Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 19 – May 23, 2025
1) Follow one rank one pension principle: Supreme Court directs Centre to pay ₹15L to retired HC CJs & ₹13.5L to retired HC judges as full pension
The Court directed the Central Government to pay Rs. 15 lakhs per annum (p.a.) to the retired Chief Justices of the High Courts and Rs. 13.5 lakhs p.a. to the retired Judges of the High Courts as a full pension.
The Court took suo motu cognizance of the batch of matters concerning various issues regarding pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits.
Cause Title- In Re: Refixation of pension considering service period in District Judiciary and High Court (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 726)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
2) Multiplicity of proceedings not in larger public interest: Supreme Court orders clubbing of FIRs against MD accused of running fraudulent investment schemes
In a case of alleged fraudulent investment schemes being run by a Managing Director of a realty developer company, the Court ordered the consolidation of FIRs registered against him in each of the States to one district within the respective States.
The Petition before the Court was filed seeking issuance of a direction for clubbing and transferring the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the Petitioner in each of the States to one district within the respective States.
Cause Title- Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 727)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
3) Plea of improbability has no legal force in presence of eye-witnesses & their testimony: Supreme Court upholds conviction in acid attack case
The Court upheld the conviction of an accused in an acid attack case while remarking that the plea of improbability has no legal force in the presence of eyewitnesses and their testimony.
The Court partly allowed an Appeal in a case involving an acid attack, modifying the sentence of one accused while upholding the conviction and sentence of another. The Appeals challenged the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 326A of the IPC against the accused.
Cause Title- Hakim v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 728)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
4) Merely putting forth resignation insufficient for discharging liability of a partner in a partnership firm
The Court held that merely putting forth a resignation is insufficient for discharging the liability of a partner of the partnership Firm as an authorised signatory under the NI Act unless a proper entry to the said effect has been given effect to.
The Court set aside an Order of the Karnataka High Court that had quashed proceedings against a former partner of a firm in a case concerning the dishonour of a cheque. The Appeal challenged the Order by the Single Bench of the High Court, which had allowed a Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Petition had challenged proceedings arising from a complaint filed by the Appellant under Section 200 of the CrPC for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
Cause Title- Shivappa Reddy v. S. Srinivasan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 729)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
5) Belated reassessment conducted by insurance company is arbitrary: Supreme Court sends matter back to NCDRC
Terming the belated reassessment conducted by the Insurance Company through a second survey as arbitrary, the Court sent a consumer complaint case back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for adjudication upon the quantum of compensation.
The Appeal before the Court was filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) against the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) in a consumer case whereby the NCDRC dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant.
Cause Title- Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 731)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
6) Inclusion of name in draft NRC would not annul Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration that a person is a foreigner
The Court upheld an Order declaring a person to be a foreigner and observed that, consequent to the Tribunal's declaration that the person is a foreigner, his name could not have been included in the draft NRC. The Bench held that even if the name had been included, it would not annul the Tribunal's declaration.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946, whereunder, the Appellant was declared a foreigner, who entered India illegally after March 25, 1971. Aggrieved by the declaration that the appellant is a foreigner and dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging such declaration, the Appeal was filed.
Cause Title- Rofiqul Hoque v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citaiton:2025 INSC 730)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
7) Encashment of bank guarantees offered as security can’t be treated as payment of customs duty: Supreme Court allows Patanjali’s plea
The Court allowed Civil Appeals filed by Patanjali Foods Limited, saying that the encashment of bank guarantees offered as security cannot be treated as payment of customs duty.
The Appeals before the Court challenged the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench in the Special Civil Applications.
Cause Title- M/s Patanjali Foods Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 733)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
8) High Courts can exercise power u/s 482 CrPC for quashing Domestic Violence Act proceedings pending before Magistrate
The Court held that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, pending before the Court of the Magistrate.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed the Appellant’s prayer to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The High Court had held that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were civil in nature and thus could not be quashed using Section 482 of the CrPC.
Cause Title- S v. V (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 734)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
9) 3-yr legal practice experience for entry-level civil judges to be counted from date on which provisional registration granted to candidate
The Court while restoring 3-year minimum legal practice experience for entry-level Civil Judges, held that the experience should be counted from the date on which provisional registration has been granted to a candidate.
The Court was deciding a batch of Applications raising issues pertaining to the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different levels within the Judicial Services.
Cause Title- All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 735)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
10) JJ Act 2015 does not confer the power of review upon Juvenile Justice Board
The Court held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) does not confer the power of review upon the Juvenile Justice Board.
The Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which held that the date of birth of the accused mentioned in the school certificate was determinative and it did not find any reason to disbelieve or ignore the same. It upheld that the accused was a juvenile delinquent on the date of the incident alleged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Rajni v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 737)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
11) Just because money changed hands, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that it’s pursuant to demand for illegal gratification
The Court held that just because money changed hands, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand for illegal gratification.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere, thereby upholding the Order of the Karnataka High Court that had set aside the conviction of an Extension Officer (Respondent) in the office of the Taluka Panchayath, who had been found guilty by the Special Court under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Cause Title- State Of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 736)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
12) Questions put to accused in most mechanical manner: Supreme Court sets aside conviction in 1982 corruption case
The Court set aside the conviction in a corruption case on the ground that the questions were put to the accused persons in a most mechanical manner.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Patna High Court which dismissed their Appeals.
Cause Title- Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 738)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
13) Issue of property being benami & not covered by exception is to be decided on the basis of evidence & not simply on mere plaint averments
The Court upheld the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in light of the fact that the suit properties couldn’t ex-facie be held to be benami properties. The Court explained that the issue whether the property is benami and is not covered by the exception, is an issue which is to be decided on the basis of evidence and not simply on mere averments contained in the plaint.
The two Special Leave Petitions had been preferred, one by the second defendant to the suit and the other by one of the subsequent purchasers (defendant 5) of some of the suit properties against the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure by the court of first instance as well as the High Court in revision.
Cause Title- Smt. Shaifali Gupta v. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 739)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
14) Promotional avenues claimed only available to officers of different cadre: Supreme Court dismisses Appeal of officer working at carpet weaving training centre
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Carpet Training Officer (CTO) working at a carpet weaving training centre of the All India Handicrafts Board, claiming promotional avenues which were available to Handicrafts Promotion Officers under the marketing scheme and not to Officers under the Carpet Scheme.
The Court also noted that the carpet scheme was closed and all the officials in the cadre of CTOs in the carpet scheme, other than Jammu & Kashmir, were declared as surplus. The challenge in the Appeal was laid to the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Cause Title- Rampat Azad (R.P. Azad) v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 740)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
15) Mere delay during inquiry proceedings not a basis for vitiating departmental proceedings when time taken is explained
The Court held that mere delay during inquiry proceedings cannot be made the basis for vitiating departmental proceedings when the time taken for the inquiry to conclude is explained.
The Court upheld the Order of the Bombay High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had sustained the dismissal of a former teacher (Appellant) from service. The primary grounds for challenging the Orders were alleged violations of the principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of a preliminary Inquiry Report and an inordinate delay of nine years in the inquiry proceedings.
Cause Title- S. Janaki Iyer v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 742)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
16) Victimized at the fag end of unblemished career of 34 years: Supreme Court grants retiral benefits to bank employee, quashes disciplinary proceedings
In a case where an order of suspension was served upon a Bank employee only ten months before the date of his superannuation, the Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him after noting that he was sought to be victimized at the fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge sheet served on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings.
Cause Title- A.M. Kulshrestha V. Union Bank of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 744)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
17) No allegation of accepting any gratification: Supreme Court sets aside corruption charges against ex-PWD engineer
The Court set aside corruption charges against an Ex-Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, Porvorim, Goa, while maintaining the order framing charges for criminal breach of trust & forgery. The Court noted that there was no allegation that the accused agreed to accept or accepted any gratification. The appellant had challenged the order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application.
The Appellant had challenged the order framing charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Cause Title- K. H. Kamaladini v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 745)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
18) Motor accident trial is summary in nature; rigours of procedure can’t be allowed to defeat its purpose
The Court awarded enhanced compensation in a case of motor accident after noting that no case of contributory negligence was made out. The Apex Court also observed that the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature.
The Court was considering a challenge to the common order whereby the Punjab and Haryana High Court had partially upheld the order passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (MACT) to the extent of the application of the principle of contributory negligence.
Cause Title- Rajo Devi & Anr. Etc. v. Manjeet Kaur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 741)
Date of Judgment- May 19, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
19) Reporting authority has to be superior officer from IFS except in case of PCCF rank
The Court clarified that except the PCCF (Principal Chief Conservator of Forests), the “reporting authority” has to be a superior officer from the IFS (Indian Forest Service).
The Court clarified thus in a batch of Applications pertaining to an issue as to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) would be a “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of the officers working in the IFS.
