The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.
2025 INSC 1487 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KOUSIK PAL Vs. B.M. BIRLA HEART RESEARCH CENTRE AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)
2025 INSC 1481 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D ( Before : Manoj Misra and…
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)
2025 INSC 1475 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAYANKKUMAR NATWARLAL KANKANA PATEL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih,…
Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)
2025 INSC 1477 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNANK MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Criminal Revision — Abatement on death of Revisionist (Informant/Complainant) — Rule of abatement applicable to appeals (Section 394) does not strictly apply to revision, particularly when revision is not initiated by an accused — If the main proceeding survives (e.g., trial is pending), the revision by an informant/complainant does not abate on their death — High Court erred in holding that the revision abates upon the death of the original revisionist (informant), especially since the trial against the accused was pending (Paras 17, 19)
2025 INSC 1484 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SYED SHAHNAWAZ ALI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Scope of inquiry at pre-trial stage — When complaint discloses all necessary ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act, High Court should not conduct a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact, such as whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, especially in light of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act — Quashing of complaint at the threshold by the High Court by appreciating evidence/materials is unwarranted where a prima facie case is made out.
2025 INSC 1474 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SRI OM SALES Vs. ABHAY KUMAR @ ABHAY PATEL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52)
2025 INSC 1478 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATCHAIPERUMAL @ PATCHIKUTTI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine…
Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)
2025 INSC 1479 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. PRANAB KUMAR NATH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)
2025 INSC 1473 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.P. KIRANKUMAR @ KIRAN Vs. STATE BY PEENYA POLICE ( Before : Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)
2025 INSC 1483 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…