Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

B PARDIWALA

256 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 1–200.

RAKESH BHANOTversusM/S. GURDAS AGRO PVT. LTD

2025 INSC 44531 March 2025Dismissed

The appellants, who were directors and guarantors of a company, were charged under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. While the criminal proceedings were pending, they filed personal insolvency applications under section 94 of the Insolvenc

ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 96730 October 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court had directed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to postpone pronouncing its judgment in a pending appeal until the result of Finolex Cables Limited's Annual General Meeting (AGM) was declared. Despite being apprised of this order, the NCLAT bench pronounced its judgment on 13 October

ATUL KUMARversusTHE CHAIRMAN (JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 74930 September 2024Disposed off

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste student, secured a seat in Electrical Engineering at IIT Dhanbad after ranking 1455 in his category in JEE Advanced 2024. He attempted to pay the required admission fee of Rs 17,500 before the 5 pm deadline on 24 June 2024, logging into the portal six times between 3:12 pm and 4:57 pm,

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 76830 September 2024Disposed off

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) procured power through competitive bidding but accepted tariffs and quantities that deviated from standard bidding guidelines, leading to the execution of Power Supply Agreements (PSAs) for 865 MW. KSEB sought approval of these PSAs from the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory

KANIZ AHMEDversusSABUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 61030 April 2025Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the High Court's directions ordering police to evict occupants of an unauthorised two‑storey construction and to have the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) demolish the building, along with inspecting neighbouring properties. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had acted withi

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59930 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, including acid‑attack survivors with facial disfigurements and a blind individual, challenged the mandatory digital KYC/e‑KYC/video‑KYC procedures for being inaccessible and discriminatory. They argued that requirements such as capturing a live photograph and performing a liveness check (e.g., eye‑blin

VELLORE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. RAJEBDRANversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE DISTRICT & OTHERS

2025 INSC 13130 January 2025Disposed off

The case concerns the continued pollution of the Palar River in Vellore District by tannery effluents and the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA). The appellants, the Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee, challenged the Madras High Court's dismissal of writ petitions th

ASHOK SAXENAversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC.

2025 INSC 14830 January 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Ashok Saxena, entered the complainant's house armed with a knife during an altercation and stabbed the complainant's wife, who later died. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC for murder. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing lack of intent to k

LALITAversusVISHWANATH & ORS.

2025 INSC 17330 January 2025Dismissed

The mother of a deceased woman appealed against the High Court's order acquitting four accused of abetment of suicide under Sections 306, 498A and 34 of the IPC. The trial court had convicted them based on evidence of harassment, but the High Court set aside the conviction, finding no reliable proof of abetment. The Su

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY

2024 INSC 93229 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging a judgment that dismissed a suit concerning 1,300 hectares of government land. The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days, which the High Court refused to condone, citing lack of sufficient cause.

CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2024 INSC 66529 August 2024Disposed off

The deceased, Sonali Karmakar, committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to harassment and dowry demands by her husband and in‑laws, leading to her death. The trial court convicted the sister‑in‑law, husband, and mother‑in‑law und

VISA COKE LIMITEDversusM/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

2025 INSC 59729 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Visa Coke Ltd., an operational creditor, claimed that it had validly served a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by sending Form 3 to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd. at its registered office. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and th

P. KUMARAKURUBARANversusP. NARAYANAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 59829 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, was assigned a vacant site in 1974 and executed a power of attorney in 1978 for construction. His father later sold the property in 1988 to the defendant without authority, which the appellant discovered in 2011 and filed a land‑grabbing complaint. In 2014 he instituted a suit seeking

STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHERversusMISS BHAVNA TIWARI & ORS.

2025 INSC 74729 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education, challenged a High Court order that awarded Rs.10,00,000 each to two NEET‑PG aspirants alleging seat‑blocking during counselling. The aspirants claimed that the mop‑up round denied them the opportunity to secure their preferred MD

VARAD BALWANT VASANT & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 45929 April 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of CA examination candidates, sought a re‑scheduling of two papers slated for 8 May and 14 May 2024, arguing that these dates fell a day after phase‑wise polling in the General Elections and would cause severe hardship to those exercising their franchise. They highlighted that only 291 cities h

VEDANTA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

2024 INSC 17529 February 2024Dismissed

Vedanta Limited operates a copper smelter at the SIPCOT industrial complex in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the State Government ordered its closure for repeated violations of environmental norms, including operating without consent, improper hazardous waste management, and dumping

MAHABIR & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 12029 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were acquitted of murder by the Sessions Court in 2005, but a criminal revision filed by the victim's father in 2006 was allowed by the High Court, which reversed the acquittal and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could convert an acquittal

M.S. SANJAYversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.

2025 INSC 17729 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a mortgaged property at an auction conducted on 31 July 2007 and received a sale certificate on 30 November 2007, thereafter developing the property. The guarantor of the original borrower challenged the auction before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which set aside the sale; the decision was later

H. ANJANAPPA & ORS.versusA. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12129 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, while the defendants sold portions of the disputed land to Respondents No.1 and No.2 during the pendency of the suit, violating a temporary injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I

R. SHAMA NAIKversusG. SRINIVASIAH

2024 INSC 92728 November 2024Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement on 3 March 2005 for Rs 30 lakh, paying Rs 12.5 lakh as earnest money, and later sued for specific performance of the contract. The trial court granted the decree for specific performance, but the High Court set it aside, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that he

M/S MOTILAL AGARWALAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 106228 August 2025Dismissed

The dispute concerned an arbitral award dated 12 November 2013 in favour of M/s Motilal Agarwala against the State of West Bengal. The State sought to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filing the application on 20 March 2014, arguing that it had only become aware of the

MANOJ TEJRAJ JAINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 109028 August 2025Disposed off

The case arose from a raid on a godown in Ahmedabad where 55 boxes containing 1,364 kg of ephedrine, a controlled substance under the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order 2013, were seized. Four appellants were convicted under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act based largely on the confessional statement o

GAJANAN DATTATRAY GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 91328 July 2025Dismissed

Gajanan Dattatray Gore was arrested for offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. He applied for regular bail before the High Court, which granted bail on the condition that he would deposit Rs 25,00,000 within five months, based on an affidavit‑undertaki

XversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 90927 November 2024

The petitioner filed an FIR alleging rape (Sec. 376D) and kidnapping (Sec. 342) against the accused and a co-accused. The victim's statement was recorded under Sec. 164 CrPC, but neither the victim nor her mother (an eye‑witness) had been examined when the accused applied for bail. The trial court denied bail, but the

MANOJ PARIHAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS

2022 INSC 65427 June 2022Dismissed

The petitioners, a group of Munsiffs appointed in 2003 by direct recruitment, challenged the High Court's order fixing their inter‑se seniority on the basis of roster points under the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005. They argued that seniority should be determined by the merit order prepared by the State Public

MANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYAversusMAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR.

2025 INSC 28227 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, brother of the deceased, challenged the Bombay High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal an acquittal of Mahesh Prakash Ahuja for murder. The trial court had acquitted the accused due to lack of reliable circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The High Court denied leave w

M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATIONversusTHE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC.

2025 INSC 27427 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation, owned a large parcel of land in Hyderabad that was declared excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The State issued a notice under section 10(5) on 5 January 2008, affixed it on 8 January, and after alleged non‑compliance issued an order und

M.S. ANANTHAMURTHY & ANR.versusJ. MANJULA

2025 INSC 27327 February 2025Dismissed

The case involved a dispute over a plot of land originally owned by Muniyappa, who executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an agreement to sell in favour of A. Saraswathi in 1986. After Muniyappa's death in 1997, Saraswathi, as GPA holder, executed a registered sale deed in 1998 transferring the property to her

ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 92026 November 2024Dismissed

Rohit Kochhar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance and a permanent injunction for a commercial property situated in Gurgaon. The defendants contested the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relief required execution and registration of a sale deed in Gurgaon, which would forc

M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.

2023 INSC 64926 July 2023Disposed off

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company filed a claim for theft and fire under policies issued to a consumer. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the insurer to pay compensation, which the insurer appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC dismissed the app

FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS.versusM/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED

2024 INSC 34826 April 2024Disposed off

M/s Coromandal Sacks supplied HDPE bags to Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd (FCIL) and sued for recovery of unpaid amounts, alleging price differences, liquidated damages, penalties and loss of unsold bags. FCIL contended it was a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,

NIRMITI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 26525 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a 50,138 sq.ft. plot in Amravati that had been reserved for a private school under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1967. The original owners served a purchase notice under Section 49 in 2006, which was confirmed in 2007, but the authorities failed to acquire the land within the on

RAM LALversusJARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 30125 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed in his favour on 20‑01‑2012 directing him to deposit the balance consideration within two months. The decree was affirmed by the first appellate court on 21‑04‑2015, but no time‑limit for payment was stipulated. After a two‑year

SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 90724 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence that they had last seen the deceased alive, were seen walking near the crime scene, purchased meat, and allegedly pointed out the spot where a blood‑stained stone was recovered. The Supreme Court examined whether each circumstance was proved beyon

M/S ASP TRADERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 89024 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a dealer in red arecanut, had its consignment detained by the GST Mobile Squad and was served a show‑cause notice under section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The appellant filed objections but, due to business exigencies, paid the tax and penalty amount of Rs 7,20,440 under protest and the goods were released

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTDversusADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

2025 INSC 89124 July 2025Dismissed

Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd., a UAE‑resident company, entered into long‑term Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Indian hotel owners to provide strategic, operational and financial oversight of hotels in Delhi and Mumbai. The Assessing Officer treated the fees earned under the SOSA as taxable

YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.

2025 INSC 38324 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants claimed ownership of a 3.34‑acre parcel of land in Kurnool district, asserting that it was a patta land acquired by a registered sale deed in 1970 and that they had been in uninterrupted possession for over twenty years. The State argued that the land was an assigned government land, subject to a non‑ali

AMIT KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 38424 March 2025Directions issued

The parents of two IIT Delhi students who died under suspicious circumstances filed complaints alleging caste-based discrimination and murder, but the police only conducted an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC and concluded suicide without registering a First Information Report (FIR). The petitioners sought a writ

N.P. SASEENDRANversusN.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 38824 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant (son) challenged a decree of the Kerala High Court that declared a 1985 deed executed by his father in favour of his sister (plaintiff) to be a settlement and a valid gift, thereby invalidating a later cancellation deed and sale deed dated 19.10.1993. The core issue was whether the 1985 instrument was a g

S SHOBHAversusMUTHOOT FINANCE LTD.

2025 INSC 11724 January 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, S Shobha, obtained a gold‑pledged loan from Muthoot Finance Ltd. and later filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the company's actions. The High Court entertained the petitions despite observing that Muthoot Finance Ltd. is a private company and not a "State" within Arti

SHAJAN SKARIAversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2024 INSC 62523 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shajan Skaria, an online news editor, published a YouTube video alleging misconduct by the complainant, an MLA belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Sp

DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 62623 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a supplier of horse feed, alleged that Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and its officers failed to pay Rs 9,11,434 for goods supplied and filed a private complaint invoking sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after a magisterial inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, is

VANSHIKA YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 55323 July 2024

The Supreme Court examined a petition seeking a fresh NEET (UG) 2024 examination on the grounds of a question‑paper leak in Hazaribagh and Patna and alleged systemic deficiencies in the conduct of the exam. The Court noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation had identified about 155 beneficiaries of the leak, but

SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIMversusPRAKASAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 76423 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a grandson of the original defendant, was impleaded as a legal heir in execution proceedings after the original defendant died. He later filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion of his name, claiming he was not a legal heir and that he enjoyed tenancy rights under Section

VINOD BIHARI LALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 76723 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal, was named as a leader of an alleged gang under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on a subject FIR registered in 2018 that drew on several earlier base FIRs. He filed two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure see

OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCILversusKAKIHO VILLAGE & ORS.

2025 INSC 76623 May 2025

The Old Jalukai Village Council (appellant) claimed that the Kakiho Village (respondent No.1) was being recognized on land that ancestrally belonged to it, and it had objected to the public notice issued in 2009. The State of Nagaland had proceeded with recognition despite the objection, citing an inter‑district bounda

HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS.versusHABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 55323 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Siraj Uddin Choudhury, claimed title to land based on a 1958 registered Gift Deed executed by their grandfather. The defendants later executed a sale deed on 5 May 1997, which the plaintiffs alleged was void because the vendors lacked title. The trial court and first appellate court upheld the

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusBALVEER SINGH

2025 INSC 26123 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Balveer Singh for the murder, concealment and conspiracy to murder his wife, relying heavily on the testimony of the 7‑year‑old daughter, Rani, as the sole eye‑witness. The High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the child’s delayed statement and residence with an inimical

NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE

2024 INSC 90222 November 2024Dismissed

The trial court had condoned a delay of four and a half years for the defendants to file their written statement. The plaintiff challenged this condonation, and the High Court set aside the trial court's order. The defendants filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. The S

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

2024 INSC 91322 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, a group of brothers and their wives, sued the defendants, their brothers and sons, to cancel a sale deed and obtain a permanent injunction after the defendants allegedly transferred the jointly owned property to a son for a nominal consideration using a power of attorney that was not intended for sale.

