Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 24 – November 28, 2025
1) Mere filing of defective affidavit in support of application u/s.7 of IBC would not render such application non est
The Court held that the mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit in support of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) would not render the very application non est, as it is neither an incurable nor a fundamental defect.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Appellant company under Section 62 of the IBC.
Cause Title- Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited v. HDFC Bank Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1349)
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Courts must remain vigilant against misuse of criminal justice machinery for vested interests
The Court held that the Courts must exercise caution when criminal law is invoked to pursue vested interests and oblique motives, noting that unsupported allegations can destabilise social harmony and burden the criminal justice system.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal arising from the refusal of the Gauhati High Court to quash proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following a complaint filed in relation to partnership property.
Cause Title- Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1350)
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
3) Physical intimacy can’t be branded as rape offence merely because relationship failed to culminate in marriage: Supreme Court quashes rape case against Advocate
The Court held that the physical intimacy cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of rape offence merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused Advocate, challenging the Order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which dismissed his Application seeking quashing of FIR.
Cause Title- Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1351)
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC puts bar against setting aside of sale if judgment debtor fails to raise ground to invalidate it at appropriate stage
While setting aside an Order of the Madras High Court invalidating an auction sale, the Court held that Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the CPC postulates a bar against setting aside the sale at the behest of a judgment debtor if he failed to raise an available ground to invalidate it at the appropriate stage.
The auction purchaser had filed an Appeal challenging an Order passed by the Madras High Court invalidating an auction sale held by the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court.
Cause Title- G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) v. K.J. Prakash Kumar (Neutral Citaiton: 2025 INSC 1353)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
5) Administrative orders must be read in light of concomitant record; reasons not be stated in haec verba
The Court reiterated that the administrative orders must be read in light of the concomitant record, and the reasons need not be stated in haec verba in the communication.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in a case arising from a dispute concerning government tenders. The State challenged the Judgment of the High Court by which the cancellation of a Letter of Intent (LoI) was set aside.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. M/s OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1355)
Date of Judgment- November 24, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
6) Wildlife management can’t be approached as administrative convenience: Supreme Court halts translocation of deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park
The Court halted the translocation of deer from the Delhi’s Aditya Nath Jha Deer Park, saying that wildlife management cannot be approached as a matter of administrative convenience.
The Court was hearing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) concerning the proposed translocation of hundreds of deer from the A.N. Jha Deer Park in Hauz Khas, New Delhi, an urban green sanctuary for captive deer, to different wildlife sanctuaries/Tiger reserves in the State of Rajasthan as well as within New Delhi.
Cause Title- New Delhi Nature Society through Verhaen Khanna v. Director Horticulture DDA & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1358)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
7) "Finality of judicial verdicts fundamental to rule of law": Supreme Court rejects plea to modify bail condition of murder accused
The Court held that finality of judicial decisions is an essential element of the rule of law and refused to modify a condition restricting the movement of an accused who was granted bail in a pending murder trial in West Bengal. It observed that relaxing the condition would dilute the very basis on which bail had been allowed.
The Court was hearing an application filed by the accused seeking modification of the earlier Bail Order in a Criminal Appeal arising out of charges of conspiracy and murder, along with an application for cancellation of bail filed by the brother of the deceased.
Cause Title- Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1360)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Jurisdiction to try complaint u/s 138 NI Act for a/c payee cheque is vested in court within whose local jurisdiction payee’s home branch is situated
The Court held that the jurisdiction to try a Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in respect of an account payee cheque is vested in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the payee’s home branch is situated.
The Court held thus in a batch of Transfer Petitions out of which the leading one sought transfer of the Complaint Case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhopal to the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Kolkata.
Cause Title- Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s HEG Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1362)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
9) “Judicial passivity in face of such atrocities would embolden perpetrators”: Supreme Court cancels bail in dowry death case
The Court cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of poisoning his wife to death within four months of marriage, while stating that judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
Holding that such cases strike at the “collective conscience of society”, the Court emphasised that statutory presumptions under Section 113B of the Evidence Act must be given full effect when the foundational facts for a dowry death are established. The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by the deceased woman’s father challenging the grant of bail by the Allahabad High Court to the accused husband.
Cause Title- Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1367)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
10) Moratorium u/s 14 IBC doesn’t revive contracts or protect rights that have ceased to exist prior to insolvency
The Court reiterated that moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not revive terminated contracts or protect rights that have ceased to exist prior to insolvency.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal preferred by an estate company, challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- A A Estates Private Limited and Another v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1366)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
11) Joint application u/s 29A of Arbitration Act amounts to valid waiver u/s 4 except in cases of statutory ineligibility u/s 12(5)
The Court held that a Joint Application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) amounts to a valid waiver under Section 4, except in cases of statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5).
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Patna High Court by which it dismissed the Request Case filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Cause Title- Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1365)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
12) Attachment before judgment cannot extend to property already transferred prior to initiating suit
The Court ruled that where immovable property has been transferred prior to the filing of a civil suit, such property cannot be subjected to attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from a rejection of a Claim Petition filed by a purchaser of property that had been subjected to attachment before judgment, despite the sale deed having been executed months before the underlying suit was filed.
Cause Title- L.K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu (Died) Through LRs v. K.T. Mathew @ Thampan Thomas & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1364)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
13) Employee withdrew resignation much before he was relieved: Supreme Court upholds grant of 50% backwages
The Court upheld the grant of 50% back wages to an employee of the Konkan Railway Corporation who served for 23 years. The Court dismissed the Review Petition filed by the Corporation while holding that the employee withdrew his resignation much before he was relieved.
The Court was considering a Review Petition filed by the Konkan Railway Corporation. The Petition was filed against the Judgment of the Apex Court allowing a Civil Appeal of the Respondent-employee, against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court holding that he could not withdraw his resignation.
Cause Title- Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. S.D. Manohara (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1368)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal
14) Parity in bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right; accused’s role must be independently assessed
The Court reiterated that while parity with the other accused is a relevant consideration in bail matters, it cannot serve as the sole ground for granting bail, particularly in serious offences such as murder. The Court reaffirmed that the role and involvement of each accused must be independently evaluated before arriving at a bail decision.
The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals filed by the Complainant challenging Orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to two co-accused in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Sagar v. State of UP & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1370)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
