Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: September 2025

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1023 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALM GROVES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. M/S MAGAR GIRME AND GAIKWAD ASSOCIATES ETC. ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1015 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1016 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure — Institution of FIR — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process of law — High Court quashed FIR based only on Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, without considering other grounds raised by the accused — Supreme Court finds this approach incomplete and remands the matter for reconsideration of all grounds, emphasizing that procedural lapses like failure to obtain prior approval, if applicable, can render an FIR void ab initio.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDRA DHARIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ETC RESPONDENT(S) ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos. 3717-3718…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Death sentence cases — Article 32 as continuing safeguard even after conventional judicial process has concluded — Power to intervene under Article 32 to prevent constitutional breach when human life hangs in the balance. Finality of Judgments — Reopening of concluded matters — Article 32 available to remedy grievances when fundamental rights are violated — Curative petition limitations — Exception for miscarriage of justice and perpetuation of irremediable injustice.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1043 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 90 & Section 47 — Setting aside of sale — Application for — Delay — HC correctly held that application to set aside sale was barred by limitation as it was filed almost two years three months after the sale, and Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Order XXI.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1040 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI R RAGHU Vs. SRI G M KRISHNA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure — Delay in Judgment Pronouncement — Supreme Court directs High Courts to adhere to existing guidelines for timely pronouncement of reserved judgments and reiterates specific directions for cases where judgment is not delivered within three months of being reserved, including placing the matter before the Chief Justice for reassignment if not pronounced within two weeks thereafter.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1039 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Evidence Act Partition

Family Law — Partition Suit — Evidence — Testimony of a credible witness with special means of knowledge, coupled with presumption of marriage from prolonged cohabitation and absence of rebuttal by the opposing party, is sufficient to establish a valid marital relationship and grant a decree for partition.- Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion on relationship, when relevant — Testimony of a witness with special means of knowledge of the relationship, including opinion expressed by conduct, is relevant — Witness resided in the same village, had long-standing familiarity, and spoke from personal observation, thus satisfying the requirement of special means of knowledge.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1038 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHER Vs. VENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 45 — Reference to arbitration — Existence of arbitration agreement — Contract not signed by one party — Parties acted upon the contract, including lifting goods and issuing Letters of Credit — Emails confirming terms and modifications — Held, agreement to arbitrate is inferred from conduct and electronic communications, even without signatures — Mere failure to sign does not invalidate the arbitration agreement if parties’ conduct demonstrates acceptance of terms.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1036 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG Vs. M/S. SHREE GANESH METALS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw