Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 2025

897 judgments, newest first — showing 601–800.

S.K. JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 121510 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a Colonel in the Army Ordnance Corps, was tried by a General Court Martial on three charges: corruption for accepting Rs 10,000, possession of ammunition without licence, and an act prejudicial to good order and discipline for possessing Rs 28,000 cash. The GCM convicted him of the first two charges and

JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 109610 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, JVRR Education Society, was accused of cheating and forgery for allegedly submitting a forged fire No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) to obtain recognition and renewal of affiliation for its college, which operated from a building 14.20 metres high. The charge sheet under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC c

VINOD KUMAR PANDEY & ANR.versusSEESH RAM SAINI & ORS.

2025 INSC 109510 September 2025Disposed off

The case concerned two Central Bureau of Investigation officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, who were alleged to have committed a series of cognizable offences under the IPC, prompting writ petitions seeking registration of FIRs against them. The Delhi High Court, after examining the complaints and a prelimina

GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 113410 September 2025Disposed off

The heirs of cultivating tenant Govindappa Gounder sued the landowners K. Vijayakumar and others, who sought eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 alleging that the tenants had cut trees, dug pits and caused damage to the land. The Revenue Court, relying on a commissi

AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTADversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 109710 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence, a disputed 'last seen' theory, alleged motive of lust, and DNA forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the motive, the reliability of the last seen testimony, and the integrity of the forensic

AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITEDversusJATIN PRATAP DESAI & ANR.

2025 INSC 17410 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The stock broker AC Chokshi Share Broker invoked arbitration under BSE Bye‑law 248(a) to recover a large debit balance that accrued in the wife’s trading account after the 2001 market crash, alleging that the husband had orally agreed to be jointly and severally liable. The arbitral tribunal held both spouses jointly l

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusFUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

2025 INSC 18110 February 2025Disposed off

The Union of India challenged the liability of several private companies, including Future Gaming Solutions, to pay service tax on the sale of paper and online lottery tickets for the Government of Sikkim. The High Court of Sikkim had set aside service‑tax notices issued under various amendments to the Finance Act, 199

VASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 22110 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The deceased Geetha was allegedly set on fire by her mother‑in‑law, leading to her death. The trial court acquitted both the husband (appellant No.1) and the mother‑in‑law (appellant No.2) for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court reversed th

NAUSHEY ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 18210 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, residents of Barwara Khas village, were charged in 1991 with offences including Section 307 IPC for allegedly assaulting Mahmood with lathis and iron bars, leading to a fracture of his finger. After a police closure report deeming the complaint false, the trial court summoned the appellants, and the cas

SURENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 14129 December 2025Dismissed

Surender Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for stabbing the deceased with four knife blows to vital parts, causing fatal injuries. The appellant argued that the incident fell under one of the four exceptions to Section 300 IPC, seeking a conviction for a lesser offence. The Supreme Court examin

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusBCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 14019 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) floated a tender for a tank‑truck locking system and awarded a purchase order to AGC Networks Ltd., which later engaged BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (BCL) as a sub‑vendor. HPCL alleged non‑performance by AGC and denied any contractual relationship or payment liability to BCL

ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)versusDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

2025 INSC 14049 December 2025Case Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar Dabas, a conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation since 1985, resigned on 7 August 2014 and his resignation was accepted on 19 September 2014; a subsequent request to withdraw the resignation was denied. The deceased sought pension, gratuity and leave encashment for his legal heirs, but the Tribunal and t

SUVEJ SINGHversusRAM NARESH AND ORS.

2025 INSC 14059 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Suvej Singh challenged a High Court order that had set aside earlier revenue authority decisions and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of a map correction application filed by the private respondents after a 17‑year gap. The private respondents had previously sought correction of the revenue map

VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 12099 October 2025Case Allowed

The petitioners, three intending couples, had completed the embryo‑freezing stage of surrogacy in 2020‑2021, before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 25 January 2022. After the Act’s commencement, the statutory age limits (female ≤50, male ≤55) barred them from obtaining the eligibility certificat

SANKAR PADAM THAPAversusVIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

2025 INSC 12109 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a liaison for a private university, was issued a cheque of Rs.5 crore by the respondent, who was the Chairman and authorized signatory of Orion Education Trust, but the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and

