IndexCitationsUnion of India & Ors. v. NM Raut & Ors., SLP (C) No. 8015 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1040Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041Sugirtha v. Gowtham, SLP (C) No. 18240 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1042Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman &...
Index
Union of India & Ors. v. NM Raut & Ors., SLP (C) No. 8015 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
Sugirtha v. Gowtham, SLP (C) No. 18240 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1042
Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1043
Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal (D) By Lrs v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare, Arising Out of SLP (C.) Nos. 11716-11717 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1044
Anil Kumar J. Bavishi v. Mahendra Kumar Jalan @ M.K. Jalan., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1051
Tehsildar and Anr v. Renjith George 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1052
M/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3
BN John v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gagan Narang & Ors. Etc. | Civil Appeal Nos. 7463-7464 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 5
Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6
Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 7
Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajni Sahoo 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Jayshree Kanabar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10
Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 11
Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 12
Dalip Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8687 of 2012 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 13
Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14
Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho., Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 15
Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/S S.R. Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 16
Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand., SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18
Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 48/2025 (and connected cases) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19
Anas V v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 823/2024
Geeta Rani Sharma v. Election Commission of India SLP(C) No. 030277/2024
Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7023/2024
Umar Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 629/2023
Achal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 877/2020
Directorate of Enforcement v. Surender Panwar
Munitions India Limited & Anr. v. Ammunition Factory Workers Union & Ors.
Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019
Reports/Judgments
Central Govt Employee Can't Take Benefits Of Both MACPS & Time-Bound Promotion: Supreme Court Issues Directions On Recoveries
Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. NM Raut & Ors., SLP (C) No. 8015 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
The Supreme Court held that a central government servant was not entitled to the benefit of both time-bound promotion scheme as well as the benefit of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme.
"Grant of financial upgradations as well as promotions are to be duly accounted for and taken into consideration in the MACPS," the Court observed.
Holding so, the Court issued directions regarding the recoveries from employees who were given double benefits under the MACPS as well as the grade pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
At the same time, the Court directed the Union Government to not recover arrears from retired Government Employees and those set to retire within 1 year of this judgment who were given benefit by the Central Government of revised pay on the implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar pronounced the judgment in civil appeals concerning the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008 (MACPS). The MACPS allows every government servant to get upgradation on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service from the date of Joining.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Where It's Glaring From Averments That Suit Is Hopelessly Time-Barred, Plaint Is To Be Rejected: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated April 26, 2016.
While reiterating the position of law that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question for rejecting the plaint on that has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that in cases where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by the limitation, the "Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the Trial Court".
Visitation Rights Of Parent Cannot Be At Cost Of Child's Health & Well-Being: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sugirtha v. Gowtham, SLP (C) No. 18240 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1042
Observing that the health of a child cannot be compromised while deciding the disputes between the parents, the Supreme Court modified the directions allowing interim visitation rights to a father.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale allowed an appeal against the order of the Madras High Court to a limited extent of modifying the place of visitation for the father to meet his 2-year-old daughter at a place where the mother along with the minor daughter resides.
"The interest of the minor child is paramount. In the process of adjudicating upon the rights of the parents, her health cannot be compromised," the Court observed while holding that the visitation rights of the parent cannot be at the cost of health and well-being of the child.
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation -Conferring Power To Execute Partition On Revenue Authorities Doesn't Bar Civil Court's Jurisdiction To Decide Rights: Supreme Court
Case Details: Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1043
The Supreme Court ruled that even though a statute vests an exclusive jurisdiction with the revenue authorities to enforce and execute the partition, it cannot limit the civil court's jurisdiction to decide the contentious issues regarding the declaration of rights, title, and interest over the suit property.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Gauhati High Court decision concerning the partition of the suit property as per the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation).
