to as far as possible. It asked the Centre and State Governments to take steps to sensitize the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also create dedicated Courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis.
While closing the Suo-moto proceedings, the Court further directed that the trials be completed within the time frame as contemplated in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Cause Title- In Re : Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 695)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
27) Pre-litigation mediation u/s. 12A Commercial Courts Act mandatory; non-compliance can result in rejection of plaint
The Court reiterated that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA) is mandatory in nature.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which disposed of the Revision Application.
Cause Title- M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 696)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
28) CERC has regulatory powers u/s 79 Electricity Act which is not limited to only adjudicatory orders
The Court held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which is not limited to only adjudicatory orders, but also includes administrative functions.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench which admitted the Writ Petitions of the Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited (MPPTCL).
Cause Title- Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 697)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
29) Lack of jurisdiction plea in Petition u/s. 34 A&C Act can be allowed only when party makes out strong reason for its failure to take it before Arbitral Tribunal
The Court held that a plea of lack of jurisdiction can be allowed only when the party makes out a strong reason for its failure to take such a plea before the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench which dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Cause Title- M/s Gayatri Project Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 698)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Power of arbitrator to award pre-reference & pendente lite interest not restricted when agreement is silent on whether interest can be awarded
The Court reiterated that the power of the arbitrator to award pre-reference and pendente lite interest is not restricted when the agreement is silent on whether such interest can be awarded or not.
The Court allowed an Appeal against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that had allowed an Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), setting aside parts of an Order passed by the Single Bench under Section 34 of the Act. The Single Bench’s Order had upheld certain directions in an arbitral award. Under the Act, the power of the arbitrator to grant interest is governed by the statutory provision in Section 31(7).
Cause Title- M/S. Interstate Construction v. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 699)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
31) Persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas must be appointed as Receivers of Mathura temples
The Court emphasised that the persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas must be appointed as the Receivers of Mathura temples.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by one Ishwar Chanda Sharma, challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a Contempt Application.
Cause Title- Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 700)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
32) Supreme Court directs all States & UTs to handover possession of ‘forest lands’ held by revenue department to forest department
The Court directed all the State Governments and the Union Territories to hand over the possession of the lands which are recorded as ‘Forest Land’ being in possession of the Revenue Department, to the Forest Department.
The Court was deciding a case in which the alleged nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders resulted in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose.
Cause Title- In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 701)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
33) Benefit of mollification of sentence can’t be given when repealing statute expressly saves penalty incurred under repealed statute
The Court held that the benefit of mollification of sentence cannot be given when a “repeal and savings” clause in the repealing statute expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute.
The Court held thus in two Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons, arising from different incidents of crime and questioning the correctness of two decisions of the respective High Courts involving the same question of law.
Cause Title- Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 703)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
34) Insistence of caste certificate in a requisite format not a mere formality: Supreme Court upholds non-selection of candidate by UPPRPB
The Court upheld the non-selection of a candidate by the UPPRPB who did not submit his caste certificate in a specified format as per the format prescribed at the time of the notification issued.
The Court remarked that a candidate cannot take shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere formality which could have been dispensed with since they had certificates issued in the other format. The Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the candidate against his non-selection due to the format of the certificate.
Cause Title- Mohit Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 704)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
35) Supreme Court upholds conviction of 2 men accused of illegal trade of tiger skin & wild animal products
The Court upheld the conviction of two men accused of indulging in the illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products.
The Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by two convicts under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by upholding the conviction but modifying the sentence imposed by the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- Rajesh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 705)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
36) Children & parents entitled to motor accident compensation for loss of consortium
The Court reiterated that the children and the parents of the deceased are entitled to motor accident compensation for loss of consortium.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the widow, three minor children and parents of a man who died in a motor accident.
Cause Title- Hansa Devi & Ors. v. SBI General Insurance Company imited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 706)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
37) Insurance company cannot be required to ensure future well-being of motor accident victim
While assessing the value of future well being of a 22-yr-old motor accident victim who suffered leg amputation, the Court held that the Insurance Company which has indemnified the owner of the motor vehicle as against any loss of estate is not required to ensure the future wellbeing, which in any event can be computed in monetary terms and awarded as “just compensation.”
The Insurance Company approached the Court challenging the Order of the High Court, which directed the Appellant to provide prosthetic limbs and one motorized wheelchair and also ensure their proper functioning at least twice a year.
Cause Title- The Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 707)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
38) Allegation of land grabbing by itself doesn’t give rise to presumption; presumption arises only when ownership is prima facie established
The Court explained that the allegation of land grabbing by itself does not give rise to the presumption of ownership, which arises only when prima facie the ownership is established.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by an individual accused of being a 'land grabber', upholding the Order for his eviction from a property he claimed to have duly acquired. The Court affirmed that the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act were correctly invoked in this instance.
Cause Title- V.S.R. Mohan Rao v. K.S.R. Murthy (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 708)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
39) Meaningful contact with both parents integral for child’s welfare: Supreme Court sets custody arrangement for father working overseas
While ordering that the father working overseas would have custody of his daughter over the weekends when he visits India, the Court observed that meaningful contact with both parents is an integral component for the child’s welfare.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court declining to set aside an interim-custody arrangement made by the Family Court and directing the appellant–father to continue moving a fresh application each time he visited India for overnight access to his minor daughter.