RAVI ORAONversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 12129 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, three teachers appointed in 2015, were terminated in 2016 on the ground that they had not secured the required percentage of marks in their intermediate examination and that their graduation certificates were invalid. They contended that, as Scheduled Tribe candidates, they were entitled to a 5% relaxat

DEEP NURSING HOME AND ANOTHERversusMANMEET SINGH MATTEWAL AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 10949 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Manmeet Singh Mattewal lost his wife and newborn child during delivery at Deep Nursing Home. He alleged medical negligence by Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the nursing home, leading to compensation orders by the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. The Supreme Court examined whether the NCDRC correct

GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10899 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment tha

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSAJIB ROY

2025 INSC 10849 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Staff Selection Commission advertised recruitment for Constable (GD) posts with an age limit of 18‑23 years, granting a three‑year relaxation to OBC candidates. Several OBC applicants, including Sajib Roy, availed this relaxation, failed to secure selection in the OBC quota, but scored higher than the last candidat

RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS.versusPREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 10839 September 2025

The Railway Board issued an employment notice for 659 (later 763) constable ancillary posts in the Railway Protection Force, reserving seats for SC/ST/OBC candidates with age and physical‑measurement relaxations. Several SC/ST candidates who availed these relaxations scored higher than the cut‑off for the unreserved ca

AMIT NEHRA & ANR.versusPAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 10869 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, homebuyers who paid Rs.57,56,684 for an apartment in the IREO Rise project, sought possession after the developer defaulted on delivery. Their claim was filed initially on 11‑01‑2019 and resubmitted on 07‑02‑2020, after which the Resolution Professional verified it and included it in the list of financi

THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) CANARA BANKversusGANGANARASIMHAIAH

2025 INSC 10889 September 2025Disposed off

The respondent, a sub‑staff of Canara Bank, was found guilty of making unauthorized entries, coercing the branch manager to sanction loans for his family, and tampering with bank records, leading to his compulsory retirement in 2006. The disciplinary authority’s findings were affirmed by the appellate authority, and th

AMLESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 8109 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Amlesh Kumar, was charged with multiple offences including dowry harassment and murder after his wife went missing. While seeking regular bail, the High Court of Patna accepted the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer's proposal to conduct narco‑analysis tests on all accused and witnesses. The Supreme Court hel

K. MANGAYARKARASI & ANR.versusN.J. SUNDARESAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 6879 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement of the trademark ‘SRI ANGANNAN BIRIYANI HOTEL’. The respondents filed a Section 8 application invoking arbitration clauses in two assignment deeds of the trademark, alleging that the deeds were fraudulently executed. The Co

TATA MOHAN RAOversusS. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.

2025 INSC 6789 May 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a Tehsildar, was ordered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court to consider representations for regularising houses on government land and to maintain the status quo pending a decision. Despite the orders, he led a police force to demolish structures and evict families, beating women and children. The High Cou

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.versusANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 6569 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Wikimedia Foundation, as a defendant in a defamation suit filed by ANI Media, appealed a High Court order directing it to delete Wikipedia pages and discussion threads that commented on the court's proceedings, alleging that the order violated its freedom of speech and the sub judice principle. The High Court had h

KUSHAL KUMAR AGARWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2025 INSC 7609 May 2025Case Partly allowed

A complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was filed on 2 August 2024 naming the appellant as an accused. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offence without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard, contrary to the proviso to sub‑section (1) of Section 223 of the

R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHERversusRAJMANI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 4789 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that remanded a suit to the trial court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, despite both the trial court and the first appellate court having held the suit hopelessly barred by limitation. The dispute arose from a family property that had been sold and subsequently

RAVIversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 1709 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ravi was convicted of murdering his first wife Jamni by strangulation based largely on circumstantial evidence and hostile witness testimony. The prosecution's case relied on a Zero FIR, a post‑mortem report indicating asphyxia, and the recovery of a rope, while key eyewitnesses turned hostile. The Suprem

HANSRAJversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 1789 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Hansraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Ramlal, based solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged a motive of wage dispute, that Hansraj left for his native place, returned with a punctured cycle, and was seen fleeing with a farsi, the alleged murder weapon. The Supreme Court examin

AMRIT YADAVversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2025 INSC 1769 February 2025Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the recruitment of Class‑IV employees in Jharkhand where an advertisement dated 29 July 2010 failed to disclose the number of posts and reservation details, rendering it void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that the advertisement was illegal and any appointments m