Cause Title- In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the officers of the Indian Forest Service (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 748)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
20) Supreme Court directs reconsideration of grading given to Lieutenant Colonel seeking notional promotion
The Court came to the aid of a Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel who was considered by the Selection Board for promotion on five occasions between 2000 and 2003,but was not empanelled to the rank of Colonel.
The Court has now directed the reconsideration of the grading given to him. The Appellant challenged the Judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (Tribunal).
Cause Title- Lt. Col NK Ghai (Retd.) v. Union of India and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 750)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
21) IAF doesn’t have pervasive control over functioning of IAF schools even if it determines pay scales
The Court with 2:1 majority has held that the Indian Air Force (IAF) does not have pervasive control over the functioning of IAF schools even if it determines the pay scales applicable to the said schools.
The Court held thus in a batch of two Civil Appeals in which the issue involved was whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a “State or Authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Cause Title- Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 749)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
22) Supreme Court acquits man of murder; says conviction can’t be based on only circumstance of last seen together
The Court acquitted a man accused of murder while reiterating that a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of being last seen together. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court, thereby acquitting the Appellant of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
The Appeal challenged the Order of the Orissa High Court, which had affirmed the Appellant's conviction.
Cause Title- Padman Bibhar v. State Of Odisha (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 751)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
23) Supreme Court directs Centre to file affidavit on feasibility of permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes
The Court directed the Central Government to file an Affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a period of 3 months.
The Court directed thus in a batch of numerous Appeals and Review Petitions out of which two sets of Civil Appeals pertained to the Maharashtra State and one pertained to the Telangana State.
Cause Title- Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors. v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 752)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice M.M. Sundresh
24) Give wide publicity to Rajmargyatra mobile app; report compliance on redressal portal concerning unauthorized occupation: Supreme Court to highway administration
The Court issued a slew of directions concerning highway safety and disputes related to unauthorized occupation. It asked the Highway Administration to give wide publicity to the availability of the ‘Rajmargyatra’ mobile application and to report compliance regarding the creation of a grievance redressal portal for reporting complaints relating to unauthorized occupation of highways.
The Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on the issue of the safety of the National Highways.
Cause Title- Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 753)
Date of Judgment- May 21, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih
25) Zudpi jungle land can be considered for compensatory afforestation if there’s chief secretary’s certificate on non-availability of non-forest land
The Court held that the Zudpi Jungle land can be considered for the purposes of compensatory afforestation only if there is a Chief Secretary’s certificate on non-availability of non-forest land.
The Court held thus in a batch of Applications involving a peculiar issue concerning the situation prevailing in the six districts of Eastern Vidarbha Region namely Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur, and Gadchiroli. The issue was related to the status of the parcels of lands known as Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi Forest in the said districts of Maharashtra State.
Cause Title- In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 754)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
26) Accused does not have the right to file material or documents at the stage of framing of charges
The Court reiterated that an accused does not have the right to file material or documents at the stage of framing of charges.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the State, setting aside an Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which affirmed the Special Court's Order discharging the accused in a case involving alleged irregularities in cotton procurement by the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI). The Court directed the Special Court to re-examine the framing of charges under Section 239 of the CrPC.
Cause Title- State v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 758)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti
27) Operation of circular resolving ambiguity of previous notifications would be retrospective: Supreme Court grants benefit of 1% air customs duty drawback to exporter
While declaring operation of a Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs concerning the All Industry Rate (AIR) Duty Drawbacks to be retrospective, the Court held a merchant exporter entitled to the benefit of 1 % AIR Customs Duty Drawback on its export of SBM from the year 2008. The Court explained that the Circular was passed to resolve the ambiguity qua the meaning & threshold of the previous Notifications ad thus, the operation of such a provision or instruction by the Department could only be retrospective in nature.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the applicability of the Customs Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. Dated September 17, 2010, for All Industry Rate (AIR) Duty Drawbacks was observed to be prospective.
Cause Title- M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 755)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
28) Advancing women’s greater participation in judiciary plays a role in promoting gender equality
The Court remarked that advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary plays a role in promoting gender equality. The Court set aside a show cause notice and discharge Order, reinstating a Scheduled Tribe (ST) woman into service as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, with all consequential benefits.
The Appeal challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s Order, which had dismissed her Writ petition against the discharge Order citing unsatisfactory progress, antecedents, and non-disclosure of "material facts."
