Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16. Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion as to relationship, when relevant — Opinion expressed by conduct of person with special knowledge on relationship is relevant — Essentials are court’s opinion, expression through conduct, and person having special knowledge — Conduct alone is not proof but an intermediate step to infer opinion — Opinion must be proved by direct evidence — Court needs to weigh evidence to form its own conclusion; Trial Court erred in treating opinion of witnesses as fact rather than evidence to be weighed and failed to independently assess credibility.

2025 INSC 1187 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS Vs. SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Bail — Anticipatory Bail — Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against High Court’s rejection of bail in anticipation of arrest — Custodial interrogation not required — Appellant may be admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest upon arrest, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the trial court — Appellant directed not to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts to authorities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH KUMAR PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.4371 of…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 366 — Death Sentence Reference — Sentencing Procedure — Conviction and death penalty were pronounced on the same day without a proper inquiry into aggravating and mitigating circumstances, psychological evaluation, or jail conduct report. This haste violated established sentencing principles and vitiated the death sentence.

2025 INSC 1203 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DASHWANTH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s).…

Service Matters

Army Act, 1950 — Sections 63 and 69 — Possession of ammunition — Substitution of conviction — Tribunal can substitute conviction from a civil offence (Section 69) to an act prejudicial to good order and discipline (Section 63) if evidence supports the latter and the original court-martial could have lawfully found the accused guilty of the substituted offence.

2025 INSC 1215 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.K. JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2) — Insurance — Liability of insurer — “Pay and recover” directions — Fake driving licence — For insurer to avoid liability, it must prove not only that the driver’s licence was fake, but also that the owner (insured) deliberately breached the policy by entrusting the vehicle to such a driver.

2025 INSC 1204 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIND SAMACHAR LTD. (DELHI UNIT) Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N. V.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 (Corresponding to Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528) — Inherent power of High Court — Recall or review of own judgment — Criminal courts do not have the power to recall or review their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors under Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS) — Invoking inherent powers to bypass statutory bars is impermissible — High Court reviewing its earlier order dismissing a petition as withdrawn, under the guise of correcting a clerical error, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

2025 INSC 1205 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PARMESHWAR RAMLAL JOSHI AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Railways Act, 1989 — Section 124-A — “No-fault” liability for untoward incidents — Compensation is payable if the victim is a “passenger” — Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A defines “passenger” to include a person who has purchased a valid ticket — Mere non-recovery of a ticket from the victim is not fatal if a credible prima facie case is established — Burden then shifts to the Railways to disprove bonafide travel.

2025 INSC 1201 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJNI AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1 — Limitation for filing Written Statement in Commercial Suits — Extension of time due to COVID-19 pandemic — Supreme Court’s suo motu order excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation — Even if statutory period of 120 days expired, if it fell within the excluded period, defendant should be allowed to file Written Statement.

2025 INSC 1202 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S AROUSH MOTORS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,…

Electricity Act, 1910 — Sections 39 and 44 — Theft of energy and interference with meters — Prosecution’s case based on alleged tampering of meter box with holes leading to reduced meter readings — Evidence from prosecution witnesses found to be based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities, not on concrete proof — Lack of direct evidence showing accused tampering with the meter box or using artificial means for theft — Failure of prosecution to prove dishonest abstraction or consumption of electricity and malicious injury or fraudulent alteration of meter index beyond reasonable doubt — High Court’s reversal of acquittal by Trial Court found to be erroneous

2025 INSC 1206 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHAVEER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

You missed