Month: June 2025

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25-O — Procedure for closing down an undertaking — Right to close down business is integral to right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) but subject to reasonable restrictions — Section 25-O provides a detailed procedure for obtaining prior permission for closure — Appropriate Government must conduct an enquiry and grant a hearing before passing a reasoned order — If no order is communicated within 60 days, permission is deemed to be granted.

2025 INSC 801 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (BISCUIT DIVISION) AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant…

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Admitted Facts — Cause of death by gunshot from a specific weapon in appellant’s home undisputed — Appellant admitted removing the body and cleaning the scene — Discovery of articles linked to the incident from appellant’s disclosure relevant for Section 201 IPC.

2025 INSC 800 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAIBHAV Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1643…

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

2025 INSC 793 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHETAN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1568…

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

2025 INSC 791 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLA NEHRU MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and…

Environmental Law — Public Trust Doctrine — MCGM’s mandate to develop recreational spaces providing legal foundation for project — Prior condition of water body suggested degradation, not functional lake — Completed park providing substantial public benefit, including green space and recreational amenities utilized by community — Post facto sanction restricting land use to recreational purposes providing legal safeguard — Delay in filing petition undermining challenge — Direction to maintain park in perpetuity for public use, explore alternative water body, and restore other deteriorated water bodies by MCGM.

2025 INSC 792 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS Vs. PANKAJ BABULAL KOTECHA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

You missed