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMIR USMAN @ ARA @ MIR USMAN ALI

2025 INSC 115522 September 2025Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a Special Leave Petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Mir Usman, in a rape case, alleging that the trial court had adjourned the victim's examination for four months after she fell ill, thereby conducting the trial piecemeal. The Supreme Court exam

KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2025 INSC 76822 May 2025

The appellant challenged the arrest of his son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, alleging that the police failed to provide appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, thereby violating Article 22 of the Constitution. The son was arrested on 21 April 2025 by the CID in connection with offences under Sections 420, 409,

VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.versusMAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 77222 May 2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., the owner of agricultural land, sued Mahaveer Lunia and others for declaration, possession and injunction after the respondents executed sale deeds despite the appellant's revocation of a power of attorney and board resolution. The respondents filed an Order VII Rule 11 application seeking

ANGADI CHANDRANNAversusSHANKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 53222 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned whether a 7‑acre suit property, purchased by Defendant No.1 from his brother after a 1986 partition of the joint Hindu family, was ancestral or self‑acquired. The plaintiffs (sons and daughters of Defendant No.1) sued for partition and possession, claiming the property remained ancestral because i

AMRUDDIN ANSARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusAFAJAL ALI & ORS.

2025 INSC 56622 April 2025Dismissed

The petition arose from a series of suits concerning a land dispute in Chhattisgarh, where the original plaintiffs' father filed a suit that was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 of the CPC and a subsequent application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 was also rejected. The plaintiffs then instituted a fresh suit on

M/S J N REAL ESTATEversusSHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 61122 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved multiple claims over the same property, with the original plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell and the appellant (original defendant No.8) seeking to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The trial court allowed the appellant’s impleadment, but the

NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2024 INSC 14922 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Naresh Kumar was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting his wife Rani's suicide in 1993, based largely on the fact that she died within seven years of marriage and that he repeatedly demanded money for a business. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother and

RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH

2024 INSC 89121 November 2024Dismissed

The petitioners filed a civil suit that was dismissed for default, and the respondent's counter‑claim was allowed. The petitioners appealed the ex parte order but filed the appeal 534 days late. The first appellate court condoned this delay, attributing it to the alleged negligence of the petitioners' advocate. The res

MANJIT SINGH & ANR.versusDARSHANA DEVI & ORS.

2024 INSC 89521 November 2024Dismissed

The original plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an oral sale agreement dated 12‑02‑1986 concerning a property that the owner subsequently sold to defendants No.2 and No.3 on 29‑08‑1986. The trial court granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court set aside the decree, hol

SUMITHA PRADEEPversusARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.

2022 INSC 113321 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, mother of a 12‑year‑old girl, alleged that her brother‑in‑law sexually assaulted the child, causing severe trauma and a decline in academic performance. An FIR was filed under IPC sections 354 and 354A and POCSO Act sections 7, 8, 9 and 11. The Sessions Court denied anticipatory bail to the accused, but

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTDversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS

2023 INSC 86521 September 2023Dismissed

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, which operates coal mines in Madhya Pradesh, challenged the levy of a terminal tax by the municipal council on the basis that municipal statutes cannot apply to Scheduled Areas. The company argued that Article 243ZC of the Constitution excludes Part IXA (municipalities) from Scheduled Area

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

2024 INSC 24321 March 2024Dismissed

The Union of India (railways) charged Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) freight on the Baad‑Hisar route based on a chargeable distance of 444 km as per the old local distance table. In 2005 the railways revised the distance to 334 km, claiming the earlier figure was erroneous, and IOC sought a refund of the 110 km differenc

RAHUL VERMA & ORS.versusRAMPAT LAL VERMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29621 February 2025Dismissed

The dispute involved a partnership firm where two of the three partners had died, and the legal heirs of one deceased partner sought to enforce an arbitration clause in the partnership deed to resolve a claim for rendition of accounts. The respondents argued that the heirs, being non‑signatories to the deed and without

M/S ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.versusMAST RAM & ORS.

2024 INSC 70920 September 2024Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of 56.14 bighas of land for a safety zone around a cement plant, where the original award of compensation was paid by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) and a supplementary award was later issued. The key issue was whether the liability for the supplementar

SHOOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2024 INSC 71320 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Neelam, died from extensive burn injuries within seven years of her marriage to the son of the appellants, who were her father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded a motorcycle and Rs 50,000 as dowry and threatened her, invoking the presumption of dowry death under S

SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 85620 September 2023

The appellant, a Jharkhand MLA, was charged with accepting a bribe to vote for a candidate in a Rajya Sabha election, but she did not cast the alleged bribe‑influenced vote. She sought quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground of immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the pl

DEVENDRA KUMARversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2025 INSC 100920 August 2025Disposed off

The petitioner, a police SHO, was alleged to have misbehaved with a process server who was serving court summons, leading the process server to lodge a private complaint under s.195 CrPC. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) ordered registration of an FIR under s.186 and s.341 IPC and directed police investigation u

IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUESversusversus

2024 INSC 61320 August 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu writ petition concerning the murder and alleged rape of a 31‑year‑old trainee doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata, observed that the incident and subsequent mob vandalism highlighted systemic failures in ensuring safety for medical professionals. The Court noted th

PARSWANATH SAHAversusBANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.

