Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: October 6 – October 10, 2025
1) States cannot prescribe tender conditions that infringe upon constitutional guarantees: Supreme Court quashes Chhattisgarh’s restrictive procurement criteria
The Court set aside the tender conditions framed by the State of Chhattisgarh, which restricted participation in the bidding process only to suppliers who had previously supplied sports kits to the Chhattisgarh Government departments or agencies, stating that such a restriction was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the principles of equality and freedom of trade guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
The Court was hearing a batch of Appeals filed by a private company engaged in the supply of sports kits to government departments across different States, challenging the tender conditions that required bidders to have prior experience of supplying goods to State departments within Chhattisgarh.
Cause Title- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1182)
Date of Judgment- October 06, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Chilling effect on prospective litigants if court makes strong directions without putting parties on notice: Supreme Court expunges Kerala High Court’s observations
The Court expunged the observations and directions of the Kerala High Court, which were made without putting Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust on notice.
The Court reiterated that if, without putting parties on notice, the court travels beyond the scope of the Petition, takes parties by surprise and makes strong observations, it will create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants. The Petition before the Court was filed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court asking the Cochin Devaswom Board to fix the license fee of the Trust.
Cause Title- P. Radhakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1183)
Date of Judgment- October 06, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
3) Suspicion however strong, cannot replace evidence: Supreme Court acquits three men accused of killing 10-year-old boy in 2007
The Court acquitted three men who were accused of killing a ten-year-old boy in the year 2007, who went missing while guarding his family’s mango orchard. The Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence.
A Criminal Appeal was preferred by the accused persons challenging the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which upheld their conviction for the offence of murder.
Cause Title- Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1184)
Date of Judgment- October 06, 2025
Coram- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
4) Gift under Muslim law doesn’t require written document to be valid: Supreme Court summarizes points on oral gift & its effect
The Court reiterated the aspect of the oral gift and the effect of a valid oral gift under the Mohammedan or Muslim Law. It said that a gift under Mohammedan Law does not require a written document to be valid.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench by the Defendants in a suit before the Civil Judge.
Cause Title- Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1187)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
5) Ink, chemical & other processing materials used in printing lottery tickets are liable to levy of tax
The Court held that the ink, chemical, and other processing materials used in the printing of lottery tickets are liable to the levy of tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which the Revisions preferred by the Revenue were allowed and the Order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad was set aside.
Cause Title- M/s. Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1188)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) Supreme Court summarizes principles on grant of benefit of stay of execution of decree by appellate court under Order XLI CPC
The Court summarized certain principles on the grant of benefit of stay of execution of a Decree by an Appellate Court under Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The Court was hearing a Petition preferred by Lifestyle Equities C.V. against Amazon Technologies INC, challenging the Judgment of the Delhi High Court.
Cause Title- Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies INC (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1190)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Section 149 IPC| Safe to convict only those whose presence is not only consistently established but also to whom overt acts are attributed
The Court observed that where there are general allegations against a large number of persons, it is safe to convict only those whose presence is not only consistently established from the stage of FIR, but also to whom overt acts are attributed which are in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The Court observed thus in Criminal Appeals filed by the co-convicts challenging the Judgment of the Patna High Court by which the Trial Court’s Judgment was affirmed.
Cause Title- Zainul v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1192)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
8) Very unsatisfactory state of affairs: Supreme Court acquits man who was accused of killing his own mother in 2010
The Court acquitted a man who was accused of matricide i.e., killing of his own mother in the year 2010.
The accused preferred a Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, by which his conviction was upheld for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Nilesh Baburao Gitte v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1191)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
9) Constitutional jurisdiction not to be exercised when efficacious alternate remedy is available: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel
While reaffirming that constitutional or appellate jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious alternate remedy is available and is actively being pursued, the Court refused to interfere with the PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel in a case involving illegal mining.
The matter before the Court arose from two Writ Petitions preferred by the Appellant JSW Steel Limited before the Karnataka High Court challenging the proceedings, including the investigation as well as the Order passed by the Special Court taking cognizance of the offences against the Company and issuing summons. The Second Appellant Deputy General Manager, Compliance, JSW, was the Petitioner in one of the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- JSW Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1194)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
10) Sale of minor’s property can be repudiated by conduct on attaining majority; filing of suit for cancellation not mandatory
The Court held that the filing of a separate cancellation suit is not a mandatory requirement under Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Court observed that such a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising out of a dispute relating to the sale of immovable property that had been executed by a natural guardian on behalf of his minor sons without obtaining the sanction of the Court.
Cause Title- K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1195)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
11) Accused’s statement that weapons recovered were actually weapons of crime not admissible u/s. 27 Evidence Act
While acquitting three accused persons in a murder case, the Court held that as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only that part of the statement of the accused which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons recovered were actually the weapons of crime.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellants (father, son and son-in-law) who were accused in a case of murder of a man.