'Blatant Medical Negligence': Supreme Court Directs Surgeon To Pay Rs 3.5 Lakh To Patient Who Developed Infection After Cataract Operation
Case Details: Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal (D) By Lrs v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare, Arising Out of SLP (C.) Nos. 11716-11717 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1044
The Supreme Court restored the findings of the State Consumer Commission of Maharashtra which found that the present Respondent, an eye surgeon, had failed to diagnose and also further failed to take corrective steps after the Appellant developed an infection and abscess following a cataract operation.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale held that this amounted to medical negligence and overruled the finding of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that there was no negligence.
"It was a blatant result of medical negligence by the respondent in post-operative care wherein corrective steps could have been taken, if the most reasonable and basic skills which were expected from the respondent-doctor, were applied," the Court held.
The Respondent is now directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000 to the Appellant within 2 months, failing which the amount shall carry an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the judgment till its realisation.
For Offence Of False Evidence In A Tribunal, Only Remedy Is Private Complaint; Route Of S.195/340 CrPC Not Applicable: Supreme Court
Case Details: Anil Kumar J. Bavishi v. Mahendra Kumar Jalan @ M.K. Jalan., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
The Supreme Court held that for the offence of giving false evidence before a Tribunal, the only remedy is to file a private complaint, as the route of Sections 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is available only for offences committed in a proceeding before a Court(and not a Tribunal).
Dismissal Of Earlier S.482 CrPC Petition Doesn't Bar Subsequent Petition Filed Due To Change In Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1051
Observing that the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to the criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of a previous petition does not preclude the filing of a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C if it is prompted by a change in the law.
The Court rejected the argument that if the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition is not maintainable.
According to the Court, if the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without a liberty to file afresh then it would not be necessary for the litigant to obtain the leave of the Judge who had dismissed the earlier petition prior to filing the subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision which dismissed the subsequent petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.
2018 Amendment To Kerala Paddy Land Act Applicable Only To Conversion Applications Filed After Dec 30, 2017: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tehsildar and Anr v. Renjith George
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1052
The Supreme Court held that the 2018 amendment made to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which came into effect from 30.12.2017, is applicable only to applications for conversion of land which are filed after 30.12.2017.
The previous applications, which were pending when the 2018 amendment came into force, should be decided as per the un-amended regime, the Court clarified.
The 2018 amendment introduced significant changes to the Paddy Land Act, including a condition to pay a fee in proportion to the fair value of the land for conversions. As per the amendment, the fee was applicable for conversion of "unnotified lands" as well, which are lands notified as paddy land in the basic tax register but are not notified as paddy lands.
The Supreme Court did not delve deep into the question whether the amendment is retrospective or retroactive for the reason that the amendment act itself specified that it will come into force from 31.12.2017 only.
"At best, the new conditions inserted through the 2018 Amendment Act can, therefore, be enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the conversion of their lands after 30.12.2017. In other words, all those applications which had been submitted prior to the amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme," observed a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
S.142 NI Act | Improper To Dismiss/Quash Cheque Dishonour Complaint Of Company At Threshold On Question Of Authorisation: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court reiterated that in the dishonour of cheque cases, where complainant is a company, it is necessary to show during the trial that the complaint, if not filed by the payee, is filed by someone having knowledge of complainant's contents. Apart from this, the same person should also be duly authorised to pursue the complaint.
The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan further highlighted that the accused can raise dispute regarding the authorisation of the complainant and knowledge of the relevant transaction during the course of trial. However, dismissal or quashing of the complaint at the threshold would not be justified. Reliance was placed on several cases including A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and Another.
"When the company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant should necessarily be the company which is to be represented by an authorised employee and in such a situation, the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement, oral or by affidavit, to the effect that complainant is represented by an authorised person who has knowledge, would be sufficient."
Land Acquisition Compensation - In Exceptional Cases, Courts Can Direct Market Value Be Determined Based On A Date After Prelim Notification: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2
The Supreme Court observed that although the land acquisition compensation is to be determined at the market rate prevailing on the date of issuance of the notification regarding the acquisition of land, the compensation can be determined based on a later date in exceptional circumstances when the delay in the disbursal of the compensation has been inordinate.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard a case challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision to reject the appellant's plea for compensation based on a later valuation date, contending that delays in payment had significantly impacted the land's market value, warranting compensation based on the later date rather than the date of the land acquisition notification.