B.V. RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 1949 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an officiating director of a medical institute, reprimanded an assistant professor in a high‑pitched voice for filing complaints against him during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The professor filed an FIR alleging offences under Sections 269, 270 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, claiming the director's admonit

DR. SHARMADversusSTATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 709 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Sharmad, an Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery in Kerala's Medical Education Service, was promoted to Associate Professor on 6 February 2013. The promotion was challenged by a third respondent who argued that the promotion required five years of physical teaching experience as an Assistant Professor after obtainin

RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENAversusDINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 559 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Reena, in 2022, yet she continued to live apart, alleging mental cruelty, dowry demands, and a miscarriage. Reena filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019 and was awarded ₹10,000 per month. The

NBCC (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2025 INSC 549 January 2025Matter referred to larger bench

NBCC (India) Ltd., a micro‑small enterprise, entered into several construction contracts with the State of West Bengal and later filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, 2006 after the contracts were executed. The enterprise then referred a payment dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Cou

MAMTA KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 499 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mamta Kaur, was charged under Section 306 of the IPC in FIR No.13 dated 14‑02‑2023. She applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and that the

GOVERDHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 479 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The trial court convicted two brothers, Goverdhan and Rajendra, and their father Chintaram for the murder of Suraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, based primarily on the testimony of Suraj's mother, Lata Bai, who was the sole eye‑witness. The High Court upheld the convictions of the brothers but acquitted t

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusPAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 699 January 2025Dismissed

The State of West Bengal and other public authorities sued PAM Developments for alleged wrongful debarment arising from a road‑strengthening contract. After a series of debarment orders and procedural challenges, the respondent sought to amend its plaint to include later debarment orders, arguing that they formed a con

AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.versusZISHAN HUSSAIN AZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANR.

2025 INSC 13988 December 2025Case Allowed

The Akola Municipal Corporation revised property tax rates for the years 2017‑18 to 2021‑22 after a 16‑year hiatus, invoking its statutory powers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Dr. Zishan Hussain filed a public interest litigation alleging that the revision was irrational, arbitrary and procedurally

GOVIND MANDAVIversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 13998 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Govind Mandavi was convicted for murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and for an offence under the SC/ST Act based on the testimony of the deceased's wife (PW‑2) and her father‑in‑law (PW‑1), who identified the accused after a delayed statement and a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Supreme Court examined

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusPARMESHWAR RAMLAL JOSHI AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 12058 October 2025Disposed off

The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, lodged FIRs alleging threats and interference in his granite mining business by a former minister and police officials, and sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI. He first filed a criminal writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. He

M/S GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, MEERUT DIVISION & ANR.

2025 INSC 12078 October 2025Dismissed

Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. executed a document titled “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” in favour of the Meerut Development Authority to secure its obligations under a development project. The authorities later claimed that the instrument attracted stamp duty under Article 40 of Schedule 1‑B of the Indian Stamp Act,

MAHAVEERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2025 INSC 12068 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Mahaveer, a director of a steel company, was charged under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for alleged theft of electricity and tampering with a meter box that had three holes. The trial court acquitted him, finding the prosecution failed to prove the use of artificial means or any tampering. The High C

RAJNI AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 12018 October 2025

The deceased, Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik, purchased a second‑class ticket for travel from Indore to Ujjain on 19 May 2017 but was allegedly pushed out of the moving train due to overcrowding, sustaining fatal head injuries. His widow and minor son filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation

M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

2025 INSC 12028 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Aroush Motors, sued Anvita Auto Tech Works for recovery of monies after terminating a dealership agreement. The defendant failed to file its written statement within the statutory 120‑day period and sought multiple extensions, eventually filing the statement

DASHWANTHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 12038 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, kidnapping, rape and offences under the POCSO Act based on four alleged pillars of evidence: a last‑seen‑together theory, CCTV footage, a confession‑derived disclosure statement and DNA profiling. The Supreme Court examined whether each of these pillars was

HIND SAMACHAR LTD. (DELHI UNITversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 12048 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a fatal collision between a truck owned by Hind Samachar Ltd. and a Matador van, resulting in nine deaths and two injuries. The insurer, National Insurance Company Ltd., paid compensation to the victims but sought to recover the amount from the truck's owner, alleging collusion with the driver to use

MALLEESWARIversusK. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 10808 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a daughter of a co-parcener, sought to amend a 2003 preliminary decree in a partition suit to claim a one‑third share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court dismissed her application, the High Court set aside that dismissal, but the respondent obtained a review order that reman

HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATELversusBABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI & ANR.

