Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 38-V(4)(ii) and proviso to Section 33(a) — Tiger Safaris — prohibition in core or critical tiger habitat areas — permitted only on non-forest land or degraded forest land within the buffer, ensuring it is not part of a tiger corridor — establishment must be in conjunction with a fully operational rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers.
2025 INSC 1325 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : CORBETT ( Before : B.R.Gavai, CJI, Augustine George Masih and A.S.Chandurkar, JJ. ) I.A. No. 20650 of 2023…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.
2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Priority of Debts — Section 26E — When two enactments contain non-obstante clauses, the provision incorporated later in time prevails; however, if one enactment creates a statutory ‘first charge’, that charge prevails over the general ‘priority’ conferred by the later non-obstante clause — SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, conferring priority to secured creditors’ debts registered with the Central Registry, does not override the statutory ‘first charge’ created for Provident Fund dues under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
2025 INSC 1335 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : B. R. Gavai, CJI. and K.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Arms Act, 1959 — Section 13(2A) — Prosecution of public servant (IAS officer/District Magistrate) for alleged irregularities in issuing arms licenses and criminal conspiracy (Sections 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 30 Arms Act) — Delay in investigation and sanction — Quashing justified where sanction is non-speaking and investigation is inordinately and unjustifiably delayed.
2025 INSC 1339 SUPREME COURT OF NDIA DIVISION BENCH ROBERT LALCHUNGNUNGA CHONGTHU @ R L CHONGTHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act, 1965) — Sections 12 and 18 — Eviction for non-payment of rent — Procedure under Section 12 in Appeal against Section 12(3) eviction order — Whether the entire summary procedure under Section 12 must be repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority when challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) — Held: A fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act is not mandatory when challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3) before the Appellate Authority — Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance and only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court; it is not required to re-determine the issue of default or outstanding amount of rent — Insisting on repeating the entire Section 12 procedure would be superfluous, unnecessary, contrary to the statute’s spirit, and lead to an absurd/unjust result, akin to turning the summary procedure on its head.
2025 INSC 1340 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.U. SIDHIQUE AND OTHERS Vs. ZAKARIYA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.13901-13902 of 2025 (Arising…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable.
2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 read with Section 34 — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings — Statutory prohibition against re-appreciation of evidence — Challenges to arbitral award upholding 24% interest rate based on loan agreement terms dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench; Supreme Court upholds affirmation — Re-appreciation of evidence on genuineness of loan agreements or terms, including interest rate, is prohibited under Section 34(2A) proviso, particularly when Arbitrator’s findings are concurrently upheld.
2025 INSC 1327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI LAKSHMI HOTEL PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…
Environmental Law — Environmental Clearance (EC) — Ex Post Facto Clearance — Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 — While EC should ordinarily be prior, the EP Act does not entirely prohibit ex post facto EC — Grant of ex post facto clearance is permissible in exceptional circumstances, in strict compliance with rules, upon imposition of heavy penalties, where denial of approval would result in adverse consequences outweighing regularisation, and where project complies with or can be made to comply with environmental norms — Adopting a ‘balanced approach’ is necessary to protect economy and livelihood.
2025 INSC 1326 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA (CREDAI) Vs. VANASHAKTI AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and…
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Section 16(h) — Limitation period for appeal against Environmental Clearance (EC) — Communication of EC to “any person aggrieved” — The date of commencement of the 30-day limitation period (extendable by 60 days) starts from the earliest date on which the order granting EC is “communicated” to the aggrieved person by any of the duty bearers (MoEF&CC, project proponent, or Pollution Control Boards).
2025 INSC 1331 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 233, 235, 309, 32, 141, 142 — Higher Judicial Services (HJS) — Determination of Seniority — Source of Recruitment — Recruitment to HJS is through Regular Promotees (RP), Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE), and Direct Recruits (DR) — Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 142 and other provisions to lay down uniform guidelines for judicial services across the country, independent of High Courts’ control under Article 235, to ensure a unified and robust judiciary — Overarching guidelines framed do not foreclose powers of High Courts but establish a homogenous framework for superintendence over judicial services.
2025 INSC 1328 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram…