Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

B V NAGARATHNA

65 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

URMILA DEVI & OTHERSversusBALRAM & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 91531 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, daughters‑in‑law of a deceased landowner, obtained a mutation order based on an unregistered will and later secured an ex‑parte injunction against the complainant who had purchased a share of the land from the testator's third son. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal complaint alleging conspir

MANCHU MOHAN BABUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 91631 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Manchu Mohan Babu and his son, organized a rally and dharna on 22 March 2019 to protest the state government's refusal to reimburse student fees, despite a Model Code of Conduct prohibiting such gatherings without permission. The police registered FIR No.102 of 2019 alleging offences under IPC sections

MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAOversusMADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 99130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between Madduri Venkateswara Rao and Madduri Sunanda was dissolved by a California divorce decree in 2007. After returning to India, Sunanda filed a matrimonial suit, a domestic violence case, and an FIR under sections 494 and 498A IPC against her husband and his relatives. The parties later resolved all d

SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR.versusMOODUDULA SRINIVAS

2025 INSC 12930 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. N. Usha Rani, married her first husband in 1999, separated and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2005, and subsequently married the respondent twice, the second marriage being registered. The respondent obtained a decree declaring the first marriage void and later filed a criminal revi

SUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWANversusSTATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS

2025 INSC 96929 July 2025Disposed off

The appellant Sukhdev Yadav was convicted of murder, kidnapping and related offences and sentenced to life imprisonment fixed at twenty years without remission, along with fines. After serving the full twenty‑year term on 9 March 2025, he sought release but the Delhi High Court had earlier denied his furlough applicati

SHARDHAMMA & ANR.versusTHE DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS.

2025 INSC 58329 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased four acres of land that had been granted to Shri Ranga in 1946-47 and was subject to a Saguvalli Chit confirming a non‑alienation clause. Shri Ranga sold the land in 1969, but in 1992 a third party, Dodda Hanumaiah, filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Sche

SHANKAR LAL SHARMAversusRAJESH KOOLWAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 20029 January 2025Disposed off

Shankar Lal Sharma, a 73‑year‑old man of limited means, filed a Special Leave Petition against Rajesh Koolwal & Ors. The Court appointed Sanchar Anand as amicus curiae, who represented the petitioner pro bono on fourteen occasions. The Court examined the duty of advocates to assist indigent litigants and the broader co

CHUNNI BAIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 57728 April 2025Case Partly allowed

Chunni Bai was convicted of murdering her two young daughters after the trial court and High Court upheld a Section 302 IPC conviction. She claimed she acted under the influence of an invisible power, asserting unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony, medical autops

GASTRADE INTERNATIONALversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

2025 INSC 41128 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants imported oil from the UAE and declared it as Base Oil SN 50, but the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence re‑classified it as High Speed Diesel (HSD) and seized it. The Adjudicating Authority, CESTAT and the High Court each held the oil to be HSD, relying on three laboratory reports that tested only a por

SACHIN YALLAPPA USULKAR & ORS.versusVIJAYATA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29028 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a motor vehicle accident on 13 January 2016 in which the deceased, Vijay Jumnalkar, was killed after his vehicle was struck by a Bolero driven at high speed. The claimants, the deceased's wife and son, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation, which the Motor Acc

SARITA CHOUDHARYversusHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 28928 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the termination of two women judicial officers, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, who were dismissed during their probation on the basis of low case disposal rates, adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) remarks, and pending complaints. The petitioners argued that the adverse remarks

RAMESH BAGHELversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS

2025 INSC 10927 January 2025Disposed off

The appellant, a third‑generation Christian, sought to bury his deceased father, a pastor, in his native village of Chhindawada where his ancestors had been interred. Villagers objected, the Gram Panchayat refused, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition, directing burial at a designated Christian cemetery in Ka

GURMEET KAURversusDEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 96726 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a District Town Planner (Enforcement), ordered the demolition of unauthorized construction at Anupama College after a show‑cause notice and a restoration order under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The college’s chairman filed a private cr

MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2024 INSC 89726 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a self‑described social worker, was accused by a woman of having a decade‑long sexual relationship with her based on false promises of marriage, leading to an FIR under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the relationship was cons

BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTREversusRANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 89925 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee and that three cheques totalling Rs. 14 lakh were dishonoured. After summons were issued and before the complainant's cross‑examination, the appellant sought to amend the complaint t

AMOL BHAGWAN NEHULversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 78225 May 2025

The appellant, a 25‑year‑old student, was charged under IPC sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 for allegedly forcing sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage. The complainant, a previously married woman with a four‑year‑old child, claimed the appellant entered her house and had sexual relations after assuring

MAHAVEER SHARMAversusEXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 26825 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Mahaveer Sharma claimed death benefits under a life insurance policy taken by his father, Ramkaran Sharma, from Exide Life Insurance. The insurer repudiated the claim alleging that the father had materially suppressed information by not disclosing other existing life insurance policies at the time of prop

ANUKUL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2025 INSC 115324 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Anukul Singh, challenged a FIR and charge sheet filed under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC alleging cheating and forgery arising from a dispute over a loan and property ownership. He contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure linked to a civil dispute over land possession and that the complainant ha

M/S U.P. ASBESTOS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

2025 INSC 115424 September 2025

The Rajasthan government issued Notification S.O.377 on 9 March 2007, exempting VAT on asbestos cement sheets and bricks containing at least 25% fly ash, provided the dealer began commercial production in the state by 31‑December‑2006 and the exemption lasted until 23‑January‑2010 (later extended). The appellants, manu

SUNEETI TOTEJAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 26724 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior BIS officer deputed as Director of FSSAI, acted as Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) investigating a sexual harassment complaint. She filed a counter‑affidavit on behalf of the complainant without the complainant’s consent, and later amended it when the complainant wis

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 74723 September 2024Case Allowed

The respondents were convicted for murder and related offences arising from an incident on 17 January 2002. After being acquitted by the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the conviction in 2022, and the accused served more than four years of imprisonment. The accused then filed a miscellaneous application claiming

M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 75522 May 2025Disposed off

M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter of soybean meal, claimed a 1% All‑Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback that it had been denied after availing CENVAT benefits. The dispute centered on whether Circular No. 35/2010‑Cus dated 17 September 2010, which clarified that the customs component of the d

LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM & OTHERSversusKOHLI BROTHERS COLOUR LAB. PVT. LTD. & OTHERS

2024 INSC 13522 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the statutory vesting of enemy property in the Custodian for Enemy Property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 amounts to an expropriation that transfers ownership to the Union of India, thereby invoking Article 285's tax exemption. It held that the Custodian acts only as a trustee fo

PINKY MEENAversusTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR.

2025 INSC 75621 May 2025

Pinky Meena, a former Government Teacher, applied for and was selected as a Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. After resigning from her teaching post, she completed her probationary training but was later served a show‑cause notice and discharged on allegations of simultaneously obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed. de

SACHINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 71621 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC for penetrative sexual assault on a four‑year‑old girl and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. In his appeal against conviction, the High Court affirmed the conviction but, finding that the trial court had overlooked aggravated provisions, issued a sh

SACHINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 51821 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced by the Special Court to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court and the Special Court altered the sentence to life imprisonment with a fine, leading the appellant to serve eleven years and eight months, exceeding the original term. Th

VIPIN KUMARversusJAYDEEP & OTHERS

2025 INSC 16921 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a resident of Village Fakarhedi, challenged the appointment of Defendant No.3 as a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor, alleging that the appointment was based on a fraudulent domicile certificate. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit ex parte, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismiss

LAXMI DASversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 8621 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. Laxmi Das, mother of Babu Das, was charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetment of suicide of Souma Pal. The High Court upheld the charge against her, finding prima facie material that she had allegedly told the deceased she need not be alive. On appeal, the Supreme Court e

DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL

2024 INSC 35519 April 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, both commercial pilots, claimed to have "solemnised" their marriage on 7 July 2021 and obtained a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti, which was later used to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In reality, no Hindu rites or saptapadi were perfo

MAATR SPARSH AN INITIATIVE BY AVYAAN FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 30219 February 2025Disposed off

The NGO Avyaan Foundation filed a public‑interest writ seeking a mandamus directing the Union and State governments to construct feeding and child‑care rooms in public places for nursing mothers. The petition argued that lack of such facilities infringes the fundamental rights of mothers and children, invoking Article