2025 INSC 10708 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an 8‑year‑old child, suffered permanent disability after being struck by a negligent vehicle in 2012 and filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.3.90 lakh, assessing only 30% disability and providing a modest loss‑of‑earnings component

M/S SHIKHAR CHEMICALSversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 9458 August 2025Disposed off

M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenged a decision of the Allahabad High Court that refused to quash a criminal complaint arising out of a civil money recovery dispute. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court t

KISHUNDEO ROUT & ORS.versusGOVIND RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 9568 August 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a title suit in 1999 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed; the First Appellate Court, however, introduced a new issue of adverse possession—never pleaded in the plaint—and decreed in favour of the plainti

UMASHANKAR YADAV & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.

2025 INSC 6538 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, members of a child‑rights NGO, accompanied labour officials during a raid on a brick kiln to rescue alleged bonded child labourers. A dispute arose over whether the children should be taken to the police station for interrogation or statements recorded on site, leading the officials to lodge an FIR alle

WARISversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 7128 May 2025

The appellant, Waris, was convicted under Sections 302, 201, 376(2)(i) and 376AB of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for raping and killing his step‑daughter. During the trial, his original counsel withdrew and he could not afford a new lawyer, so the trial court appointed a legal‑aid defence counsel on th

PARITALA SUDHAKARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA

2025 INSC 6558 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Revenue Inspector, was accused of demanding a Rs.2,000 bribe to conduct an inquiry into compensation for drought‑damaged trees and of accepting the money, which was allegedly recovered from a bag attached to his motorcycle during a trap operation. The trial court and the High Court convicted him

C.T. KOCHOUSEPHversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC.

2025 INSC 6618 May 2025Dismissed

The appellants purchased goods from dealers who were exempt from sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and challenged the levy of purchase tax under s.5A of the Kerala Act and s.7A of the Tamil Nadu Act. The questions were whether such purchases constitut

RENUKA PRASADversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2025 INSC 6578 May 2025

The case concerns the murder of Ramkrishna, allegedly orchestrated by his son A1 and associates over a sibling rivalry concerning assets. The trial court acquitted six accused (A1‑A6) because the majority of the 87 witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution failed to prove motive, conspiracy, preparation, or identifi

SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORSversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2025 INSC 7838 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Iswar Chandra Pal executed a registered gift deed on 7 December 1967 transferring 20.88½ acres to his three sons and three daughters, which was entered in revenue records on 26 May 1969. After the land reforms, 8.80 acres of his remaining holdings were declared surplus and vested in the State. Following the 2nd and 3rd

M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC

2025 INSC 8048 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 3

SAKSHI ARHAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

2025 INSC 4638 April 2025Dismissed

The Rajasthan High Court advertised recruitment for Civil Judges in 2021, requiring candidates to submit caste certificates but without specifying a cut‑off date for their issuance. After the preliminary and mains exams, several OBC‑NCL, MBC‑NCL and EWS candidates were excluded from the interview list because their cer

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTHE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2025 INSC 4818 April 2025Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu challenged the Governor's actions in withholding assent to 10 bills and reserving them for the President's consideration after the bills were repassed by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Governor's powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, including whether

PRABHJOT KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2025 INSC 4798 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab government issued an advertisement (No.14 dated 11‑12‑2020) for recruitment to 77 posts, reserving one DSP post for the SC Sports (Women) category in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 which mandated 33% reservation for women. The private respondent, who ha

NEHA ENTERPRISESversusCOMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 4768 April 2025Dismissed

Neha Enterprises, a registered dealer under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, claimed an input tax credit of Rs. 6,42,260 for purchases related to sales made to a manufacturer‑exporter under Form‑E for the assessment year 2010‑11. The assessing officer initially allowed the credit but later disallowed it und

