Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 13(2) and Rule 14, Appendix 3 — Disciplinary proceedings for major penalties — Initiation of by authority competent to impose minor penalties — Permissible — Rule 13(2) allows a disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties to institute proceedings for major penalties, even if not competent to impose major penalties itself. – Charge Sheet — Validity of issuance by General Manager (Telecommunications) for major penalties — Held valid as the General Manager is competent to impose minor penalties and Rule 13(2) permits initiation of proceedings for major penalties by such an authority.
2025 INSC 898 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. R. SHANKARAPPA ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 — Compensation — Enhancement of — While determining market value, the highest bona fide sale exemplar should generally be considered, not an average of varying sale prices, unless prices have only marginal variations — Averaging of sale instances with significantly different prices is impermissible. Section 51A — Evidence — Certified copies of sale deeds have presumptive value as evidence of the transaction recorded therein — If the state does not produce rebuttal evidence, these documents can be relied upon to determine market value.
2025 INSC 900 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 468, 471 — Cheating, Forgery, Using Forged Document — Essential Ingredients — Complaint based on a GPF nomination form from 1996 failed to establish fraudulent intent or any act attributable to the accused; it did not override statutory birth certificates, nor did it prove falsification by the accused — No evidence of dishonest inducement, wrongful gain, or loss — Allegations based on conjecture and surmises, intended to malign the accused — Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process when allegations are inherently improbable and no case is made out.
2025 INSC 903 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…
we are of the view that the order of status quo passed by the trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not entering into the merits of the matter as it may influence the trial court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.06.2022 maintaining the order of the trial court in order to advance justice between the parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH ISHWARBHAI PATEL — Appellant Vs. JATIN ISHWARBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…
Abkari Act, 1077 – Section 8 – Carrying 5 litres of illicit arrack – Conviction based solely on testimony of official witnesses – Delay in investigation – Testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATHYAN — AppellantVs.STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2363 of 2023…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 105, 106, 107 and 108 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Unregistered deed of lease for immovable property – In the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy In the present case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established – But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PAUL RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AMIT CHAND MITRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath,…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition.
2025 INSC 884 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHNU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and…
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Applicability — Plea of juvenility raised for the first time before the Supreme Court — Permissible at any stage, even after disposal of the case, as held in various judgments of the Supreme Court.-— Determination of Age — Inquiry report confirmed the appellant was a juvenile (16 years, 2 months, 3 days) at the time of the commission of the offence.
2025 INSC 887 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, J. ) Criminal Appeal No.2695…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings under SC/ST Act, 1989, against respondents — Appellant contended High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction, overlooking evidence, and conducting roving inquiry — Court held High Court’s scope under Section 482 is limited to determining if allegations disclose a cognizable offence, and it should not engage in detailed evidence evaluation at pre-trial stage — However, if allegations are baseless, motivated by personal vendetta, or lack requisite ingredients for an offence, High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
2025 INSC 886 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KONDE NAGESHWAR RAO Vs. A. SRIRAMA CHANDRA MURTY AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, J.…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Second quashing petition — Maintainability — Not permissible to raise previously available grounds in a subsequent petition to effect a review of an earlier order, violating Section 362 CrPC — Exception is when there has been a change in circumstances.
2025 INSC 888 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.C. RAVIKUMAR Vs. D.S. VELMURUGAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s). ….of…