Parents & Senior Citizens Act - Maintenance Tribunal Has Power To Order Eviction & Transfer Of Possession: Supreme Court
Case Details: Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3
The Supreme Court clarified that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has the power to order the eviction and transfer of possession.
Without such a power, the objectives of the 2007 Act - which are to grant speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies to elderly citizens- would be defeated, the Court said.
A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was deciding an appeal filed by a mother seeking to annul a gift deed executed in favour of her son in 2019. The mother complained that the son was not looking after her and hence, the gift deed was liable to be cancelled as per Section 23 of the Act, since the conveyance was made subject to the condition of providing maintenance. Though the Tribunal set aside the gift deed and a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the same, a division bench of the High Court, in son's appeal, reversed the Tribunal's decision
The Supreme Court disapproved of the reasoning of the division bench that Section 23 was a standalone provision and the Tribunal had no power to transfer possession.
Complaint Within Meaning Of CrPC Is One Filed Before Judicial Magistrate & Not Executive Magistrate: Supreme Court
Case Details: BN John v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court stated that a complaint within the meaning and scope of the Criminal Procedure Code is a complaint filed before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate.
The Court held that a complaint filed before an Executive Magistrate cannot be regarded as a complaint filed in terms of Section 195 of the CrPC.
To support this, Section 2(d), which defines complaint was referred to. The Court also placed its reliance on Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P., (1982) 1 SCC 71 which discussed the difference between a judicial and an executive magistrate.
“Thus, a complaint within the meaning and scope of the Criminal Procedure Code would mean such a complaint filed before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate.,” the Bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated.
The Court held that subsequent mentioning of crucial facts, which the complainant could have stated at the time of lodging of the FIR itself, would raise doubts as it indicates an afterthought.
The omission of crucial facts in the FIR cannot be supplemented through witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, the Court held.
"Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed," the Court observed.
The Court made these observations while quashing a criminal case against the accused-appellant under Section 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC.
The Bench opined that the offence specified under Section 353 is of more serious nature involving a stringent punishment when compared with Section 186. While in Section 186 voluntarily obstructing any public servant in discharge of his official function would suffice, there is clear requirement of criminal force or assault under Section 353.
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Municipal Corporation's Powers To Issue Tariff-Based Bids For Waste-To-Energy Project
Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gagan Narang & Ors. Etc. | Civil Appeal Nos. 7463-7464 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court upheld the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) powers to issue tariff-based bids in Waste-to-Energy (WTE) projects under the Electricity Act 2003.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) which set aside the decision of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) dated 6th and 7th March 2023.
The Court observed that the impugned order of APTEL overlooked the larger public interest involved in the disposal of the huge quantity of waste produced in the National Capital.
"The APTEL also failed to take into consideration that the WTE project in question was in the larger public interest thereby providing for disposal of the huge quantity of waste generated in the city of Delhi."
Sale Deed Executed After Adoption By Mother For Pre-Adoption Property Binding On Adopted Child: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6
The Supreme Court observed that although a widow female Hindu's adopted child's rights relate to the date of the adoptive father's death, it would not divest the rights acquired by a female Hindu before an adoption.
In other words, the court stated that any transaction made by the adoptive mother regarding the suit property acquired by her prior to the adoption would remain binding on the adopted child after the adoption.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that the property acquired by a female Hindu before the child's adoption remains her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”), and therefore as per Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) the child's adoption would not divest her of the rights acquired by her before adoption.
The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision validating the sale deed executed by the Appellant's adoptive mother in favor of other defendants after the Appellant's adoption.
High Courts Can Quash Criminal Proceedings Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction Also Apart From S.482 CrPC Power: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 7
The Supreme Court observed that apart from exercising its power to quash a criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can also exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the criminal case to prevent misuse of the law.