2024 INSC 102219 December 2024Disposed off

The plaintiff, Parswanath Saha, entered into a registered agreement of sale with the deceased predecessor of the defendants for a residential property and paid earnest money. After the predecessor's death, the defendants refused to execute the sale deed, prompting the plaintiff to sue for specific performance. The tria

MUKESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR

2024 INSC 102619 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mukesh, filed a suit claiming ownership and long possession of a small parcel of land in Madhya Pradesh and obtained a compromise decree confirming his pre‑existing right. The decree was used to seek mutation of the land in his name, but the Collector of Stamps levied stamp duty on the basis of Article 2

MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

2024 INSC 102119 December 2024

The deceased plaintiff originally filed a suit in 2011 for declaration of title and injunction over certain immovable properties, which the trial court dismissed despite finding her to be the absolute owner because she was not in possession. After her death, her legal heirs appealed and successfully amended the plaint

ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 102319 December 2024

The appellant, Abdul Rejak Laskar, purchased a share of land in 1977 but later faced forcible dispossession by the respondents. After a series of title suits and appeals, the appellant sought an imperfect partition of the land under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which was denied by the Additional Deputy

BIJOY KUMAR MONIversusPARESH MANNA & ANR.

2024 INSC 102419 December 2024

The complainant lent Rs 7,00,000 to the accused and later received a cheque of Rs 8,45,000, signed by the accused in his capacity as Director of Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., drawn on the company's bank account. The cheque bounced for insufficient funds and the complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of

GIRIYAPPA & ANR.versusKAMALAMMA & ORS.

2024 INSC 104319 December 2024

Giriyappa and others filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land. The defendants claimed they had a sale agreement dated 25‑11‑1968 and were in possession of the land under part performance, seeking protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court decreed in fav

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that directed the original sale certificate of auction‑purchased property to be handed over to the purchaser and that the stamp duty deposited by the purchaser be refunded. The dispute arose from the liquidation of M/s Punjab United Forge Ltd., where M/s Ferrous Alloy For

M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II

2025 INSC 113019 September 2025Dismissed

M/s Quippo Energy Ltd. imported gas generating sets (Gensets) and, to facilitate leasing, placed each Genset inside a steel container and added components such as a radiator, ventilation fan, air filter, oil tank, pipes, pumps, valve and silencer, creating a product it called a "Power Pack". The Revenue argued that thi

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusSANDEEP GURAV

2025 INSC 102119 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Geojit Financial Services Ltd. filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the three‑month limitation period began on the date the award was received because the appellant's earlier applicati

PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 125318 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Pawan Kumar applied online for a BPCL retail outlet dealership and was selected by draw of lots, offering land owned by third parties that was then subject to a dispute. An unsuccessful contender alleged that Kumar had supplied false information regarding the land ownership, leading the High Court to set aside Kumar's

SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2024 INSC 53418 July 2024Disposed off

The appellant, a Nepalese national, was arrested in 2015 for allegedly supplying high‑quality counterfeit Indian currency and was charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. After more than nine years of incarceration, only two prosecution witnesses

ANSAR AHMADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2023 INSC 72518 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ansar Ahmad, alleged that his son was killed in a contract murder orchestrated by two respondents, Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh. The High Court had granted regular bail to both respondents despite serious charges under multiple IPC sections and the Explosive Substances Act, and despite evidence

ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 22618 March 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court earlier ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose details of electoral bonds purchased and the contributions received by political parties. A Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking to pre‑date the point from which such disclosure must be made. The Court examined the language of sub‑paragr

DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

2025 INSC 26218 February 2025Disposed off

The appellants purchased an e‑stamp paper for a property transaction which was subsequently lost, prompting them to seek a refund of the stamp duty of Rs 28,10,000. The Delhi High Court ordered a refund of the principal amount but declined interest, leading the appellants to file a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dism

RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHERversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.

2024 INSC 99017 December 2024Dismissed

The dispute arose from commercial shops that were erected on a residential plot in Meerut by the original allottee (Respondent No.5) and his power‑of‑attorney (Respondent No.6) without any sanction under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The shops were later sold to the appellants, who challenged the H

NARAYAN DASversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 87217 July 2025Dismissed

Narayan Das was convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of 236 vials of codeine‑phosphate cough syrups and was sentenced to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000. The High Court, while dismissing his appeal, reduced the term to ten years, the statutory minimum, on the groun

INDRA BAIversusORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER

2023 INSC 62417 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Indra Bai, a loading and unloading labourer, suffered a severe injury to her left arm while loading poles, resulting in loss of grip. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, relying on a medical board certificate, held that she was permanently unfit for labour and awarded compensation on the basis of total disablement

THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.versusCHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 97217 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against a Gujarat High Court order that had directed the GST authority to complete an adjudicatory process within eight weeks and had granted the respondents protection from arrest after they were served summons under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for interrogation. The respondents, fea

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCEversusRAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.

2025 INSC 49817 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated the illegal possession, manufacture and sale of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, leading to charges under Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act against several res

SUBHELAL @ SUSHIL SAHUversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 24217 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu, was charged with offences under Sections 420, 201, 120‑B read with Section 34 of the IPC in a crypto‑currency scam involving about Rs.4 crore, of which Rs.35 lakh was attributed to him. He had been in custody since December 2023 while the trial, conducted before a Chief Judicial M

JAIDEEP BOSEversusM/S BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 24117 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant filed a private criminal defamation complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that fourteen news articles published in various newspapers defamed the authenticity of paintings to be auctioned by the complainant. The trial magistrate took cognizance, registered the complaint and issued summons to the acc

BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR.versusRANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 17517 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of the original defendants in a 1965 title suit, were restrained by a permanent injunction that barred them from disturbing the respondents' possession of the suit property. After four decades, the respondents filed an execution application in 2017 alleging breach of the injunction, leading the tr

BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC.versusBALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.

2025 INSC 8117 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs obtained decrees for specific performance of a sale agreement, directing them to deposit the balance consideration within 20 days and the defendants to execute sale deeds. The trial court decrees were set aside by a first appellate court, but the High Court later restored them in regular second appeals,

SUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO & ORS.versusPENKI ARUNA KUMARI

2025 INSC 9217 January 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, partners of an unregistered partnership firm, filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs 30 lakhs from another partner of the same firm. The trial court held the suit maintainable, but the High Court reversed, invoking Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which bars suits by partners of an unreg

P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 72516 May 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, former public servants, were charged in a large‑scale corruption case involving alleged manipulation of liquor allocations and kickbacks. They applied for anticipatory bail, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court denied relief, relying on confessional statements recorded from co‑accused under Section 161 of

NAFEES AHMAD & ANR.versusSOINUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 52016 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that set aside a First Appellate Court judgment on the ground that it failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The central issue was whether non‑compliance with the rule—specifically the omission of "points for determination"—automatically vitia