Cause Title- Pinky Meena v. The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 756)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
29) Supreme Court clarifies effect of deduction of profits & gains u/s. 80-IA of Income Tax Act
The Court held that if a deduction of profits and gains under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act is claimed and allowed, the deduction to the extent of such profits and gains in any other provision under the heading ‘C’ is not allowed.
The Order of reference highlighted a conflict of views among various High Courts and within the Supreme Court itself regarding the components of "total turnover" for the purpose of computing deductions under Sections 80-HHC and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
Cause Title- Shital Fibers Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 743)
Date of Judgment- May 20, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih
30) Levy & collection of luxury tax on cable tv operators with connections of 7500 or above not unconstitutional
The Court held that the levy and collection of luxury tax on Cable TV (Television) operators with connections of 7,500 or above is not unconstitutional.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals arising from the Judgments of the High Courts of Allahabad, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madras, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand. While the two Writ Petitions were filed before the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by M/s Tata Play Ltd.
Cause Title- State of Kerala & Another v. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 757)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
31) No universal rule that company’s director is in charge of its everyday affairs: Supreme Court explains principles on Section 141 NI Act
The Court explained certain principles regarding Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by the HDFC Bank Limited against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- HDFC Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 759)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
32) State & its officials used all might to stifle orders: Supreme Court orders handing over TDRs & DRCs already deposited by State to complainants
In a case pertaining to the acquisition of 472 acres of land under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, where orders had already been passed for reissuance of DRCs/ TDRs, the Court observed that the State and its officials had used all its might to stifle the orders and had made a show of having complied with the order by depositing the incorrect and improper DRCs / TDRs.
The Court has now directed that the TDRs / DRCs already deposited by the State be handed over to the respective complainants or their authorized representative by the Registry forthwith on affidavits of undertaking.
Cause Title- Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs v. S.v. Ranganath and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 762)
Date of Judgment- May 22, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
33) There is no requirement of explicit written arbitration agreement between parties u/s 11 SARFAESI Act
The Court held that there is no requirement of explicit written arbitration agreement between parties under Section 11 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the Bank of India, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Cause Title- Bank of India v. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 765)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal
34) Legal heir impleaded after due inquiry & without any objections cannot later seek his deletion from party array under Order I Rule 10 CPC
The Court held that when a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure after due inquiry by the court and without any objections, the party can approach the court anytime later and seek his deletion from the array of parties by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
The Court upheld the Order of the High Court, which held that the application of the Appellant under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was barred by res judicata and thus not maintainable on that ground. The Court explained that the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 of the CPC allows the Court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that a party can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage.
Cause Title- Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 764)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
35) State Govt empowered to fix payment to be made to district mineral foundation: SC dismisses challenge to notice demanding 10% of bid amount
The Court held that the State Government is empowered under Section 15A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to collect funds for the District Mineral Foundation in case of minor minerals.
The Court also held that the Demand Notice issued to the bidder requiring him to deposit 10% of the total amount payable for the minor minerals to be extracted was in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017.
Cause Title- Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 763)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
36) Approbation and reprobation by employees not permissible in pension schemes
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), setting aside the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.
The Supreme Court held that approbation and reprobation by employees is not permissible in pension schemes.
Cause Title- The Reserve Bank Of India v. MT Mani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 769)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
37) “Truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse”- Supreme Court quashes case under UP Gangsters Act
The Court quashed a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 saying that it is a case of the “fox guarding the henhouse.”
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court which rejected the Application of the accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
Cause Title- Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 767)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
38) If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself
The Court held that if a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself.
The Court upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on the ground that the Appellant's son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, was illegally arrested by the CID and was in unlawful detention.
Cause Title- Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 768)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
39) Mere difference in understanding of “change in law” by one party to agreement doesn’t preclude other from deriving benefit
The Court held that a mere difference in the understanding of a “change in law” by one party to the agreement does not by itself preclude the other party from deriving a benefit.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. against Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.
Cause Title- Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 770)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal
40) No need to remit matter for another Court Commissioner’s appointment when case could be decided on interpretation of available documents
In a property dispute matter pending for over 14 years, the Court held that when the matter could have been decided on the interpretation of the sale, conveyance and settlement deeds, again remitting the matter only for the appointment of another Court Commissioner would have further delayed the proceedings.
The Appeal before the Court challenged the Judgment of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam , allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal.
Cause Title- Peter Augustine v. K.v. Xavier and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 771)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
41) State must carry out its role as administrator & ensure proper governance of districts & villages
The Court emphasized that the State must carry out its role as an administrator and ensure proper governance of its districts and villages.