“It is true that normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in an invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar was hearing the criminal appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's decision that refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants in the exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Mere Registration Of Will Won't Make It Valid Unless Its Execution Proved As Per Evidence Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere registration of a will would not make it valid unless the same is not proved as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. While the first provision pertains to the execution of unprivileged wills, the other one talks about the proof of execution of document.
The Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal further noted that as per Section 68, at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution of a Will. Reliance was placed on the recent cases of Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Can Look Into Police Records To Determine Question Of Negligence: Supreme Court
Case Details: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajni Sahoo
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9
The Supreme Court reiterated that in motor accident claim cases, police records can be looked into by the Tribunal/Court to determine the question of negligence.
A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal referred to Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors(2018) which held that charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases can be relied upon.
It was held in Mangla Ram that the filing of charge-sheet prima against the driver facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
"Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into," the Bench observed.
The Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by an insurer against a judgment of the High Court in a motor accident compensation case.
Grant Of Bail Must Be Subject To Embargo In Special Enactments: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Of MCOCA Accused
Case Details: Jayshree Kanabar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10
The Supreme Court held that when a special law imposes an embargo on the grant of bail, then the Courts must exercise the power to grant bail subject to the conditions specified under the special provision.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol set aside the bail granted to an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”) because instead of limiting its consideration to whether the conditions of bail gets fulfilled or not, the High Court delved into the correctness of the prosecution's case and sufficiency of the evidence.
Laws Applicable To Andhra Pradesh Continue To Apply To New States Of Telangana & AP After Bifurcation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 11
The Supreme Court clarified that all laws applicable to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh would continue to apply to the newly carved out States of Telangana & AP till such time the laws were altered, repealed, or amended.
A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal set aside a common judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were quashed on grounds that the offences alleged were within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh, even after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State.
The Supreme Court held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not require permission from the State Government to register a First Information Report (FIR) under the Central Legislation against a Central Government employee just because the employee happens to work within the territory of a particular State.
In this case, two FIRs were registered against central government employees working in Andhra Pradesh under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
The two accused persons then moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court contending that the general consent given for the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (DSPE) by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh cannot apply to the State after its bifurcation and that a fresh consent was needed from the newly formed State of AP. The High Court quashed the proceedings.
The bench set aside the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had interpreted the DSPE, 1946 to mean that the consent of Andhra Pradesh was required to investigate the cases.
Accused Who Absconded Can Be Prosecuted Under S.174A IPC Even If Proclamation Under S.82 CrPC Is Extinguished: Supreme Court
Case Details: Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 12
The Supreme Court observed that while a proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be enforced if the underlying case is quashed, the accused may still be penalized under Section 174A IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation, as it constitutes an independent offence arising from the initial proclamation.
The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was hearing the case where the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash the proclamation issued against the Appellant in response to non-appearance in the cheque dishonor case in which he was already exonerated. Also, the High Court refused to quash the offence made out under Section 174A of IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation.
Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Lease & Allotment
Case Details: Dalip Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8687 of 2012
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 13
The Supreme Court while deciding a batch of civil appeals, reiterated that terms lease and allotment are different. Lease is a temporary grant whereas allotment though is a temporary right of use and occupation of evacuee but does not include a grant by way of a lease., the Court said.
The Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal relied upon a thread of precedents Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property & Ors., 1957 INSC 28, Basant Ram v. Union of India., AIR 1962 SC 994 to hold:
"In Dalip Ram's case (supra), which was dismissed as per orders in this judgment, we have held that 'lease' and 'allotment' are different and a person who got possession of subject land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned from whom it got the land on lease."
High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse: Supreme Court
Case Details: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine another, despite the Tribunal already having provided ample time for cross-examination.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court can interfere with the impugned order under its Writ Jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances when the impugned order suffers from perversity.
“It is evident from the above that even as per the quote hereinabove interference under Article 226/227 is 'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.”, the court said.
Observing that the High Court failed to point out any perversity in the tribunal's order, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha deprecated the practice of interfering with the arbitral process when full opportunity was granted to the parties to present their case in the proceedings governed under Section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”).