Cause Title- Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1193)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
12) Arbitration clause remains valid even if statutory amendments made appointment procedure inoperative
The Court ruled that an arbitration clause, as the core part of a contract, remains valid even when the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator becomes inoperative owing to statutory amendments.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed an Application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
Cause Title- Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1196)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
13) Supreme Court orders release of life convict booked for killing sister’s lover; considers 22-yr-long incarceration period
The Court held that a life convict, who was booked for killing his sister’s lover and suffered incarceration for almost 22 years, made a valid case for remission. The Court noted the fact that the crime was one to uphold the family's prestige, which could mean the perceived tarnishing of the family’s name.
The Appellant, a life convict, approached the Court seeking pre-mature release after his long period of incarceration.
Cause Title- Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1198)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) Recovery of possession should’ve been sought even if title was established: SC denies relief of injunction in property dispute matter
While considering a matter of property dispute between siblings, the Court held that the ill-drafted plaint and the clear admissions made in the witness box ought to have restricted the Trial Court and the High Court from granting an injunction against the interference of peaceful enjoyment of the property.
The Court was of the view that even if the title was established, there should have been a recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff. The Appeal before the Court arose from a suit filed by one Rajammal against Munuswamy, her brother, for injunction simpliciter, one, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the suit property and the other to restrain interference with the peaceful possession & enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Cause Title- S. Santhana Lakshmi v. D. Rajammal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1197)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
15) Public trust doctrine encompasses man-made waterbodies; their protection integral to right to healthy environment
The Court ruled that the public trust doctrine extends to man-made or artificial waterbodies created from natural resources, holding that their protection is essential to securing citizens’ right to a healthy environment and ecological balance under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court that had declined to order the removal of certain installations and recreational structures built around Futala Lake in Nagpur City, while issuing directions to ensure ecological protection and continued maintenance.
Cause Title- Swacch Association Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1199)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
16) Implement law relating to wearing helmets; address wrong-lane driving issues: Supreme Court passes directions to help reduce road accidents
In order to help reduce road accidents and fatalities, the Court issued a set of guidelines relating to the safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, making pedestrian crossings safe, wearing of helmets, wrong lane driving and unsafe overtaking, as well as the use of dazzling LED white lights, unauthorized sale and misuse of red-blue strobe lights and hooters.
A leading orthopaedic surgeon and a public-spirited citizen had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or order directing PMO’s Secretary to form and head an apex body with all such powers so that all stake holders directly or indirectly responsible for the creation of safer roads, licensing of drivers and vehicles, enforcement of road safety, treatment of accident victims and provision of due compensation to the victim be brought under one umbrella.
Cause Title- S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India ( Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1189)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
17) Constitutional right of accused to defend himself is not illusory: Supreme Court acquits man in minor’s sexual assault & murder case
While acquitting a man in seven-year-old girl’s sexual assault and murder case, the Court remarked that the Constitutional right of an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory.
The accused preferred Criminal Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court, by which his death sentence was confirmed and conviction was upheld.
Cause Title- Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1203)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Vehicle owner not expected to verify from licence issuing authority whether licence of driver is fake or not
The Court observed the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not.
The Court also held that there is vicarious liability for any negligence of the driver upon the owner of the vehicle and there can be no suspicion raised merely because the owner had produced the driving licence before Court.
Cause Title- Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) V. National Insurance Company Ltd. Ors. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1204)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V Anjaria
19) Criminal court has no power to recall or review its own judgment; it can only rectify clerical errors
The Court reiterated that a Criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own Judgment and it can only correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC].
The Court reiterated thus in Criminal Appeals filed by the State against the Orders of the Rajasthan High Court’s Single Judge, Jodhpur Bench.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1205)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
20) Reappreciation of evidence not undertaken under Article 136 of Constitution when concurrent findings are supported by public documents without perversity
The Court held that it would not disturb a finding which would amount to reappreciation of evidence while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 particularly where the findings are concurrent, supported by public documents, and the findings suffer from no perversity.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court affirming the Judgment whereby the demand raised by the Appellant–Authority for a sum of ₹1,64,50,000 towards Open Space Reservation charges was quashed and a direction was issued to refund the said sum with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Cause Title- Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v. Dr. Kamala Selvaraj (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1200)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
21) Verification of ticket through railway inquiry constitutes prima facie proof of bona fide travel; absence of seizure memo cannot defeat legitimate compensation claim
The Court ruled that verification of a railway ticket by an official railway enquiry or through evidentiary records is sufficient to establish prima facie proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from a compensation claim filed by the widow and minor son of a deceased passenger who allegedly fell from a moving train. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected the claim for want of a recovered ticket.
Cause Title- Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1201)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
22) Defendant has right to cross examine plaintiff witnesses even if he has not filed written statement
While allowing a Written Statement to be filed subject to the payment of costs to the tune of Rs 1 lakh, the Court held that when the written statement was not allowed to be taken on record, the right to cross examine cannot be taken away by leaving the defendant in the lurch.