HT MEDIA LIMITEDversusPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

2026 INSC 6616 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

HT Media Ltd organized an annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit and hired foreign speakers through booking agents such as the Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry Walker Agency. The tax authorities issued show‑cause notices and later a demand of Service Tax, asserting that the fees paid to the speakers via the agent

OM PRAKASH AMBADKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 13916 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a police officer, was ordered by a Judicial Magistrate to register an FIR under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 and 506 IPC after a complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging humiliation and assault. The Magistrate, relying on the complainant’s narrative, directed police investigatio

RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 9616 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi, was intercepted on a train carrying three cartons later found to contain 50 kg of opium poppy husk. He claimed he was unaware of the cartons and had only complied with police directions to exit the coach. The trial court, relying on the seizure and the appellant's inability to e

VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 9016 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant Vijayakumar, together with friends, was returning from a movie late at night when they encountered the deceased, who was allegedly drunk and slapped the appellant. In a sudden altercation, the appellant picked up a cement brick and struck the deceased on the head, causing death, and later set the body on

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERSversusVIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH NATH

2025 INSC 7916 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Vikash Tiwary, a life convict serving a sentence for multiple offences, was transferred by the Inspector General of Prisons from Hazaribagh Central Jail to Central Jail, Dumka on 17 May 2023 after the jail superintendent warned of a potential gang war and insufficient staff to control notorious inmates. The respondent

U. SUDHEERA & OTHERSversusC. YASHODA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 8016 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of certain defendants, challenged an interim order dated 20 September 2024 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a second appeal (SA No. 518 of 2023) that directed the parties to maintain the status quo without first formulating any substantial question of law as required under Section

L. MURUGANANTHAMversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS

2025 INSC 84415 July 2025Directions issued

L. Muruganantham, a person with Becker Muscular Dystrophy and autism, was arrested on a false complaint and detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore. He alleged that the prison failed to provide adequate medical care, nutrition, and disability‑friendly facilities, leading to a deterioration of his health. The State Human

JAYKISHOR CHATURVEDI & ETC.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2025 INSC 84615 July 2025Dismissed

The appellants, promoter‑directors of a listed finance company, were found to have purchased shares in violation of SEBI's insider‑trading regulations and were penalised by an SEBI Adjudicating Officer on 28‑08‑2014. The penalty orders required payment within 45 days and were affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019, afte

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITEDversusMADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY

2025 INSC 69715 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (the appellant) sought CERC orders to approve the commercial operation date of its inter‑state transmission assets and to recover compensation for delays caused by Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd (respondent No.1). CERC, exercising powers under s.79(1) of the Electricit

M/S GAYATRI PROJECT LIMITEDversusMADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

2025 INSC 69815 May 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Gayatri Project Ltd., entered into a works contract with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation and invoked arbitration under Clause 67.4 of the contract, resulting in a 2011 award in its favour. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,

JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 53315 April 2025Dismissed

The respondent, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., sued Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another party for recovery of a sum based on an award. The Commercial Court pronounced a judgment, but the petitioners filed their appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 after a delay of 301 days and so

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust in possession of a Bangalore property since 1905, was sued by respondents who claimed a right to prevent the institution from alienating the land based on an alleged 2018 agreement to sell and an advance cash payment of Rs.75 lakh. The institution filed an ap

WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 31115 April 2024Disposed off

The petitioners are women Short Service Commissioned Officers who were released from the Armed Forces after fourteen years of service. They sought one‑time pensionary benefits on the basis that, under a Supreme Court order of November 2022, they should be deemed to have completed the twenty‑year qualifying period for p

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 20915 March 2024Disposed off

The Election Commission of India (ECI) had earlier submitted data on electoral bonds to the Supreme Court, which was kept in sealed custody as per an interim order dated 12 April 2019. The Court later directed the ECI to upload this data on its website, assuming the ECI retained a copy. The ECI informed the Court that

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 11315 February 2024

The Supreme Court of India struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments to the Finance Act 2017, which had introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties. The Court held that the scheme violated the right to information of voters under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as informat

SOMJEET MALLICKversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

2024 INSC 77214 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Somjeet Mallick, alleged that his truck was hired by the respondents who paid only the first month's rent and thereafter failed to pay the agreed rent, making false promises. A complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC led to the registration of an FIR and cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, after whi

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.

2025 INSC 98214 August 2025Disposed off

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd., a security services company, received a show‑cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act from the State GST authority for alleged tax deficiencies. Subsequently, the Central GST authority conducted a search and issued two summons under Section 70 to the company's directors to produce

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHERversusKARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA

2025 INSC 98114 August 2025Dismissed

Pernod Ricard India Private Ltd. and a related entity own the registered trademarks BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE and SEAGRAM'S for premium whiskies. They sought an interim injunction to stop Karanveer Singh Chhabra from using the mark LONDON PRIDE, alleging infringement and passing off. The Commercial Court and the Ma

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSRI DARSHAN ETC.

2025 INSC 97914 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed against a High Court order that granted bail to a celebrity actor (A2) and co‑accused in a murder‑conspiracy case involving Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC, where the victim was allegedly kidnapped, tortured and killed after sending obscene messages to A2’s partner. The High Court had reli

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH ALIAS SHAILESH R. SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 86914 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑founder of a media production firm, sought to quash an FIR filed by a rival media financier alleging offences under sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court, instead of simply deciding the petition, directed the parties to undergo mediation and ordered t

ORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERSversusBANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.

2025 INSC 83914 July 2025Disposed off

The Orissa High Court, on its administrative side, challenged its own earlier order that had struck down Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules allowing suo motu designation of Senior Advocates. The petitioners argued that the rule was consistent with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act and the Supreme Court’s Indira Jaising judgm

TORRENT POWER LIMITEDversusU.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS

2025 INSC 83814 July 2025Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a petition filed by an individual (respondent No.4) before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) seeking an investigation under Section 128 of the Electricity Act, 2003 into a Distribution Franchisee Agreement (DFA) between Torrent Power Limited (the appellant) and the d

ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.versusNIRMALA DEVI

2025 INSC 84314 July 2025

The case concerned the allotment of residential and commercial plots to land owners (oustees) whose land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1992 for a residential development project. The oustees filed suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act seeking mandatory injunctions to comp

BINOD PATHAK & ORS.versusSHANKAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

2025 INSC 84214 July 2025Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1984 which was dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the first appellate court. The defendants appealed, and the High Court set aside the first appellate court's decree, holding that several defendants had died during the pendency of the first appeal and their legal heir

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 83314 July 2025Dismissed

United Spirits Ltd., a manufacturer of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor, challenged the levy of entry tax by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the period April 2007 to March 2008, arguing that the State Government warehouses, not the manufacturers, caused the entry of goods into the local area and that no notification

SUBRATA ROY SAHARAversusPRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS.