The Court emphasized thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by Old Jalukai Village Council, challenging the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which affirmed the Single Judge’s Judgment directing the State authorities to take steps for the issuance of formal orders for the recognition of the Kakiho Village within 3 months, being extended by another 4 months subsequently.
Cause Title- Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 766)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
42) Plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the prayers or reliefs sought is legally untenable
The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the prayers or reliefs sought is legally untenable, if other parts of the plaint raise distinct causes of action involving triable issues. The Court said such claims must be examined in trial and cannot be dismissed at the threshold.
In this case, the Appellant had claimed ownership of agricultural land and had taken a loan of Rs. 7.5 crores from the Respondents.
Cause Title- Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 772)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
43) Supreme Court upholds NGT's 2013 direction imposing fine of ₹1l per day on Bareilly Municipal Corporation; sets aside orders against former Mayor & Commissioner
The Court upheld the direction of the NGT imposing a fine of Rs 1 lakh per day for the period from May 28, 2013 to July 27, 2013 on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, over failure to remove municipal waste. The Apex Court, however, set aside the directions passed against the former Mayor & Commissioner of the Corporation.
The Appeals before the Court arose from a judgment dated October 24, 2013, whereby the NGT had punished the Mayor and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, with civil imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a payment of a fine of Rs 5 lakhs each. The NGT also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, for causing degradation to the environment and injury to public health for the period from May 28, 2013 to July 27, 2013.
Cause Title- Dr. I.S.Tomar v. Invertis University & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 775)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
44) Supreme Court upholds order allowing CBI to place on record CDS not produced along with but referred to in supplementary chargesheet
The Court upheld the orders passed by the Delhi High Court & the Special Court whereby the CBI was allowed to place on record the compact discs (CDs) which were not produced along with the supplementary chargesheet.
The Court noted that there was only an omission on the part of the respondent-CBI to produce the CDs. The appellant who had approached the Apex Court is facing trial along with other accused persons in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). An FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the PC Act. The dispute revolved around two Compact Discs.
Cause Title- Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 776)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
45) Record of trial court should not be referred to as "lower court record"
Reiterating the direction issued in an earlier order that the record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as “Lower Court Record”, the Supreme Court has asked the High Courts to take note of the same and act upon it. The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The impugned Judgment upheld the conviction of the two Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Both of them were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
Cause Title- Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 777)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
46) No cap on number of children to claim maternity leave benefit
The Court held that there is no ceiling or cap on the number of children to claim maternity leave benefit under Maternity Benefit Act. It noted that in case of a woman employee having two or more than two surviving children seeking maternity leave, period of the benefit is reduced.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by woman government employee from Tamil Nadu who sought maternity leave benefit for her first child from second marriage even though she had two children from previous marriage.
Cause Title- K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 781)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
47) Scope of Article 136 includes reappreciation of evidence in cases of manifest misreading: Supreme Court aquits 11 accused in triple murder case
The Court held that it can reappreciate evidence in a criminal appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution when the lower courts have manifestly misread material evidence.
The case arose out of a triple murder that took place in November 2012.
Cause Title- Agniraj & Ors. v. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 774)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
48) When CAPFs are declared as OGAS, all benefits available to OGAS should naturally flow to CAPFs
The Court observed that when CAPFs (Central Armed Police Forces) have been declared as OGAS (Organized Group-A Service), all benefits available to OGAS should naturally flow to the CAPFs.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals filed against the common Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions preferred by personnel belonging to different services viz. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), collectively known as CAPFs.
Cause Title- Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 779)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
49) Society, victim’s family & legal system have done enough injustice: Supreme Court refuses to send POCSO accused who was married to victim to jail
The Court refused to send an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) to jail who was married to the victim, holding that though he stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence.
The Court took suo motu cognizance of the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, in which certain objectionable observations were made.
Cause Title- In Re: Right to privacy of adolescents (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 778)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
50) Supreme Court terms government order withdrawing benefit of earlier order regularizing services of physically disabled persons as discriminatory
The Court set aside a Government Order issued in 2016 withdrawing the benefit of an earlier order of 2013 whereby the services of physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts were asked to be regularized. The Apex Court also termed the 2016 order as discriminatory, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by persons with benchmark disabilities, each with a physical disability exceeding 40%. They were engaged in various public institutions in the State of Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR).
Cause Title- Maya P.C. & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 773)
Date of Judgment- May 23, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
