A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs.
2025 INSC 214 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS — Appellant Vs. R N NADIGAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala…
Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction).
2025 INSC 213 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAIN — Appellant Vs. AVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,…
The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.
2025 INSC 165 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARE KRUSHNA MAHANTA Vs. HIMADARI SAHU AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
In child custody cases, the lawpoint is that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, and a Habeas Corpus writ petition is maintainable only when the child’s detention is proven illegal or without legal authority
2025 INSC 159 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIVEK KUMAR CHATURVEDI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Compensation for motor accident claims should be calculated using the multiplier method as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, and split multiplier methods should only be used in specific, justified circumstances
2025 INSC 161 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAYA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari…
Under Section 307 of the I.P.C., concerning “attempt to murder,” if a life sentence is not imposed, the imprisonment term can extend to a maximum of 10 years, and an appellate court cannot impose a higher punishment than the trial court could have imposed
2025 INSC 158 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GANESAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.…
An insurance claim cannot be denied if a National Permit was valid at the time of the incident, especially if the authorization fee was not required because the vehicle was operating within its state of registration
2025 INSC 154 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra…
Informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1)
2025 INSC 162 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIHAAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Abhay S. Oka, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
The judgment emphasizes that the accused’s intention to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is essential for Section 306 IPC to apply — Furthermore, the alleged harassment should be so severe that the victim has no option but to end their life, and there must be evidence of direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide.
2025 INSC 168 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AYYUB AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan,…
The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in recovery witness testimonies, discrepancies in the recovery process, and lack of corroboration for the “last seen” testimony — The Court emphasized that recovery memos prepared at the police station lacked sanctity — Granting the benefit of the doubt, the Court acquitted the Appellant, set aside the convictions, and ordered his release.
2025 INSC 167 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJA KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025…