2022 INSC 130814 July 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal filed by Subrata Roy Sahara challenging a Patna High Court order that, while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by co‑accused Pramod Kumar Saini under s.438 CrPC, directed notice to third parties including the appellant who was not an accused. The Court held that an anti

M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR

2025 INSC 69614 May 2025Dismissed

The Union of India filed a money suit of over Rs 8.73 crore in a Commercial Court in August 2019 without first complying with the pre‑institution mediation requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., raised a preliminary objection and sought rejection of the pl

PINKIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2025 INSC 48214 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by the victims of an interstate child‑trafficking racket challenging the High Court's grant of bail to thirteen accused persons charged under IPC sections 363, 311 and 370(5). The Court found that the High Court had ignored crucial factors such as the seriousness of the offence,

M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONSversusR N NADIGAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 21414 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons, had obtained a permanent injunction against the State of Karnataka in O.S. No.80 of 1978 concerning a parcel of land, and the decree became final after being upheld by appellate courts. Later, former students of a government school and other citizens filed a representative sui

CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTDversusM/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED AND ANR.

2025 INSC 7314 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff, Chemplast, entered into an agreement to sell a parcel of land to the appellant, Cuddalore Powergen, but registration of the sale deed was blocked by a Government Order (GO) that reserved the land for a power project. The plaintiff filed a first suit seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant an

RAJEEB KALITAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 7514 January 2025Directions issued

Advocate Rajeeb Kalita filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking a mandamus directing all States and Union Territories to provide separate, accessible toilet facilities for men, women, persons with disabilities and transgender persons in every court and tribunal. He highlighted the deplorable condi

CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

2024 INSC 97813 December 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered contempt petitions filed by the successful auction purchaser (Celir LLP) against the original borrower, a subsequent transferee, and the bank, alleging wilful disobedience of the Court’s 21 September 2023 judgment that confirmed the 9th auction of a secured asset and directed issuance of a

OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 77713 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant lodged an FIR alleging that his brother was murdered in Firozabad and that a separate FIR was falsely registered in Gwalior to provide an alibi for the main accused. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against several police officials, holding that sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was re

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 99313 December 2024Dismissed

The Urban Improvement Trust (the appellant) sought to acquire land in Nangli Kota and Moongaska villages under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The respondents challenged the acquisition, alleging procedural defects: failure to serve individual notices under s.52(2), premature possession before compensation w

M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD.versusM/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD

2025 INSC 131413 November 2025Dismissed

Poly Medicure Ltd., a company engaged in import‑export of medical devices, bought a software licence from Brillio Technologies to automate its export‑import documentation. The software malfunctioned, and the company filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund, alleging deficiency in service. The State Consumer Commissi

RUPESH MANGER (THAPA)versusSTATE OF SIKKIM

2023 INSC 82613 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rupesh Manger, was charged with murdering his grandfather using a sharp-edged weapon. He pleaded insanity, and the trial court, after considering psychiatric reports indicating acute psychotic disorder and abnormal behavior at the time of the offence, acquitted him under Section 84 of the IPC. The High C

BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2023 INSC 108413 September 2023Dismissed

The appellants – the husband and his in‑laws – were convicted for dowry harassment that allegedly led to the suicide of the wife, Tuli Shah, by alleged consumption of poison. The trial court, and subsequently the High Court, held that despite the post‑mortem and viscera reports being silent on the exact cause of death

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2026 INSC 67913 July 2026Dismissed

The petitioners, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and a shareholder, challenged the constitutional validity of the explanations appended to Rule 38 of the 2016 Minerals Concession Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, which require that royalty, District Mineral Foundation (DM

DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 41513 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was acquired in 1976‑77 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no compensation was ever paid. After repeatedly seeking payment, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a single High Court judge on the ground of a 42‑year delay. The Division Bench of the High Court then directe

MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2026 INSC 23613 March 2026Dismissed

The Mizo Chief Council filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of tribal chieftains alleging that the State had acquired their traditional lands without paying due compensation, violating their fundamental right to property. The petition was filed in 2014, more than six decades after the 1955 notification that

TAPAS KUMAR PALITversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 22213 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was arrested in March 2020 after his vehicle was intercepted and items allegedly linked to Naxalite activities were recovered. He has been in judicial custody for five years, with the trial still ongoing and only 42 of the planned 100 witnesses examined, some of whom have turned hostile. The central issue

RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAINversusAVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE & ANR.

2025 INSC 21313 February 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Ramesh Mishrimal Jain, entered into an agreement to sell dated 03‑09‑2003 with the mother of respondent No.1 concerning a house in Khed. The agreement stipulated that the appellant was already in possession of the property as a tenant and that ownership possession would transfer only after execution of a

SUJATA BORAversusCOAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

2026 INSC 5313 January 2026Disposed off

The appellant, Sujata Bora, applied for a Management Trainee position at Coal India Limited (CIL) in 2019 under the Visually Handicapped category and qualified for the interview. She was later declared unfit during the Initial Medical Examination because she also had residuary partial hemiparesis, and CIL denied her ap

MAMMAN KHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 111312 September 2025Disposed off

Mamman Khan, a sitting MLA, was charged in two FIRs relating to large‑scale communal violence in Nuh district. The trial court, citing the need for speedy disposal of cases involving legislators, ordered a separate charge‑sheet and segregated his trial from the co‑accused, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The app

MANSI BRAR FERNANDESversusSHUBHA SHARMA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 111012 September 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants, who entered into buy‑back memoranda of understanding for residential units, were "speculative investors" and thus barred from filing Section 7 insolvency petitions, and whether the 2019 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance and the subsequent 2020 Amendm

MANIKLAL SAHUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 110712 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant Maniklal Sahu and three co‑accused were convicted of murder under s.302 IPC for throwing the victim Rekhchand Verma from a terrace and assaulting him, resulting in injuries that led to septic shock, pneumonia and paraplegia, and the victim died nine months later. The High Court reduced the conviction to a