The Appeal, before the Court, was directed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which affirmed the Judgment of the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Exclusive Commercial Court) in a suit filed by the first Respondent- M/s. Aroush Motors for the recovery of a certain amount of money.
Cause Title- M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1202)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
23) Presumption against consumer not set in motion where there is inability to prove use of artificial means: Supreme Court acquits director in electricity theft case
While acquitting a Director of a Company in an electricity theft case registered under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Court held that the presumption against the consumer to take effect, it must be proved that an artificial means or a means not authorised by the licensee had been used in committing the theft.
The Appeals before the Court were filed at the instance of the Appellant-convict, against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, which overturned the findings of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in a case registered under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Cause Title- Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1206)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
24) Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of Indian Stamp Act inapplicable where principal debtor itself executes deed mortgaging its own property
The Court held that Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (ISA) is inapplicable where Principal Debtor itself executes a Deed mortgaging its own property.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed a Writ Petition and affirmed the Order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division.
Cause Title- M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1207)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
25) Judicial officer having combined experience of 7 years as advocate or judicial officer eligible to be appointed as district judge or additional district judge
The Court’s Constitution Bench held that a person who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an Advocate or a Judicial Officer is eligible to appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding a batch of matters referred vide Order dated August 12, 2025 for consideration by a three-Judge Bench.
Cause Title- Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1208)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
26) Classification of statute as substantive or procedural doesn’t necessarily determine whether it may have a retrospective operation
The Court held that the classification of a statute as either substantive or procedural does not necessarily determine whether it may have a retrospective operation.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions and one Interlocutory Application involving common legal question i.e., the application of the age-restrictions on ‘intending couples’ under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Cause Title- Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1209)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
27) NI Act | Complaint maintainable against trustee signing cheque without arraying trust as accused
The Court ruled that a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of a cheque can be maintained against the trustee who has signed the cheque on behalf of a trust without impleading the trust itself as an accused.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed against a Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act on the ground that the trust had not been made a party to the proceedings.
Cause Title- Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1210)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2025
Coram- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
28) Supreme Court directs release of murder accused found to be juvenile in 1981 when crime was committed
The Court applied the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and released an accused who was booked in a murder case of 1981 when he was a juvenile. The Court held that the developments in legislation in relation to juvenile justice introduced by the Parliament from time to time can hardly be overlooked.
The Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution was invoked by the Petitioner, who was a murder convict. As per the custody certificate, the Petitioner was in custody for a period of 3 years, 10 months and 28 days.
Cause Title- Hansraj v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1211)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
29) Marks in vocational subjects relevant for eligibility under Jharkhand primary school teacher appointment rules: Supreme Court reinstates terminated teachers
The Court quashed an Order of the Jharkhand High Court that had upheld the termination of three Intermediate Trained Teachers whose services were discontinued after the authorities excluded marks obtained in vocational subjects while calculating their total percentage under the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012.
The Court was hearing Appeals filed by the aggrieved teachers, seeking reinstatement, contending that they had scored more than the required qualifying marks after taking into account the marks secured by them in the respective vocational subjects.
Cause Title- Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1212)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
30) If there’s conflict in ocular & medical testimony, ocular evidence will prevail unless totally unreliable
The Court reiterated that if there is a conflict in the ocular testimony and the medical testimony/evidence, ocular evidence will prevail unless it is totally unreliable.
The Court reiterated thus in Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which partly allowed the Appeals against the Trial Court’s acquittal.
Cause Title- Chikkegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1213)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
31) Equity will not permit unjust enrichment: Supreme Court upholds possession warrants against litigant who refused ₹2 crore compensation
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed against the Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had directed the issuance of warrants of possession against the appellant, who refused to vacate the property despite being awarded substantial monetary compensation.
The Court was hearing an Appeal arising from execution proceedings initiated after a prior Judgment of the Supreme Court directed payment of ₹2 crore to the Appellant instead of specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in 1989.
Cause Title- Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1214)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
32) Armed forces tribunal empowered to substitute conviction for cognate offences: Supreme Court upholds conviction of army officer for act prejudicial to discipline
The Court upheld the conviction of an Army officer under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, for an act prejudicial to good order and discipline, affirming that the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) authority under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to substitute a conviction for a cognate offence.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by the Army officer challenging the Tribunal’s Order, which substituted his conviction under the Arms Act, 1959, with one under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950.
Cause Title- S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1215)
Date of Judgment- October 10, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe
33) No Case Of Inducement On Accused’s Part: Supreme Court Allows Discharge Application In Cheating Case
The Court allowed an Appeal of an accused in a case of cheating after noting that it was not the case of the informant that the accused had made any representation or that there was any inducement on his part.
The Appeal before the Court was filed by the Appellant, the original accused, against the Order rendered by the Madras High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Case filed by the Appellant.
Cause Title- G. Prasad Raghavan v. Union Territory of Puducherry (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1221)
Date of Judgment- October 10, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Alok Aradhe