Finding That 'Will Is Validly Executed' Doesn't Mean 'Will Is Genuine': Supreme Court
Case Details: Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho., Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 15
The Supreme Court observed that once the execution of the will is proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, then it shall be the 'irrecusable duty' of Court to call upon a propounder (person presenting the will before the Court for approval) to remove any raised suspicious circumstances.
The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that a 'Will is validly executed' and a 'Will is genuine' cannot be said to be the same. The Court explained that even if it is proved that the will was executed in accordance with the law, the same cannot lead to the presumption about its genuineness.
Arbitration Act 1940 | 30-Day Objection Period Starts When Objector Becomes Aware of Award, Not Upon Formal Notice: Supreme Court
Case Details: Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/S S.R. Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 16
The Supreme Court noted that under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (“1940 Act”), 30-day period for filing objections begins when the objector becomes aware of the award, not upon receiving formal notice
“The question for consideration is whether the time for filing a Section 17 application commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice (18.11.2022) of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the existence of the award. In fact, this issue is no more res-integra. Following certain precedents of this Court, we have allowed the appeal having found that the respondent was fully aware of the making of the Award (by 21.09.2022), for the law does not require a formal notice of the making of the Award, as against knowledge/notice of the Award.”, the Court said.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision which affirmed the trial court's decision to declare the Appellant's application for making of the award as premature because it was filed before the commencement of the limitation period for filing objection against the award.
S.354 IPC | To Establish Mens Rea, Something More Than Vague Statements Must Be Produced: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet
Case Details: Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17
The Supreme Court observed that for Section 354 IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) to apply, criminal force must be used. Further, such application of force must be coupled with intention to outrage a woman's modesty.
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and C.T. Ravikumar added that in order to establish mens rea something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. Mere bald assertions of mental and physical discomfort would not suffice.
Motor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced: Supreme Court
Case Details: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand., SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18
The Supreme Court while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed after taking into account the tax returns. However, the details of tax payment must be properly brought into evidence to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income.
The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol were deciding a batch of appeals preferred both by the insurer and the claimant. While the claimant prayed for the enhancement of compensation, the insurer pleaded for the reduction.
'IBC A Complete Code': Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Exercising Writ Jurisdiction To Interdict CIRP
Case Details: Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 48/2025 (and connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19
Disapproving a High Court's order interdicting a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court observed that the IBC is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, and thus, the exercise of supervisory and judicial review powers by High Courts demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application.
Allowing the appeal of a successful resolution applicant against Karnataka High Court's interdicting of the CIRP, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said,
"In view of the delay in approaching the High Court, particularly when respondent no.1 himself has initiated proceedings under the Code by filing interlocutory applications seeking similar relief, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition...Apart from delay and laches, High Court should have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. This is certainly not a case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code."
Orders
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against UP Court's Remarks On 'Love Jihad'
Case Details: Anas V v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 823/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking expunging of 'Love-Jihad' remarks in an Uttar Pradesh Court's order as well as guidelines to ensure that judicial pronouncements remain free from personal/generalized observations.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition as not pressed, noting that the petitioner had no locus (not being a party before the UP court) and was merely 'sensationalizing' the issue.
Supreme Court Pulls Up Advocate For Alleging Nepotism In Senior Designations For Judges' Relatives, Warns Of Contempt
Case Details: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Ors. v. The Full Court of The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 60205-2024
The Supreme Court slammed Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara over a plea filed insinuating that it is impossible to find any constitutional court judge (sitting or retired) across the country whose offspring/brother/sister/nephew over 40 yrs of age has not been designated as a senior advocate.
The petition was filed challenging the recent senior designations conferred by the Delhi High Court on 70 advocates.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, taking offense to the averment in the petition (drafted and sworn by Nedumpara) asked if Nedumpara would like to amend and remove the offending assertions. Following initial reservations from the petitioner's side, the bench sternly warned that it would take appropriate steps in accordance with law against all petitioners for the "scurrilous and unfounded allegations made against the institution" if the petition continues to remain in the same format.
