Month: August 2025

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62; Section 14(1)(d) — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order directing return of property — NCLT had directed return of property based on CoC decision that property not required by corporate debtor — NCLAT set aside NCLT order invoking Section 14(1)(d) barring recovery of property during CIRP — Supreme Court held that Section 14(1)(d) not applicable as CoC and Resolution Professional initiated the process for returning property due to financial burden of rentals, and not a simple recovery by owner — Commercial wisdom of CoC regarding non-retention of property given primacy — NCLAT order set aside, NCLT order restored.

2025 INSC 931 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SINCERE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDRAKANT KHEMKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 10 — Specific performance of contract — Plaintiff must prove existence of a valid agreement of sale, breach by defendant, and plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform — Defendant admitted signatures but pleaded misuse of blank papers and no agreement of sale — Plaintiff failed to examine witnesses to the agreement to sell and rent deed — Plaintiff’s evidence was self-serving — Failure to produce crucial evidence supporting the agreement rendered plaintiff’s case unsustainable.

2025 INSC 924 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH KUMAR Vs. AMAR NATH AND ANOTHER (BOTH DEAD AND REPRESENTED THROUGH LR.) ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 307, 436 — Murder, Attempt to murder, Mischief by fire or explosive substance — Appreciation of evidence — High Court reversed trial court’s conviction, finding prosecution failed to prove charges beyond doubt — Supreme Court found High Court erred in treating case as purely circumstantial and misappreciating evidence — Supreme Court held evidence, including eyewitness testimony, spot punchanama, and post-mortem reports, supported prosecution’s case of explosion, fire, burn injuries, and deaths — High Court’s assumption that no remains of bomb were found was erroneous, as explosive substance causing fire was sufficient — Supreme Court also disagreed with High Court’s view that parents would not leave children during fire, citing principle of varying human reactions under stress — Supreme Court restored trial court’s conviction for respondents Nilu Ganjhu and Mahboob Ansari

2025 INSC 942 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW JHARKHAND Vs. NILU GANJHU @ NILKANT RAM GANJHU AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and…

POCSO Act, 2012 and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Offences under — Suspension of sentence — High Court’s refusal to suspend sentence was based on general gravity of offence and complicity of appellant, without applying correct principles for suspension of fixed-term sentences, leading to setting aside of order and remand for fresh consideration.

2025 INSC 944 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AASIF @ PASHA Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 3/4(2), 42 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(3) — Appeal against suspension of sentence by High Court — Supreme Court held High Court was not justified. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence — Scope of — High Court while considering suspension of sentence must adhere to parameters laid down in law — Prima facie satisfaction about chances of acquittal is necessary, not reappreciation of evidence or picking loopholes.

2025 INSC 935 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMNALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…of…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires a chain of events to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, excluding all other hypotheses, and leaving no reasonable ground for innocence.

2025 INSC 936 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAIL KUMARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : B.R.Gavai, CJI. and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2189…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 173 — Compensation — Calculation of — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — High Court — Appeals — Appellant aged 38 years— sustained grievous injuries in a road accident — High Court revised monthly income but omitted future prospects and adopted a lower disability percentage — Supreme Court allowed appeal, adding 40% for future prospects to self-employed claimants as per settled law — Supreme Court accepted neuro-psychologist’s assessment of 41.77% functional disability as it was not rebutted or doubted, overriding the lower percentage adopted by Tribunal and High Court without reasoning

2025 INSC 939 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LOKESH B Vs. SURYANARAYANA RAJU JAGGARAJU AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of…

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 62, 86 — Tariff determination — Regulatory asset — Creation, continuation, and liquidation of regulatory asset — Governed by Act, National Tariff Policies, Rules, Regulations, and APTEL precedents. – Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, National Tariff Policy, 2006, Clause 8.2.2 — Regulatory asset — Creation should be an exception, circumstances clearly defined, recovery time-bound within three years.

2025 INSC 937 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,…

Petition by High Court Judge challenging ‘In-House Procedure’ for judicial misconduct inquiry — Petitioner sought declaration of certain paragraphs of the Procedure as unconstitutional and ultra vires — Held, the ‘In-House Procedure’ is legally sanctioned and fills a constitutional gap in disciplining judges for misconduct not amounting to impeachment — Procedure is not an extra-constitutional mechanism — Petitioner’s conduct in participating without demur and challenging post-adverse findings dis-entitled him to relief on grounds of tardiness and lack of bona fides, although Constitutional challenge itself is not waivable

2025 INSC 943 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

You missed