Promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, suitability should be judged individually, not comparatively, and officers meeting the minimum criteria cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list
2025 INSC 72 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
A micro or small enterprise does not need to be registered under Section 8 of the MSMED Act to make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18
2025 INSC 54 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NBCC (INDIA) LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…
A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the court must assess whether the wife had sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband despite the decree
2025 INSC 55 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA Vs. DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjiv…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 309 — Executive Orders as Recruitment Rules — The court affirms that in the absence of formal rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, executive orders issued by the government can serve as the governing recruitment rules — Specifically, Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008 is recognized as the applicable executive order for the Medical Education Service.
2025 INSC 70 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. SHARMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to the 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA), but not to the 30-day condonable period, and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (GCA) does not apply to Section 34(3) of the ACA.
2025 INSC 56 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S FARIDABAD IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before…
The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of calculating the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award, formal notice of the award is not required; awareness or knowledge of the award’s existence is sufficient
2025 INSC 24 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI (RANI) M/S S.R. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent (…
Supreme Court found that the High Court should not have interfered with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) provides a complete mechanism for resolution
2025 INSC 25 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD. — Appellant Vs. FAROOQ ALI KHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013— Finality of Determinations— The Court established a precedent that once determinations regarding compensation and entitlements have been adjudicated and approved by the Court, they cannot be reopened by the Claims Commission based on changes in policy— This applies specifically to the ten villages for which reports were previously finalised— This means that the Commission should not re-evaluate or re-adjudicate cases that have already been settled.
2025 INSC 22 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MATHIAS ORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…
Judicial courts should exercise restraint in interfering with arbitration proceedings, allowing arbitral tribunals discretion in managing proceedings unless there is clear perversity or bad faith.
2025 INSC 26 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 415 and 420 — Cheating — The court found that the elements of cheating under Section 415 were not met — The appellant did not deceive the 4th respondent, nor did the sale deeds cause harm or damage to the 4th respondent — The appellant did not claim to be or represent the 4th respondent, nor did the appellant try to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent — The court cited a previous case, Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , stating that while a seller can be accused of defrauding a purchaser if they sell property that does not belong to them, a third party who is not the purchaser may not be able to make such a complaint
2025 INSC 31 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…