Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)
2025 INSC 1450 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OBALAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BHIHANI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29
2025 INSC 1451 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. S. DINACHANDRAN Vs. SHYLA JOSEPH AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16)
2025 INSC 1425 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SITHARA N.S. AND OTHERS Vs. SAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…
Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Nature of right — Appointment on compassionate bases is a concession, not a matter of right, and serves as an exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — Core objective is to enable the dependent family to tide over sudden financial crisis following the death of the employee, providing relief against destitution — It is not intended to provide a post much less a post held by the deceased or a higher post based on educational qualification. (Paras 3, 7, 7.1, 7.3, 11)
2025 INSC 1423 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS Vs. M. JAYABAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation for Death of a Child — Calculation of Compensation — Deceased 14-year-old schoolboy — Principles adopted for calculating compensation for death of child — Notional monthly income adopted based on Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a Class B city (Rs. 5400/- per month) — Addition of 40% for future prospects — Multiplier of 15 adopted based on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan — Deduction of one-half for personal expenses — Statutory heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses) awarded at Rs. 15,000/- each — Loss of filial consortium awarded at Rs. 40,000/- per parent — Compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased child, who died a day after the accident, awarded at Rs. 25,000/- to inure to the benefit of legal heirs — Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,65,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
2025 INSC 1429 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI AND OTHERS Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment of income of deceased — Standard of proof — Where claimants assert a high monthly income (Rs. 95,000/-) for the deceased (a transport contractor owning two trucks), which exceeds the taxable limit, failure to produce Income Tax Returns (ITR) is highly relevant and undermines the claim — The contention that high EMI payments (approx. Rs. 42,500/-) imply double the income is an unfounded assumption, amounting to mere surmises and conjectures. (Paras 3, 6)
2025 INSC 1430 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NEERU DEVI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) — Divorce — Desertion and Cruelty — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — Where parties have been living separately for a long period (24 years in this case) without any prospect of reconciliation, this long period of separation amounts to mental cruelty to both parties, justifying dissolution of marriage — The marriage is deemed to have broken down irretrievably — Fact that spouses hold strongly views and refuse to accommodate each other also constitutes cruelty. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34)
2025 INSC 1436 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAYAN BHOWMICK Vs. APARNA CHAKRABORTY ( Before : Manmohan and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012 Decided…
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 37(1), 44C — Deduction of Head Office Expenditure in case of Non-Residents — Interpretation of Section 44C and ‘Head Office Expenditure’ — Distinction between ‘Common’ and ‘Exclusive’ Expenditure — Section 44C, being a special provision with a non-obstante clause, governs the quantum of allowable deduction for any expenditure incurred by a non-resident assessee that qualifies as ‘head office expenditure’ — The definition of ‘head office expenditure’ in the Explanation to Section 44C does not distinguish between common expenditure (shared among branches) and exclusive expenditure (incurred solely for Indian branches) — The term ‘attributable to’ in Section 44C(c) is broad enough to include both common and exclusive head office expenditure; exclusivity is a form of strong attribution — Therefore, Section 44C applies to head office expenditure regardless of whether it is common or exclusive, subjecting the deduction to the statutory ceiling. (Paras 2, 26, 43-45, 47-49, 59-63, 71, 86, 88)
2025 INSC 1431 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. Vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V.Viswanathan, JJ. )…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Scope and Applicability — Transfer of mortgaged property pendente lite (after institution of suit by bank for recovery/foreclosure but before execution/attachment) is hit by Section 52 — Lack of knowledge of proceedings or possession of No Encumbrance Certificate does not constitute a valid defence against lis pendens, as the doctrine is based on public policy and binds the transferee regardless of notice — Pendency of suit commences from presentation of plaint and continues until complete satisfaction or discharge of final decree, as per Explanation to Section 52 — Where a bank institutes a suit for recovery of a loan against a mortgagor, seeking sale of the mortgaged property upon default, the right/interest in the mortgaged property is “directly and specifically in question” even if the initial decree is only a money decree. (Paras 46, 49, 50, 52, 62, 66, 67, 70)
2025 INSC 1434 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DANESH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. HAR PYARI (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,…
Agreement to Sell — Breach of Contract — Refund of Advance — Suppression of Material Fact — Reversal of Trial Court decree by High Court — High Court relying solely on a fleeting admission in cross-examination of plaintiff regarding prior knowledge (August 25, 2008) of mortgage on property, despite agreement being executed later (September 10, 2008) and parties admitting to no prior interaction before September 2008 — Supreme Court held reliance on such solitary, abstract admission misplaced, especially as material on record indicated subsequent conduct of defendant (reducing sale price, failure to reply to legal notice alleging concealment) admitted concealment of mortgage — Trial Court judgment decreeing refund restored. (Paras 13, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33)
2025 INSC 1428 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. ABRAHAM GEORGE ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). 5405 of 2023 Decided…