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.

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

2025 INSC 1116 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE: THE WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025 (1) ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, J. ) Writ…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

2025 INSC 1023 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALM GROVES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. M/S MAGAR GIRME AND GAIKWAD ASSOCIATES ETC. ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh…

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

2025 INSC 1015 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

2025 INSC 1016 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Criminal Procedure — Institution of FIR — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process of law — High Court quashed FIR based only on Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, without considering other grounds raised by the accused — Supreme Court finds this approach incomplete and remands the matter for reconsideration of all grounds, emphasizing that procedural lapses like failure to obtain prior approval, if applicable, can render an FIR void ab initio.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDRA DHARIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ETC RESPONDENT(S) ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos. 3717-3718…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Death sentence cases — Article 32 as continuing safeguard even after conventional judicial process has concluded — Power to intervene under Article 32 to prevent constitutional breach when human life hangs in the balance. Finality of Judgments — Reopening of concluded matters — Article 32 available to remedy grievances when fundamental rights are violated — Curative petition limitations — Exception for miscarriage of justice and perpetuation of irremediable injustice.

2025 INSC 1043 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 90 & Section 47 — Setting aside of sale — Application for — Delay — HC correctly held that application to set aside sale was barred by limitation as it was filed almost two years three months after the sale, and Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Order XXI.

2025 INSC 1040 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI R RAGHU Vs. SRI G M KRISHNA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Criminal Procedure — Delay in Judgment Pronouncement — Supreme Court directs High Courts to adhere to existing guidelines for timely pronouncement of reserved judgments and reiterates specific directions for cases where judgment is not delivered within three months of being reserved, including placing the matter before the Chief Justice for reassignment if not pronounced within two weeks thereafter.

2025 INSC 1039 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Family Law — Partition Suit — Evidence — Testimony of a credible witness with special means of knowledge, coupled with presumption of marriage from prolonged cohabitation and absence of rebuttal by the opposing party, is sufficient to establish a valid marital relationship and grant a decree for partition.- Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion on relationship, when relevant — Testimony of a witness with special means of knowledge of the relationship, including opinion expressed by conduct, is relevant — Witness resided in the same village, had long-standing familiarity, and spoke from personal observation, thus satisfying the requirement of special means of knowledge.

2025 INSC 1038 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHER Vs. VENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar…

You missed