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusADITYA SARDA

2025 INSC 4778 April 2025Disposed off

The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigated alleged fraud involving the Adarsh Group and filed a criminal complaint before a Special Court, which took cognizance of offences under the Companies Act, 2013 and the IPC and issued bailable and later non‑bailable warrants against 16 respondents. The responden

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusR.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 488 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

R.K. Pandey, a former lab assistant of a state‑run medical college, claimed that his superannuation age should be 60 years and sought relief through arbitration, relying on an alleged 1957 arbitration agreement between the municipal board and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. He unilaterally appointed two arbitrators who

RAM PYAREYversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 718 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the brother‑in‑law of the deceased woman, was convicted under Sections 306 and 498‑A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for abetment of suicide, while being acquitted of the dowry‑death charge under Section 304B. The deceased had set herself on fire after alleged harassment and dowry d

INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAMversusMATHEW K CHERIAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 518 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Inspector of the Railway Protection Force alleged that Mathew K. Cherian created numerous fraudulent IRCTC user IDs to procure and sell railway e‑tickets for profit, while Ramesh, an authorised railway ticketing agent, was accused of using multiple IDs to supply tickets. The central question was whether such conduc

SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 938 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil, was charged with murdering his wife Lata. The prosecution relied on an alleged extra‑judicial confession made to the village Police Patil, the discovery of an iron rod, motive, and the fact that the crime occurred inside the house. The trial court acquitted him, holding the conf

VIJAY PRABHUversusS.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS.

2025 INSC 528 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement and delivery of possession of the property, alternatively claiming damages and refund of earnest money. The trial court denied specific performance and ordered refund of the earnest money with interest. On appeal, the High Court held that

H. GURUSWAMY & ORS.versusA. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

2025 INSC 538 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a High Court order that condoned a six‑year delay in filing an application for recall under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, overturning a trial court decision that had rejected the application. The respondents had sought to revive a suit originally filed in 1977, which had been abated after repeated d

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusSMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 958 January 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Smt. Prabha Jain, inherited a one‑third share of a plot that was illegally partitioned and sold by her brother-in‑law; the buyer later mortgaged the plot to Central Bank of India, which took possession under the SARFAESI Act. Jain filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed and mortgage dee

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

M/S SHANTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12957 November 2025Disposed off

The State of Odisha issued an auction notice for a five‑year sand‑quarry lease; Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd., the highest‑price bidder, was declared non‑responsive for not submitting an Income Tax Return for FY 2021‑22, while a lower‑priced bidder was declared successful. The dispute centered on the meaning of “previo

ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12967 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, private landowners in Maharashtra, challenged revenue annotations and mutation entries that labelled their lands as private forests and vested in the State, arguing that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not fulfilled. The State contended that notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Indi

RAVI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12917 November 2025

The petitioners, original allottees of a group housing project in Greater Noida, challenged the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of their writ petition seeking restoration of a cancelled lease, identification of genuine allottees, and completion of construction. The Supreme Court observed that the dispute involved comp

S. RAJASEEKARANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 11897 October 2025Directions issued

Dr. S. Rajaseekaran filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking comprehensive road‑safety measures, especially for pedestrians, helmet use, lane discipline and vehicle lighting. The Court examined the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, Road Regulations and related rules, and considered extensive data

RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL ETC.

2025 INSC 11937 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a father, son and son‑in‑law, were accused of murdering Pushpendra Singh and were acquitted by the trial court but later convicted by the High Court on the basis of alleged ocular testimony and the recovery of swords and a kanta. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants could be positively iden

PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12147 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Aggarwal, entered into an agreement to purchase a property in 1989, paid Rs.25,000 as earnest money and later sued for specific performance, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, but awarded her Rs.2 crore as compensation. The respondents deposited

M/S ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.

2025 INSC 11887 October 2025Disposed off

M/s Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. prints lottery tickets for its customers and procures its own ink and processing chemicals. The Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Officer levied tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the value of the ink and chemicals, arguing that they were transferred to the custom

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR.versusAMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2025 INSC 11907 October 2025Disposed off

Lifestyle Equities sued Amazon Technologies for alleged trademark infringement and obtained a money decree of Rs.336.02 crore. Amazon appealed and sought a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the CPC without depositing the decretal amount. The Delhi High Court granted an unconditional stay, prompting

SWACCH ASSOCIATION, NAGPURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 11997 October 2025Dismissed