The matter was adjourned to enable Nedumpara to reflect upon the bench's observations and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action.
'Funds Coming For 'Farishtey Dilli Ke' Scheme': Delhi Govt Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Against LG
Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Office of the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 1352/2023
After being told that the issue of non-payment has been resolved, the Supreme Court disposed of the dispute pending between Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government and Delhi LG VK Saxena over re-operationalization of the 'Farishtey' scheme (for road accident victims) by releasing pending hospital bills and making timely payments to private hospitals.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order upon hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for Delhi government) who submitted that pursuant to issuance of notice in the matter, moneys have started coming in and therefore the petitioner-government did not wish to press the petition.
HC Incorrect In Deleting District Magistrate As Necessary Party In Election Petition: Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea
Case Details: Geeta Rani Sharma v. Election Commission of India SLP(C) No. 030277/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which allowed the deletion of Election Commission of India (ECI) and District Magistrate as necessary parties in an election petition challenging the Lok Sabha elections in Gautam Buddha Nagar Constituency in Uttar Pradesh.
Before the High Court, the petitioner had filed an election petition with respect to wrongful rejection of nomination papers by the Returning Officer under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act, and impleaded the ECI as necessary party.
The main challenge was regarding the Lok Sabha election for the seat of Gautam Buddha Nagar Constituency. Notably Dr Mahesh Sharma won the 17th LokSabha from the said constituency.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar while issuing notice, observed that the High Court was incorrect at least in removing the District Magistrate from the proceedings considering that the winning candidate alone would not able to furnish information on nomination papers.
Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque Row: Supreme Court Bench Questions Excavation At Site Despite Interim Order
Case Details: Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7023/2024
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place before CJI Sanjiv Khanna a petition challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's order whereby the Archaeological Survey of India was directed to conduct a survey at the Bhojshala Temple-cum-Kamal Maula Mosque complex.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that a CJI-led bench is in seisin of a batch of cases wherein Places of Worship Act has been challenged.
Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Provide Medical & Enquiry Reports On Gangster-Politician Mukhtar Ansari's Death To His Son
Case Details: Umar Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 629/2023
The Supreme Court asked Uttar Pradesh authorities to furnish copies of medical and enquiry reports pertaining to the death of gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari to his son Umar Ansari.
The matter was before a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, which upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Umar Ansari), asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (for UP) to supply to the petitioner copies of all relevant reports pertaining to Mukhtar Ansari's death. The UP government was given 2 weeks' time to do the needful.
'Not Prudent To Deploy Outsourced Staff In Judicial Institutions': Supreme Court Raises Concerns About CAT Jammu Bench
Case Details: Achal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 877/2020
While dealing with a matter pertaining to functioning of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) bench at Jammu, the Supreme Court flagged concerns about outsourcing of private individuals into judicial institutions and running of the institutions at private properties.
"It is highly desirable that there should be a permanent building of the Tribunal alongwith proper courtrooms, chambers, officers and other staff of the Tribunal. Similarly, it may not be prudent to deploy the outsourced staff in judicial/quasi-judicial institutions where maintenance of records, confidentiality and updating of records are day-to-day challenges", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Plea Against HC Quashing Arrest Of Former Congress MLA Surender Panwar
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Surender Panwar
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to quash the arrest of former Congress MLA Surender Panwar in a money laundering case pertaining to alleged illegal mining and fabrication of e-rawana bills.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih clarified that the findings of the High Court were rendered solely to address the issue of the legality of the arrest and would not affect the merits of the ongoing complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The High Court had also directed the ED to take remedial measures to prevent undue harassment during investigations. It recommended adopting reasonable time limits for interrogation sessions and ensuring compliance with human rights standards laid down by the United Nations.
Supreme Court Rejects PSU's Plea Against Order To Include HRA & Other Allowances In Overtime Wage Calculation
Case Details: Munitions India Limited & Anr. v. Ammunition Factory Workers Union & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by PSU Munitions India Limited against an interim order of the Bombay High Court directing the implementation of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decision that mandated including certain compensatory allowances in the calculation of overtime wages under the Factories Act, 1948.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, clarified, however, that the petitioners could approach the High Court to seek an expedited hearing of their pending petition against the CAT decision.