ITC LIMITEDversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2025 INSC 111112 September 2025Disposed off

The appellant, ITC Limited, a manufacturer of stationery, stored 7,600 pre‑packed exercise books in a warehouse in Bengaluru. On 2 July 2020, Respondent No.2, a legal metrology officer, entered the premises under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, inspected and seized the packages alleging non‑compliance with

SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORANversusJAGAN DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 110512 September 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs claimed a one‑third share in agricultural land and sought a permanent injunction and joint possession, alleging that a sale deed dated 14‑06‑1973 was fraudulent and void because they never executed it and received no consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit as time‑barred; the First Appellate Co

M.S. PATTERversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 111512 September 2025Directions issued

The case arose from a cholera outbreak and deaths at the Lampur Beggars' Home in Delhi, allegedly caused by contaminated water and poor sanitation. The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking accountability, compensation, and systemic reforms, which the Delhi High Court partially addressed but later dismi

ANNA WAMAN BHALERAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 111412 September 2025Dismissed

The appellants, a former Circle Officer and Talathi, were accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents that facilitated an illegal property transfer between 1996 and 1998. An FIR was lodged in 2019 and the appellants filed anticipatory bail applications, which received intermittent interim protectio

MAGEBA BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S TRADE CENTRE

2026 INSC 83912 August 2026Appeal(s) allowed

Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited sued M/s Trade Centre for recovery of money based on several unpaid bills. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not a registered partnership firm, but the Calcutta High Court reversed that finding, accepting the memorandum of registration and awa

K. KRISHNAMURTHYversusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2025 INSC 20812 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, K. Krishnamurthy, was searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act in November 2010, during which he disclosed an income of Rs.2,27,65,580 for AY 2011-12 and later, during assessment proceedings, disclosed an additional Rs.2,49,90,000 arising from land transactions. The Assessing Officer levied a pen

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.

2024 INSC 10212 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) claimed that it had submitted a claim of Rs 43.40 crore as a financial creditor against JNC Construction Ltd., but the resolution professional treated it as an operational creditor and the resolution plan approved by the NCLT omitted its claim and undervalued i

SANJAY KUNDUversusREGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS

2024 INSC 4312 January 2024Disposed off

The petitioner, the Director General of Police (DGP) of Himachal Pradesh, challenged an ex parte order of the Himachal High Court that transferred him and a Superintendent of Police to other posts to ensure a fair investigation into allegations of intimidation and misuse of power. The High Court had acted suo motu on a

M/S SHIV STEELSversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

2025 INSC 112611 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Shiv Steels challenged reassessments for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 that the Assam tax authorities had made after the original assessments were held time‑barred under Section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The revenue department obtained prior sanction from the Commissioner and invok

IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

2025 INSC 97711 August 2025Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, examined a dramatic rise in dog bite incidents across India, especially in the National Capital Region, which disproportionately affected visually‑impaired persons, children, the elderly and the poor. Data presented showed a steep increase in reported bites and highlighted the public

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOWversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 96611 August 2025Disposed off

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd filed Civil Suit No.447/2025 seeking an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) granted the injunction without recording reasons or complying with the proviso requiring delivery of the application, affidavit, plaint and supporting

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2022 INSC 130311 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The Union, exercising powers under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, issued a notification on 13 April 2018 extending the Punjab (Regulation of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The notification inserted a third proviso requiring unaided schools t

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 19511 March 2024

The Supreme Court had earlier declared the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional and directed the State Bank of India (SBI), as the authorized bank, to furnish the Election Commission of India (ECI) with details of each bond purchased and redeemed between 12 April 2019 and 15 February 2024. SBI filed a Miscellaneous A

M/S TECHNO PRINTSversusCHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION & ANR.

2025 INSC 23611 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, a printing firm, was issued a show‑cause notice by the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation seeking an explanation why it should not be blacklisted for three years and its EMD forfeited, alleging breach of tender clauses relating to time‑bound delivery and other obligations. The appellant challenged the not

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 71910 December 2024Disposed off

The case involved a suit for specific performance of a 1996 sale agreement concerning a half‑acre land in Bilaspur. The trial court granted specific performance, but the first appellate court set aside that part of the decree, ordering only a refund of earnest money, citing alleged hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of th

LIPI BOILERS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

2025 INSC 129710 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Lipi Boilers Ltd. entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture and supply a bagasse‑fired boiler in CKD condition, with several bought‑out components delivered directly to the buyer’s site. The revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the value of these bought‑out items should be added to the boiler’

S.K. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 121510 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a Colonel in the Army Ordnance Corps, was tried by a General Court Martial on three charges: corruption for accepting Rs 10,000, possession of ammunition without licence, and an act prejudicial to good order and discipline for possessing Rs 28,000 cash. The GCM convicted him of the first two charges and

GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 113410 September 2025Disposed off

The heirs of cultivating tenant Govindappa Gounder sued the landowners K. Vijayakumar and others, who sought eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 alleging that the tenants had cut trees, dug pits and caused damage to the land. The Revenue Court, relying on a commissi

VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 22110 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The deceased Geetha was allegedly set on fire by her mother‑in‑law, leading to her death. The trial court acquitted both the husband (appellant No.1) and the mother‑in‑law (appellant No.2) for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court reversed th

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusBCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 14019 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) floated a tender for a tank‑truck locking system and awarded a purchase order to AGC Networks Ltd., which later engaged BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (BCL) as a sub‑vendor. HPCL alleged non‑performance by AGC and denied any contractual relationship or payment liability to BCL

AJAY KUMAR JAINversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 9589 December 2024Rejected

Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain filed a miscellaneous application in a writ petition (W.P. (C) No.429/2020) that had been finally disposed of on 6‑8‑2021, seeking protection from alleged threats by a contemnor. The Supreme Court examined whether such a post‑disposal application could be entertained to revive proceedings or address

JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 6469 December 2024Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 1 September 2019. The defendants, while admitting the existence of the agreement, denied its validity, calling it a sham, and denied other material facts. The plaintiffs sought an order under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC that the defendants

KISHAN CHAND JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 9159 October 2023Disposed off

The petitioner, Kishan Chand Jain, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions that State Information Commissions (SICs) adopt hybrid or virtual hearings to reduce travel costs for applicants, especially from remote areas. The petition argued that such measures would further the legislative intent of the

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 6749 September 2024Dismissed

Former civil servants, scholars and activists filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a court order directing the Union Government to cancel existing licences and stop granting new licences for the export of arms and military equipment to Israel amid the Gaza conflict. The petitioners alleged violations of inter

SAHIL BHARGAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

2024 INSC 6999 September 2024

The petitioners, a group of students who completed an undergraduate medical degree in Uttarakhand in 2023, challenged the fee fixation imposed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, which raised fees retroactively for the 2018‑19 academic year. They sought issuance of their degrees without paying the additional

DOLI RANI SAHAversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 6039 August 2024Disposed off

The appellant, Doli Rani Saha, claimed compensation for the death of her brother who allegedly fell from a moving train in 2003. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court dismissed the claim, holding that there was insufficient proof the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger, particularly noting the absence o

ELFIT ARABIA & ANR.versusCONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS.

