Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 106 — Notice terminating tenancy — Service by registered post — Return with endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered) — General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 27 — Deemed service — High Court set aside ejectment decree solely on ground of “ND” endorsement, misinterpreting deemed service provisions — Supreme Court held High Court erred in not considering Section 27 of GC Act regarding deemed service by registered post.
2025 INSC 859 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA SWAROOP AGARWAL (DEAD) THR. LR. Vs. ARVIND KUMAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Pension Law — Family Pension — Eligibility of ‘Substitutes’ in Railways — deceased husband of the appellant was appointed as a ‘Substitute Waterman’ and died in harness after serving for 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days — Railways denied family pension on the grounds that his service was not regularized and did not meet the 10-year qualifying period for family pension — Appellant contended that as per Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, Rule 1515 and Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, especially Rule 75(2)(a), substitutes with continuous service of one year are entitled to family pension. Held, deceased had acquired temporary status and completed more than one year of continuous service, thus eligible for family pension.
2025 INSC 855 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) — Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes — The Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification.
2025 INSC 865 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM CHARAN AND OTHERS Vs. SUKHRAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) — Section 18(2) — Conciliation proceedings — Referring time-barred claims — Time-barred claims can be referred to conciliation as the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, and a settlement agreement reached through conciliation is akin to a contract for repayment of a time-barred debt, recognized under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act
2025 INSC 864 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
Succession Act, 1925, Sections 63, 68 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 — Proof of Will — Propounder has to prove due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances — Suspicious circumstances include shaky signature, feeble mind, unfair disposition, propounder benefiting significantly — Absence of reasoned disinheritance of natural heir, especially wife, qualifies as a suspicious circumstance — Such omission raises doubt about free disposing mind of testator.
2025 INSC 866 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDIAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR Vs. JAGIR KAUR (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 10(2)(d) & 2(21) — Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) — Validity for driving commercial vehicle with Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 7500 kg — Driver possessing LMV license can drive transport vehicle up to 7500 kg without additional endorsement — Constitutional Bench decision in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi affirmed Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2025 INSC 867 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNITA AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. )…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Essential to prove demand and acceptance by public servant — Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without demand is not an offence — Prosecution must prove foundational facts through oral or documentary evidence — Presumption under Section 20 is mandatory and subject to rebuttal; presumption of fact is discretionary — High Court erred in reversing acquittal based on inferences and conjectures, ignoring glaring contradictions in prosecution evidence.
2025 INSC 868 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406 and 420 — Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust — FIR registered based on a property dispute, with conflicting allegations between FIR and civil suit pleadings — Discrepancies in alleged sale consideration and property descriptions indicate manipulation to create a criminal case out of a civil transaction.
2025 INSC 870 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALA CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427, 149 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 439, 439(2) — Supreme Court’s Role and Judicial Restraint — High Courts should generally refrain from passing strictures against judicial officers. Strictures should only be passed in exceptional circumstances and after providing an opportunity to the officer to explain — The proper procedure is to report such matters to the Chief Justice for administrative action — Supreme Court expunged strictures against a judicial officer due to lack of opportunity and reversal of a key judgment cited by the High Court.
2025 INSC 871 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KAUSHAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASHTAN ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of arbitration agreement — High Court dismissed appellant’s application under Section 11 on the ground that no arbitration agreement existed — Clause 13 of contract relied upon as arbitration agreement — Clause stated that for parties other than Govt. Agencies, redressal of disputes “may be sought” through arbitration — Supreme Court held that use of “may be sought” indicates no subsisting agreement to use arbitration — Clause was an enabling provision if parties agreed, not a binding agreement.
2025 INSC 874 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…