Caste Discrimination In Colleges: Supreme Court Seeks Data From UGC On Equal Opportunity Cells, Action On Complaints Received
Case Details: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019
In a PIL filed by the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi assailing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), the Supreme Court called on the University Grants Commission to collate and furnish data from universities (central/state/private/deemed) with regard to setting up of Equal Opportunity Cells and total number of complaints received under the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 along with action taken reports.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Advocate Disha Wadekar (for petitioners) who stressed UGC's failure to implement the 2012 regulations and urged the court to seek data from the Union of India and the National Assessment and Accreditation Council - including data as to the number of suicides by students belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category in HEIs.
Supreme Court Mulls Extending Order For Colour-Coded Stickers To Identity Fuel-Type Of Vehicles Beyond Delhi-NCR
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of identifying vehicles by their fuel type using colour-coded stickers in addressing air pollution. The Court observed that merely issuing orders without enforcement would not address vehicular pollution.
“Some action has to be taken against vehicles which are not compliant, only passing these orders will not serve any purpose”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked.
Justice Oka noted that the GRAP framework, which includes removing diesel vehicles during severe pollution, relies on these stickers for enforcement. “That's actually the most vital purpose. So those (vehicles) which diesel stickers could be picked up”, he observed.
A bench Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih discussed extending the applicability of the Court's earlier directions mandating the use of hologram-based stickers of different colours for different fuel types in the National Capital Region (NCR) to all other states and union territories.
“The orders of this court, the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and Clauses 6(viii) and 6(ix) of Motor Vehicle (High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2018 operate in the same field. There cannot be any dispute that in some manner the diesel, petrol etc. vehicles have to be identified by display of sticker”, the Court remarked in its order.
The bench indicated that it may pass an order directing compliance with Rule 50(1)(iv) for older vehicles registered between March 26, 1993 and April 1, 2019 while implementing the HSRP Order for vehicles registered after April 1, 2019.
NEET-SS Vacancies | Take Decisions In 3 Months For Smooth Admissions Next Academic Year: Supreme Court Urges Union Govt
Case Details: Kevin Joy & Ors. v. Government of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 106 of 2023 and other connected matters
The Supreme Court directed the Union to conduct a stakeholder meeting with all States/UTs and Private Medical Colleges in relation to the issue of filling vacancies for NEET- Super Speciality Courses for the coming Academic year. The Union is further expected to resolve the issue within 3 months.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishvanathan, was hearing a batch of petitions arising out of successful candidates dropping out of such courses.
Other Developments
Farmers Say Dallewal Would Take Medical Aid If Centre Is Ready For Talks: Punjab AG Informs Supreme Court
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha, Diary No. 61011-2024
The Supreme Court on December 31) granted more time to the Punjab Government to comply with the directions on giving medical aid to farmers' protest leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a hunger strike.
A vacation bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia posted the contempt petition filed against the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP to January 2, 2024, for further hearing.
Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh informed the vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia that intervenors and negotiators had gone to the protest site. Efforts for compliance were made by mobilizing about 7000 personnel at the protest site, the AG said. However, he added that due to the Punjab Bandh held by farmers' organisations, there were traffic blockades and hindrances. He further informed the bench about the protesters' proposal that Dallewal would take medical aid if the Centre was ready to talk to them.
Farmers Protest | 'Your Attitude Is There Should Be No Reconciliation': Supreme Court Pulls Up Punjab Govt For Not Shifting Dallewal To Hospital
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 930-933/2024
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the Punjab Government for not shifting farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a hunger strike, to hospital in terms of the earlier directions.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that shifting Dallewal to hospital does not mean that he should break his fast and that he can continue his hunger strike under medical aid. The bench reprimanded the Punjab Government, saying that its attitude was against reconciliation, and stressed that the State must impress upon Dallewal that he can continue his fast under medical support.