Cause Title- A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 709)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
40) State police shielding their own fellow policemen: Supreme Court orders CBI probe into custodial death
The Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation into the custodial death of a man, while remarking that the State police are shielding their own fellow policemen.
The Deceased was taken into custody by the Myana Police Station in connection with a theft and house trespass incident. The Appellants, the mother and aunt of the deceased, alleged custodial torture and sought transfer of the investigation to an independent agency.
Cause Title- Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 711)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
41) Defence’s plea a fictional story created to escape conviction: Supreme Court affirms husband’s conviction in dowry death case
The Court upheld the conviction of a husband in a dowry death case, while remarking that the defence’s plea is a fictional story created by the accused as an afterthought to escape conviction.
The Court dismissed the Appeal of a husband accused under 304-B of the IPC by the Trial Court, a decision that was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well. The father of the victim had alleged that his daughter was subjected to harassment, taunts, and physical abuse soon after the marriage. The prosecution alleged that the victim had jumped down from the roof of the house and ended her life due to persistent harassment and demands of dowry meted out to her by her matrimonial house.
Cause Title- Virender Pal @ Vipin v. The State Of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 710)
Date of Judgment- May 15, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta
42) Supreme Court emphasizes need of Court Managers to assist Judges, directs their regularization after clearing suitability test
Emphasizing the need of the Court Managers to assist the Judges in administrative works, the Court issued directions to the High Court to frame rules providing for recruitment as well as conditions of service of the Managers. The Court also directed that the services of the Court Managers, who are already working either on a contractual or consolidated pay basis or on an ad hoc basis, be continued and regularised, subject to their passing the suitability test.
The Court was considering the issue pertaining to the situation of Court Managers, who were introduced by the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010-2015) to enhance the efficiency of court management by providing administrative support to the judges, resulting in improved case disposal.
Cause Title- All India Judges Association And Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 713)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
43) Satisfaction recorded in execution petition arising out of permanent prohibitory injunction won't result in dismissal of further petition filed on ground of subsequent interference
While restoring an Execution Petition, the Court explained that a satisfaction recorded in one Execution Petition arising out of permanent prohibitory injunction would not result in the dismissal of a further Petition filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.
The Bench further held that when a permanent injunction is granted, it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees, successors, and it could be enforced at any time, breach is occasioned. The Appeals before the Court arose from an Order of the High Court, dismissing a Writ Petition and a Review Petition.
Cause Title- Saraswati Devi & Ors. Appellant(S) Versus Santosh Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 715)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
44) Supreme Court upholds quashing of Kerala Govt. Order on BPL Corpus Fund for medical education
The Court upheld a Kerala High Court Judgment quashing a Government Order which validated the decision to remit to the State the corpus fund created to subsidize medical education for Below Poverty Line (BPL) students admitted to self ¬financing medical educational institutions in the State.
The corpus fund was created by remitting to the State Government a part of the fees collected from Non ¬Resident Indian (NRI) students admitted to those colleges. The Court also held that the self¬ financing medical colleges are entitled to retain the fees transferred to the State for the creation of the ‘corpus fund’.
Cause Title- The State of Kerala and Ors. v. The Principal, KMCT Medical College and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 518)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
45) Parties litigated for more than 20 yrs; need to bring dispute to a close: Supreme Court in ISKCON Mumbai v. ISKCON Bangalore case
The Court closed the dispute between the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (ISKCON Mumbai) and ISKCON Bangalore.
The Court was dealing with Civil Appeals and a group of cases with two Suits involving ISKCON Mumbai registered as a public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) having a registered office in Juhu, Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 having a registered office in Bangalore.
Cause Title- Prasannatma Das v. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (Dead) and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 717)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
46) Can there be development at the cost of environment?: Supreme Court strikes down notifications permitting ex post facto environmental clearances
The Court struck down the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM issued by the Central Government, which provided for the grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearances (EC), declaring them illegal.
The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2017 (2017 notification) was issued to deal with projects that had started work or expanded without obtaining prior EC, providing a window for them to apply for ex post facto EC. The Office Memorandum (2021 OM) was subsequently issued as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling violation cases.
Cause Title- Vanashakti v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 718)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
47) Bar of altering Judgment u/s. 362 CrPC almost absolute; remedying abuse of process of law & meeting ends of justice are the only exceptions
The Court ruled that the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for altering/reviewing a judgment is almost absolute. The only exceptions to the bar, which would permit the invocation of inherent powers, would be if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to remedy the abuse of the process of law.
The Appeals by special leave before the Court called into question the correctness of the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in which an FIR that had earlier been quashed and set aside was restored to the file and the concerned authorities were directed to restart the investigation.
Cause Title- Raghunath Sharma & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 723)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol
48) Political vendetta by itself not a sufficient ground: Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to AP liquor scam case accused
The Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to P. Krishna Mohan Reddy and K. Dhananjaya Reddy in a case involving alleged misappropriation within the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL).
The Court held that political vendetta or bias alone is not sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail if there are other prima facie materials on record. The Court noted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the Petitioners, finding that more than a prima facie case had been made out against them.
Cause Title- P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 725)
Date of Judgment- May 16, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