The Swacch Association filed a public‑interest litigation alleging that Futala Tank in Nagpur was a wetland and that several constructions – a musical fountain, a viewer’s gallery, a parking plaza and an artificial banyan tree – were permanent structures violating the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017. T

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

NILESH BABURAO GITTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 11917 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was convicted of murdering his mother, Sunanda Gitte, under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged recovery of a nylon rope, post‑mortem findings of strangulation marks, and a purported motive of property gain. The Supreme Court

ZAINULversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 11927 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a violent clash in Katihar district where a mob of 400‑500 armed persons assaulted several villagers, resulting in the deaths of two men and injuries to five others. The trial court convicted 21 accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC; the High Court affirmed the convictions of 12

XXXversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 9437 August 2025Dismissed

A High Court judge (the petitioner) was implicated after a fire in his bungalow revealed burnt currency notes, prompting the Supreme Court's in‑house Procedure. A three‑member committee found serious misconduct and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister, after which th

M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6407 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants Jindal Steel issued a work order to Bansal Infra and obtained an unconditional bank guarantee to secure an advance payment. After alleged delays, quality deficiencies and termination of the contract, the appellants threatened to encash the guarantee unless a debit balance was paid. Bansal filed a Section

RAJUMON T.M.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 6447 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Indian Army sepoy, was medically invalided and discharged after being diagnosed with schizophrenia, with the Medical Board concluding the disorder was a constitutional personality disorder unrelated to his service. He sought a disability pension, but the pension authority rejected his claim base

MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS.versusM/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6467 May 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned 53 acres of land in Survey No.83/2, claimed by the original owners (appellants) and by M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (respondents) who relied on sale agreements dated 19 March 1982 that were never registered. The appellants argued that the unregistered agreements could not convey title an

TATA STEEL LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6397 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., had its resolution plan for Rohit Ferro‑Tech Ltd. approved by the NCLT on 7 April 2022. A minority shareholder, Respondent No. 1, filed an appeal to the NCLAT on 23‑24 May 2022, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 30‑day statutory period. The dispute centered on when the limitation p

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAM KISHORI GUPTA & ANR.

2025 INSC 4547 April 2025Disposed off

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued show‑cause notices to Vital Communications Ltd (VCL) and related entities for misleading advertisements, leading to a series of orders: a 2008 restraint order, a 2014 order imposing market bans, and a 2018 disgorgement order. The Securities Appellate Tribunal set

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 4697 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 following the death of a government employee, where the dependents were also entitled to ex‑gratia assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006. The High Court had deducted only 50% of the amount payable under the Rules

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.

2025 INSC 4717 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR registered against Sri Channakeshava H.D., an executive engineer, for alleged disproportionate assets under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had held that the Superintendent of Polic

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGOPU & ANR.

2025 INSC 5117 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a junior public health nurse, died in a 2000 motorbike accident. Her husband and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,53,000. After ten years, the children alone appealed to the Kerala High Court,

M/S CHATHA SERVICE STATIONversusLALMATI DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 4687 April 2025Dismissed

An oil tanker carrying hazardous goods collided with a bicyclist and a pedestrian, killing both. The driver of the tanker did not have the statutory endorsement on his licence required under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Motor Accidents Claims

NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 4847 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, owners of two flats in Mumbai, allowed the Police Department to occupy the premises temporarily in 1940 without any written requisition order. The police paid a nominal rent until 2007 and then stopped, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition under Article 226 seeking possession of the flats.

RAKESH KUMAR VERMAversusHDFC BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 4737 April 2025Disposed off

Rakesh Kumar Verma and Deepti were employees of HDFC Bank whose appointment letters contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause stating that any dispute would be decided by the courts in Bombay. Both were terminated for alleged fraud and filed civil suits in Patna and Delhi respectively challenging the termination. HDFC

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.G.G. TOWERS (P) LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 3377 March 2025Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had executed an agreement to lease a plot of land to M/s Mehta Constructions in 1957, but the lease deed was never executed, so no leasehold rights were created. Mehta Constructions later sold the plot to M/s Pure Drinks (the second respondent) via a registered sale deed in 1985. T

OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DASversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 437 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder for a 1994 incident, claimed he was a minor at the time of the offence, asserting a plea of juvenility under s.9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Despite earlier courts treating him as an adult based on a bank‑accou