Justice Kant expressed unhappiness that the Court's intentions were misinterpreted as a direction to stop Dallewal's hunger strike and blamed the media and the State officials for spreading the wrong impression.
The Supreme Court also heard a petition filed by Guninder Kaur Gill seeking the Court's intervention in the larger issues raised in the ongoing farmers' protest, including seeking a statutory guarantee of Minimum Support Price. During the hearing, the Court orally asked the Union Government why it could not express readiness to consider the genuine grievances.
Places Of Worship Act| MP Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking To Restrain Courts From Passing Hasty Orders In Mandir-Masjid Suits
Case Details: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 846/2024
Member of Parliament and President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Asaduddin Owaisi has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, seeking to enforce the Places of Worship Act 1991. The petition also seeks general directions to all Courts on the procedure to be followed before entertaining suits raising claims over religious sites and passing survey orders thereon.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar tagged the PIL with another pending batch of petitions relating to the challenge/implementation of the Act, which will be heard on February 17.
Bar Council Of India Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Enhancement Of Enrolment Fees To Rs.25,000
Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Gaurav Kumar and Ors., MA 2253/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 352/2023 PIL-W
The Bar Council of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking directions to enhance the enrolment fee, which is presently capped at Rs 750 by virtue of a judgment, to Rs 25,000.
The application has been filed in the case Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court, by its judgment in July 2024, held that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fee beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Through the present application, the BCI sought directions to the Union Government to take steps to amend the Advocates Act to increase the fee.
Expressing surprise at the nature of the application, the Court sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani on this issue.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Challenge To Acquittal Of Ram Rahim Singh In 2002 Ranjit Singh Murder Case
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Baba Singh Diary No. 48506-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in the SLP filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging Punjab and Haryana High Court's order acquitting Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder of manager Ranjit Singh.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the matter and tagged it with another pending appeal filed by the complainant who has also challenged the acquittal.
'Why Can't Govt Of India Adhere To Timelines?': Supreme Court Calls For Introspection By Authorities On Delay In Filing Petitions
Case Details: National Highway Authority of India v. Ivrcl Chengapalli Tollways Ltd and Ors | Diary No. 46628-2024
The Supreme Court expressed the need for Central Government authorities like the NHAI to introspect on the reasons for the excessive delays in filing appeals.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the order of the NCLAT which refused to entertain its appeal in an IBC-related dispute due to limitation.
Taking a serious view of the delay by the NHAI in taking an appropriate course of legal action, the CJI stressed on the need for the Government Authority to introspect into its administrative workings.
" I think everyone is adhering to the time schedule in almost 95% of cases, why should the Govt. of India not be able to adhere to it? There is something wrong somewhere, a delay of 295 days! ....there is some introspection which needs to be done."
The bench accordingly dismissed the matter, observing that the same was barred by limitation. Sr Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the respondents.
Trial Cannot Be Routinely Transferred Outside State Solely Due To Involvement Of Political Personality: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court orally observed that trial of criminal cases cannot be routinely transferred to another state solely on the ground that a political party is involved.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti's plea to transfer a cheating case filed against him by Jila Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, to another state
Justice Oka remarked during the hearing, “No ground to transfer it outside the state. See, if we start practice of transferring trial on the ground that political personality is involved it would lead to disastrous effect. As if no judicial officer is independent in that state.”
Plea Filed Seeking Vacation Of Supreme Court's Stay On Registration Of New Suits & Passing Survey Orders Over Mandir-Masjid Disputes
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 (and connected matters)
Applications have been filed before the Supreme Court seeking vacation of the stay on registration of fresh suits against places of worship as well as surveys of the religious sites in pending mandir-masjid suits.
It may be recalled that on December 12, the Supreme Court ordered that no further suits can be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders from it. It was further directed that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey.
The interim order was passed by a special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan while hearing a batch of petitions relating to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 Act, which prohibits the conversion of religious character of places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947. While some petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Act, some others sought its strict implementation.