Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Scope and Applicability — Overriding Effect over State Rent Control Legislations — Whether PP Act 1971 prevails over State Rent Control Acts (such as Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) regarding eviction from ‘Public Premises’ defined under Section 2(e) — Both PP Act 1971 and State Rent Control Acts are special laws; conflict resolved by legislative purpose and policy, which dictates that PP Act 1971 must prevail — A person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. (Paras 2, 5.6.3, 5.7.1, 5.8.2, 13(i), 13(ii), 13(iv))
2025 INSC 1419 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. VITA ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 36(1)(viii) — Interpretation of “derived from” vs. “attributable to” — The phrase “derived from” connotes a requirement of a direct, first-degree nexus between the income and the specified business activity (providing long-term finance) — It is judicially settled that “derived from” is narrower than “attributable to,” thus excluding ancillary, incidental, or second-degree sources of income — If income is even a “step removed” from the core business, the nexus is broken (Paras 14, 15, 20, 33).
2025 INSC 1414 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) — Section 11 — Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) — Jurisdiction against employee of different department — The ICC constituted at the workplace/department of the “aggrieved woman” has jurisdiction to entertain and inquire into a complaint of sexual harassment against a “respondent” who is an employee of a different department/workplace — The phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 refers to a procedural condition (directing the ICC to apply the service rules applicable to the respondent as an employee) rather than a jurisdictional constraint limiting a particular ICC to hear the complaint. (Paras 2, 25, 27, 36-46, 72(i))
2025 INSC 1415 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. SOHAIL MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari andvijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35)
2025 INSC 1401 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. BCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
2025 INSC 1402 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAL KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…
Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)
2025 INSC 1404 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil…
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)
2025 INSC 1405 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUVEJ SINGH Vs. RAM NARESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…of 2025 (Arising…
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)
2025 INSC 1395 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DADU @ ANKUSH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)
2025 INSC 1396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIL MAHAJAN Vs. V. AVINASH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)
2025 INSC 1399 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVIND MANDAVI Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 (Arising…