GOPAL DIKSHITversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 73118 May 2025

The appellant, owner of a Delhi premises insured under a household policy, claimed loss after heavy rains in August 2016 flooded his basement, causing extensive damage to contents. The insurer rejected the claim, asserting that the damage resulted from continuous seepage, a peril not covered under the policy, and commi

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERSversusAALAMGIR & OTHERS

2025 INSC 40718 March 2025Disposed off

The State of Haryana appealed against several Punjab and Haryana High Court orders that had set aside land acquisition notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following writ petitions by land owners and subsequent purchasers. The petitioners sought relief under Section 24(2) of th

SHAJI POULOSEversusINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 45117 May 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, chartered accountants, challenged the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India's Guidelines dated 08‑08‑2008 that capped the number of tax audits a member could undertake under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. They argued that the restriction was beyond the Council's competence, vi

BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMANversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2025 INSC 79616 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Baljinder Singh, alleged that the respondents, Mandeep Singh and Narinder Kumar, attacked him and his driver with wooden sticks, leading to the driver’s death. The respondents were charged under Sections 302, 323, 34, 427, 120B (with 148 and 149 later deleted) of the IPC and sought regular bail under Sec

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, Dhanasingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of Rs.21 lakh to the respondents who were partners of the partnership firm “Mouriya Coirs”. The respondents issued a cheque in the name of the firm which was dishonoured, prompting the appellant to serve a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

VIBHOR GARGversusNEHA

2025 INSC 82914 July 2025Case Allowed

The husband filed a divorce petition and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations with his wife as evidence, submitting memory cards, a CD and transcripts. The Family Court allowed the evidence, but the High Court set aside that order on the ground that the recordings violated the wife's right to p

DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.versusTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 7214 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, senior civil judges in Jharkhand, qualified the suitability test for promotion to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service but were not selected because junior judges with higher marks were placed ahead of them in a merit list. They challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, arguing th

KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 69213 September 2024

The appellants, owners of land reserved for Development Plan Roads under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, constructed the roads at their own cost, surrendered the land to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and were granted 25% transferable development rights (TDR). They later claimed the balance 75% (or 10

DASARI ANIL KUMAR & ANOTHERversusTHE CHILD WELFARE PROJECT DIRECTOR & OTHERS

2025 INSC 97212 August 2025Disposed off

The appellants, who had adopted four minor girls under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, had their custody seized by police on the basis of an FIR and the children were placed under the Child Welfare Project Director. The appellants challenged the police action, arguing it was illegal and violated Articles

RAJESH CHADDHAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 67112 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Rajesh Chaddha was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, who claimed physical and mental torture, including a miscarriage. The High Court, exercising revisionary jurisdiction, upheld the conviction despite the

THIRUNAGALINGAMversusLINGESWARAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 67212 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, but the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree after the defendants stopped appearing. The defendants later obtained condonation of delay for earlier applications under Order IX Rule 13, but the Supreme Court dismissed those condonation petitions i

KAMALKISHOR SHRIGOPAL TAPARIAversusINDIA ENER-GEN PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 22312 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an independent non‑executive director of D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd., was named in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. The cheques were not signed by him and he had resigned from the board before the offences occurred. He so

SUMAN MISHRA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 20311 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a husband and his in‑laws, sought to quash a FIR and charge‑sheet filed after the husband filed a divorce suit, alleging that the FIR was a retaliatory, vexatious measure. The FIR originally alleged rape under Section 376 IPC, but the charge‑sheet omitted that offence and no protest petition was filed a

JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 109610 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, JVRR Education Society, was accused of cheating and forgery for allegedly submitting a forged fire No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) to obtain recognition and renewal of affiliation for its college, which operated from a building 14.20 metres high. The charge sheet under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC c

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusFUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

2025 INSC 18110 February 2025Disposed off

The Union of India challenged the liability of several private companies, including Future Gaming Solutions, to pay service tax on the sale of paper and online lottery tickets for the Government of Sikkim. The High Court of Sikkim had set aside service‑tax notices issued under various amendments to the Finance Act, 199

VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 12099 October 2025Case Allowed

The petitioners, three intending couples, had completed the embryo‑freezing stage of surrogacy in 2020‑2021, before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 25 January 2022. After the Act’s commencement, the statutory age limits (female ≤50, male ≤55) barred them from obtaining the eligibility certificat

GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10899 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment tha

M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC

2025 INSC 8048 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 3

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit in 1993 for specific performance of a 1991 sale agreement, which was rejected in 1998 for non‑payment of court fees. The plaintiff then filed a second suit in 2007 seeking the same relief, invoking Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC to avoid the effect of the earlier rejection. The defe

JAMNALALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 9356 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a minor rape victim appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order that suspended the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 389 of the CrPC and released him on bail. The accused had been convicted under Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of the IPC, receiving a 20‑year r

SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD.versusM/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 4536 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. insured a single voyage of its barge Srijoy II from Mumbai to Kolkata with New India Assurance for the period 16 May‑15 June 2013, subject to a special condition that the voyage must commence and be completed before the monsoon sets in. The vessel departed on 6 June 2013, was forced to anchor d

BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 4586 April 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, a former judicial officer, was charged under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC for allegedly promising marriage to a woman who was in the midst of a divorce, subsequently having a consensual relationship and later avoiding her. The complainant claimed the appellant used his position to exploit her, whi

JASPAL SINGH KAURALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2025 INSC 4576 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jaspal Singh Kaural, had a consensual physical relationship with the complainant after promising to marry her and care for her children, leading her to obtain a divorce. When the appellant later refused to marry and threatened her children, the complainant filed an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGHversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 1546 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a Tata truck insured with National Insurance Company, suffered a fire loss on 8 June 2014 while the vehicle was covered by a valid National Permit. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the insurer to settle the claim on a non‑standard basis, relying on a prior judgment. The i

GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2025 INSC 1606 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged dowry demands, mental and physical harassment by her husband and in‑laws, and implicated the appellant Geddam Jhansi (her mother‑in‑law’s sister) and her son Geddam Sathyakama Jabali as pressurising her to obey her husband’s wishes. The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Sec

GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 6585 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants, Gopal Govind Lakade and another, filed a criminal application seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against them. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the application outright without issuing notice to the respondents and without providing any reasons. The appellants

VAIBHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 8004 June 2025Disposed off

The appellant Vaibhav was convicted for murdering his friend Mangesh under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under the Arms Act, based solely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that Mangesh accidentally shot himself with his father's service pistol, citing the bullet trajectory, lac

GHANSHYAM SONIversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2025 INSC 8034 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ghanshyam Soni, was accused under sections 498A, 34 and 406 IPC for alleged cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, a police officer, with incidents said to have occurred in 1999. The complainant filed a complaint on 3 July 2002, leading to an FIR on 19 December 2002 and a charge‑sheet in 2004, after whic

K.S. MEHTAversusM/S MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 3153 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, K.S. Mehta and Basant Kumar Goswami, were non‑executive directors of Blue Coast Hotels & Resorts Ltd. and were implicated in criminal complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques issued to repay an inter‑corporate deposit. They neither atte

R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2025 INSC 6121 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants, recruited as Sub‑Inspectors of Police through direct recruitment, challenged a Government Order dated 21‑11‑2017 that granted seniority to 20% in‑service candidates over those recruited from the open market. The order retrospectively amended Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 19

M/S NARESH KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 7191 May 2025Disposed off

The Punjab government amended section 29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 in 2013, extending the time limit for tax assessment from three to six years and inserting a new sub‑section (10A). Several assessees challenged the amendment, arguing that it was prospective, violated Articles 14 and 19, contravened natur

VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS

2024 INSC 1591 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging that the sole proprietor developer failed to complete construction and pay dues under a 1996 Development Agreement. The developer died during the pendency of the case, and the legal representatives were directed by the NCDRC to both pay monetary amounts and to perform

B.N. JOHNversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 41 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, B.N. John, owned a hostel for underprivileged children and alleged that officials raided it illegally on 3 June 2015, falsely accusing him of assaulting them. An FIR was lodged under IPC s.353, and a charge‑sheet later added s.186, leading the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to take cognizance and issue

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