Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 415 and 420 — Cheating — The court found that the elements of cheating under Section 415 were not met — The appellant did not deceive the 4th respondent, nor did the sale deeds cause harm or damage to the 4th respondent — The appellant did not claim to be or represent the 4th respondent, nor did the appellant try to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent — The court cited a previous case, Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , stating that while a seller can be accused of defrauding a purchaser if they sell property that does not belong to them, a third party who is not the purchaser may not be able to make such a complaint
2025 INSC 31 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…
Foreign Registration Officers need not be impleaded in bail applications for foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946, but courts must mandate immediate communication of bail orders to these officers for coordinated inter-agency oversight
2025 INSC 30 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FRANK VITUS Vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
The primary issues revolved around whether the compensation awarded by the MACT and High Court was adequate, particularly under heads like loss of income, future medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages – The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s correct adoption of the notional income and enhancement of loss of income but criticized its failure to adequately consider other compensation heads — The court emphasized the need to follow established guidelines for multipliers and future prospects additions, and highlighted the importance of considering doctors’ recommendations and the actual needs of the victim — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000, matching the petitioner’s claimed amount.
2025 INSC 29 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATUL TIWARI Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil…
Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not invalidate the entire testimony, the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian law, a faulty investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal, and testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon if it is credible
2025 INSC 28 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EDAKKANDI DINESHAN @ P. DINESHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERELA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.…
Under the NDPS Act, while vehicles used in drug offenses can be confiscated, there is no explicit bar to their interim release, and courts can use Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. to release vehicles on superdari, especially when the owner is not an accused and conditions are met
2025 INSC 32 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BISHWAJIT DEY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Supreme Court held that a lease agreement and statutory provisions did not obligate the Municipal Corporation to convey land to a lessee after the lease expired, especially when there was a long delay in claiming the right
2025 INSC 36 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 326 — Compromise Despite Non-Compoundability — Even though section 326 is a non-compoundable offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court can still allow the compounding of such an offense when there is a genuine and voluntary settlement between the parties — This is an exception to the general rule and is invoked in special circumstances.
2025 INSC 37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. N. PANDAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.…
A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC if the suit appears to be barred by any law, such as the law of limitation.
2025 INSC 42 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. SRI BALA & CO. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and…
A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a case, even after final disposal and a Presidential Order, and courts have a mandatory duty to consider such claims in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
2025 INSC 43 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DAS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 162 — Scheme for golden hour — Obligation of Central Government — The court emphasizes the statutory obligation of the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — This obligation is not discretionary but a legal requirement.
2025 INSC 45 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. RAJASEEKARAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George…