2024 INSC 5369 July 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, a UAE entity, claimed that the respondents defaulted on payments under a 2004 MoU and invoked arbitration in 2022, eleven years after the alleged breach in 2011. The petition sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while criminal proceeding

ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHIversusSUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC.

2024 INSC 5019 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a service dispute between teachers and non‑teaching staff of a school that had been taken over by the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) and the employees who claimed that their service conditions should not be altered. The employees filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, argu

M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 5009 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned an auction of land owned by Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which was mortgaged to a bank and later assigned to ARCIL. The Tahsildar conducted the auction without observing the mandatory 30‑day notice period and issued the sale certificate and possession to the appellant, Al‑Can Export Pvt. Ltd.,

K. MANGAYARKARASI & ANR.versusN.J. SUNDARESAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 6879 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement of the trademark ‘SRI ANGANNAN BIRIYANI HOTEL’. The respondents filed a Section 8 application invoking arbitration clauses in two assignment deeds of the trademark, alleging that the deeds were fraudulently executed. The Co

RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 4139 May 2024Disposed off

The Sessions Court convicted two accused under Section 325 IPC, sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fines. The Gujarat High Court reduced the term to four years and, invoking Section 357 of the CrPC, ordered each accused to deposit Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation to the victim, on the condition that pa

R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHERversusRAJMANI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 4789 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that remanded a suit to the trial court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite both the trial court and the first appellate court having held the suit hopelessly barred by limitation. The dispute arose from a family property that had been sold and subsequently

SUMITversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2026 INSC 1459 February 2026Disposed off

The appellant, brother‑in‑law of a deceased woman alleged to have died in a dowry case, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court granted anticipatory bail but limited its effect only until the filing of the charge‑sheet, after which the protection ceased and

M/S SHIKHAR CHEMICALSversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 9458 August 2025Disposed off

M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenged a decision of the Allahabad High Court that refused to quash a criminal complaint arising out of a civil money recovery dispute. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court t

KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS.versusGOVIND RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 9568 August 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1999 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed; the First Appellate Court, however, introduced a new issue of adverse possession—never pleaded in the plaint—and decreed in favour of the plainti

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTHE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2025 INSC 4818 April 2025Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu challenged the Governor's actions in withholding assent to 10 bills and reserving them for the President's consideration after the bills were repassed by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Governor's powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, including whether

RAM PYAREYversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 718 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the brother‑in‑law of the deceased woman, was convicted under Sections 306 and 498‑A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for abetment of suicide, while being acquitted of the dowry‑death charge under Section 304B. The deceased had set herself on fire after alleged harassment and dowry d

SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 938 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil, was charged with murdering his wife Lata. The prosecution relied on an alleged extra‑judicial confession made to the village Police Patil, the discovery of an iron rod, motive, and the fact that the crime occurred inside the house. The trial court acquitted him, holding the conf

VIJAY PRABHUversusS.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS.

2025 INSC 528 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement and delivery of possession of the property, alternatively claiming damages and refund of earnest money. The trial court denied specific performance and ordered refund of the earnest money with interest. On appeal, the High Court held that

H. GURUSWAMY & ORS.versusA. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

2025 INSC 538 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a High Court order that condoned a six‑year delay in filing an application for recall under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, overturning a trial court decision that had rejected the application. The respondents had sought to revive a suit originally filed in 1977, which had been abated after repeated d

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusSMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 958 January 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Smt. Prabha Jain, inherited a one‑third share of a plot that was illegally partitioned and sold by her brother-in‑law; the buyer later mortgaged the plot to Central Bank of India, which took possession under the SARFAESI Act. Jain filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed and mortgage dee

S. RAJASEEKARANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 11897 October 2025Directions issued

Dr. S. Rajaseekaran filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking comprehensive road‑safety measures, especially for pedestrians, helmet use, lane discipline and vehicle lighting. The Court examined the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, Road Regulations and related rules, and considered extensive data

M/S ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.

2025 INSC 11887 October 2025Disposed off

M/s Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. prints lottery tickets for its customers and procures its own ink and processing chemicals. The Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Officer levied tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the value of the ink and chemicals, arguing that they were transferred to the custom

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR.versusAMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2025 INSC 11907 October 2025Disposed off

Lifestyle Equities sued Amazon Technologies for alleged trademark infringement and obtained a money decree of Rs.336.02 crore. Amazon appealed and sought a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the CPC without depositing the decretal amount. The Delhi High Court granted an unconditional stay, prompting

ZAINULversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 11927 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent clash in Katihar district where a mob of 400‑500 armed persons assaulted several villagers, resulting in the deaths of two men and injuries to five others. The trial court convicted 21 accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC; the High Court affirmed the convictions of 12

L.K. TRUSTversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2026 INSC 4747 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

L.K. Trust borrowed Rs.3.80 crore from Corporation Bank to purchase shares of Shaw Wallace and transferred the amount to its subsidiary, which in turn advanced it to a third party for the same purpose. The Trust paid Rs.21,74,234 as interest on the loan and claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax

M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6407 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants Jindal Steel issued a work order to Bansal Infra and obtained an unconditional bank guarantee to secure an advance payment. After alleged delays, quality deficiencies and termination of the contract, the appellants threatened to encash the guarantee unless a debit balance was paid. Bansal filed a Section

TATA STEEL LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6397 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., had its resolution plan for Rohit Ferro‑Tech Ltd. approved by the NCLT on 7 April 2022. A minority shareholder, Respondent No. 1, filed an appeal to the NCLAT on 23‑24 May 2022, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 30‑day statutory period. The dispute centered on when the limitation p

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search