Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 449, 376, 394 — Appeal against High Court’s upholding of conviction and sentence — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Absence of direct evidence connecting appellant to offense — Falsely implicated — Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — No scientific evidence linking appellant — Important witnesses not associated in investigation or produced in court — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Quashing of proceedings — Cheques issued as security and not for consideration — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly stated cheques were for security purposes to show banks and not for deposit — Complainant failed to read the complete terms of MOU in isolation and misinterpreted it to claim cheques were converted into debt — Court empowered to consider unimpeachable documents at pre-trial stage to prevent injustice — Complaints under Section 138 NI Act liable to be quashed. Insurance Law — Fire Insurance — Accidental Fire — Cause of fire is immaterial if the insured is not the instigator and there is no fraud. The objective of fire insurance is to indemnify the insured against loss by fire. Tender Conditions — Interpretation — Ambiguity — The terms of a tender must be clear and unambiguous — If a tendering authority intends for a specific document to be issued by a particular authority, it must be clearly stated in the tender conditions — Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the bid being deemed arbitrary and dehors the tender terms. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Environmental Protection — Monitoring Committee — Powers and Scope — A PIL was filed concerning environmental issues in Delhi, leading to the appointment of a Monitoring Committee. The Supreme Court clarified that the committee was appointed to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and not to interfere with residential premises used as such. Their power was limited to making suggestions to a Special Task Force regarding encroachments on public land, not to summarily seal premises.

Succession Act, 1925, Sections 63, 68 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 — Proof of Will — Propounder has to prove due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances — Suspicious circumstances include shaky signature, feeble mind, unfair disposition, propounder benefiting significantly — Absence of reasoned disinheritance of natural heir, especially wife, qualifies as a suspicious circumstance — Such omission raises doubt about free disposing mind of testator.

2025 INSC 866 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR Vs. JAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 10(2)(d) & 2(21) — Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) — Validity for driving commercial vehicle with Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 7500 kg — Driver possessing LMV license can drive transport vehicle up to 7500 kg without additional endorsement — Constitutional Bench decision in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi affirmed Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2025 INSC 867 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNITA AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. )…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Essential to prove demand and acceptance by public servant — Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without demand is not an offence — Prosecution must prove foundational facts through oral or documentary evidence — Presumption under Section 20 is mandatory and subject to rebuttal; presumption of fact is discretionary — High Court erred in reversing acquittal based on inferences and conjectures, ignoring glaring contradictions in prosecution evidence.

2025 INSC 868 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406 and 420 — Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust — FIR registered based on a property dispute, with conflicting allegations between FIR and civil suit pleadings — Discrepancies in alleged sale consideration and property descriptions indicate manipulation to create a criminal case out of a civil transaction.

2025 INSC 870 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALA CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427, 149 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 439, 439(2) — Supreme Court’s Role and Judicial Restraint — High Courts should generally refrain from passing strictures against judicial officers. Strictures should only be passed in exceptional circumstances and after providing an opportunity to the officer to explain — The proper procedure is to report such matters to the Chief Justice for administrative action — Supreme Court expunged strictures against a judicial officer due to lack of opportunity and reversal of a key judgment cited by the High Court.

2025 INSC 871 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KAUSHAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASHTAN ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of arbitration agreement — High Court dismissed appellant’s application under Section 11 on the ground that no arbitration agreement existed — Clause 13 of contract relied upon as arbitration agreement — Clause stated that for parties other than Govt. Agencies, redressal of disputes “may be sought” through arbitration — Supreme Court held that use of “may be sought” indicates no subsisting agreement to use arbitration — Clause was an enabling provision if parties agreed, not a binding agreement.

2025 INSC 874 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 — Abatement of appeal — Joint and indivisible decree — Non-substitution of LRs of deceased co-appellant — Fatal to the entire appeal — Possibility of conflicting and contradictory decrees — Defence based on common ground — joint claim.

2025 INSC 873 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH CHANDRA (DECEASED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. PARASRAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAMBHU YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9155…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RENAVVA @ LAKSHMI AND OTHERS Vs. SHANTILKUMARSWAMY R. SUBRAMANYA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUNDAN SINGH Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ( Before : K.V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Petition(s) for Special…

You missed