Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Cancellation of Bail — Murder trial (Section 302 IPC) — Accused granted bail by Supreme Court subject to stringent conditions (confinement to Kolkata, daily attendance at Police Station) — Application for cancellation of bail moved by victim’s relative alleging breach of conditions, witness intimidation, and resultant unfair trial — Background of trial characterized by State bias favoring accused, witnesses turning hostile, and failed attempt by State to withdraw prosecution (U/S 321 Cr. PC) — Court acknowledges serious concerns regarding fairness of trial and State’s conduct (acting as “real facilitator” for the accused) — However, specific breach of bail conditions by the accused influencing witnesses not conclusively established — Bail granted partially based on long incarceration (5 years) and delay in trial conclusion — Given the advanced stage of trial, no useful purpose served by cancelling bail now — Application for cancellation of bail rejected.
2025 INSC 1360 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK. MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138, Section 142(2), Section 142A — Territorial Jurisdiction for cheque dishonour cases (post-2015 Amendment) — Account Payee Cheques — Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 concerning cheques ‘delivered for collection through an account’ (Account Payee Cheques) lies exclusively with the court having local jurisdiction over the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account (payee’s home branch) — This position is anchored in Section 142(2)(a) read with its Explanation — The legal fiction in the Explanation deems a cheque delivered at any branch of the payee’s bank to have been delivered at the payee’s home branch for jurisdictional purposes, overriding the actual place of delivery. (Paras 39, 54, 58, 59, 76)
2025 INSC 1362 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. M/S HEG LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Transfer…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Locus Standi — An aggrieved party, including the complainant or father of the deceased, has the requisite locus standi to seek cancellation/annulment of bail granted to the accused, as the power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. may be invoked not only by the State but also by any aggrieved party. (Paras 10, 10.1, 10.3)
2025 INSC 1367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. RAGHVENDRA SINGH ALIAS PRINCE AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 14 — Moratorium — Applicability to terminated Development Agreements — Development Agreement constitutes ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of Corporate Debtor only if it creates subsisting proprietary, possessory or legally enforceable right — Termination of Development Agreement based on Corporate Debtor’s persistent and prolonged non-performance, occurring prior to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), is valid and lawful — Moratorium under Section 14 does not revive contracts validly terminated before insolvency or protect mere inchoate or forfeited contractual rights — Where developer never obtained possession and failed to perform core obligations, its development rights do not constitute ‘assets’ or ‘property’ of the Corporate Debtor, and the moratorium does not apply. (Paras 15.5, 15.6, 16.4, 16.7, 16.12, 20, 21(i), 21(ii))
2025 INSC 1366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL HARSHAD SHAMKANT DESHPANDE AND ANOTHER Vs. KHER NAGAR SUKHSADAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Power of High Court to Review/Recall – Scope of Judicial Intervention — An order passed under Section 11 appointing an arbitrator is judicial in nature, but the High Court’s review jurisdiction over such an order is highly circumscribed and must be limited to correcting a patent or procedural error; it cannot be exercised to revisit findings of law or re-interpret the arbitration agreement based on a subsequent judgment. (Paras 11.7, 11.12, 11.15)
2025 INSC 1365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY YOGESH DALAL Vs. BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 38 Rule 5, Rule 8, Rule 10 — Order 21 Rule 58 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53 — Attachment before judgment — Scope of — Effect on prior transfer — Property already transferred by registered sale deed prior to institution of suit cannot be subject to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC — Essential condition for Order 38 Rule 5 is that property must belong to defendant on date of institution of suit — Attachment before judgment is a protective measure and does not create any charge or proprietary interest in favour of plaintiff (Rule 10). (Paras 10.1.1, 11.1, 11.3, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20)
2025 INSC 1364 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH L.K. PRABHU @ L. KRISHNA PRABHU (DIED) THROUGH LRS Vs. K.T. MATHEW @ THAMPAN THOMAS AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V.…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition (Criminal) — Seeking registration of FIR and investigation into attempt to influence judicial outcome — Relief for criminal investigation based on disclosure in a judicial order of NCLAT, Chennai Bench — Issues raised are of vital public importance but deemed capable of administrative resolution by Chief Justice of India — Writ Petition treated as a representation to bring material information for consideration of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, allowing law to take its course — Petition disposed of on administrative treatment of investigation request.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.S. MET CORP PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).440/2025…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 58 — Execution First Appeal — Partition Suit — Preliminary decree for partition — Inter se bidding — Joint owners (siblings) of property in equal shares (1/3rd each) — Property incapable of physical partition — Disposal of property via inter se bidding — Challenge to High Court order disposing of Execution Appeal on ground of offer matching — Where an offer of Rs.6.25 crores was made by the Appellant (Petitioner) and matched by the Respondents (2/3rd owners), the High Court directed Respondents to pay Appellant’s share after adjusting previous deposit — Supreme Court modified the approach, requiring the Petitioner to deposit 2/3rd of the bid (Rs.4.16 Crores) with Registry to demonstrate genuineness, pending further resolution. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Order dated 25.9.2025;
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA Vs. ROHIT SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal…
Evidence — Video Conference Deposition — Procedure for Confronting Witness — The Supreme Court clarified and directed that in cases where a witness’s statement is recorded via video conferencing and a previous written statement is to be used for confrontation, a copy of the statement must be transmitted electronically to the witness, and the procedure under Sections 147 and 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (or corresponding sections of the Evidence Act) must be followed to ensure fairness and integrity of the trial. Such directions are issued to avoid procedural irregularities and uphold the principles of fair trial, effective cross-examination, and proper appreciation of evidence.
2025 INSC 1322 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 [BNSS Section 528] — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process — Factual matrix for all offences arose from a single transaction — Compromise accepted as genuine for some offences should equally dilute the foundation of other charges based on the same allegations — Continued prosecution for dacoity after settlement for other offences held unjustified and quashed.
2025 INSC 1323 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASHANT PRAKASH RATNAPARKI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…