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit in 1993 for specific performance of a 1991 sale agreement, which was rejected in 1998 for non‑payment of court fees. The plaintiff then filed a second suit in 2007 seeking the same relief, invoking Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC to avoid the effect of the earlier rejection. The defe

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusHARI KESH

2025 INSC 507 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab prosecuted Hari Kesh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after a sanction order dated 19‑Nov‑2018 was issued. The trial had commenced and the prosecution had examined several witnesses when the accused filed a petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the sanct

VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12836 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a legal heir of the original plaintiffs, sought execution of a 2006 decree that declared an agricultural land allotment to the defendants illegal. The defendants (Nos. 4 and 5) had appealed the decree, but both died before the appeal was heard, and their legal heirs were never brought on record. The firs

MUSKANversusISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 12876 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Muskan, married Ishaan Khan in 2020 and later alleged dowry harassment by her husband and his family, filing complaints in early 2023 and an FIR in January 2024 under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quash

MIHIR RAJESH SHAHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 12886 November 2025Directions issued

The appellant, Mihir Rajesh Shah, was arrested for a fatal hit‑and‑run involving his BMW, but the police failed to provide him with a written copy of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court upheld the arrest de

STATE OF CHHATTISGARHversusAMIT AISHWARYA JOGI

2025 INSC 12856 November 2025Dismissed

The trial court acquitted Amit Aishwarya Jogi in a 2007 murder case involving the killing of a Congress leader, after a CBI‑investigated chargesheet superseded the original police investigation. The State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI and the victim’s son (de‑facto complainant) sought leave to appeal the acquittal, but the

P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRSversusA.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12866 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a joint family property dispute among descendants of Pillappa, concerning the validity of two registered release deeds (1956 and 1967) and an unregistered palupatti (partition) deed of 1972. The plaintiffs argued that the releases were ineffective and that the palupatti could not be relied upon, while

PREETHA KRISHNAN & ORS.versusTHE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 12936 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, an Assistant Engineer aged 51, died in a road accident and his wife and children claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.44,04,912, applying a multiplier of 9 and other heads of loss. The Kerala High Court reduced the loss of d

POONAMversusDULE SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12846 November 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Poonam, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and failed to disclose this conviction in the affidavit required by Rule 24‑A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 when filing her nomination for councillor. The trial court declared her election void und

M/S ALCHEMIST HOSPITALS LTD.versusM/S ICT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 12896 November 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a private hospital, entered into a software implementation agreement with the respondent, a digital health‑technology firm, which contained Clause 8.28 purportedly providing for arbitration. After repeated technical failures, the appellant invoked the clause and sought appointment of a sole arbitrator un

NAZIM & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 11846 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the murder of a ten‑year‑old boy, Muntiyaz Ali, whose body was found on 6 June 2007. The appellants Nazim, Aftab and Arman were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC based largely on the testimony of three prosecution witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether

P. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR.versusCOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS.

2025 INSC 11836 October 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants, a trust operating a hall on land allotted by the Cochin Devaswom Board, challenged the Board's unilateral increase of the annual licence fee from Rs.227.25 to Rs.1,50,000 and the subsequent demand for arrears. The High Court upheld the fee increase but, beyond the scope of the writ petition, directed th

VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

2025 INSC 11826 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying sports kits in several Indian states, challenged a tender issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for supplying sports kits to government schools because the tender required bidders to have supplied goods worth at least Rs.6 crore to Chhattisgarh governme

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 9966 August 2025Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined applications concerning the eco‑sensitive hill station of Matheran, Maharashtra, where heavy monsoon rains were causing soil erosion on the main access road and hand‑pulled carts were being used for transport. The petitioners sought permission to lay paver blocks on the Dasturi Naka–Shivaji M

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2025 INSC 9376 August 2025Directions issued

The three Delhi distribution companies (BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) tariff orders that created and perpetuated a large regulatory asset to bridge revenue gaps, which had ballooned to over Rs 27,

AASIF @ PASHAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 9446 August 2025Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under several provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Atrocities Act and sentenced to a maximum of four years’ rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently. While his appeal against conviction was pending before the Allahabad High Court, he filed an application under Section 389 of

SHANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 9876 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir and another accused Veena were convicted by the trial court and upheld by the High Court for the murder of Balwant, the informant's son, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a motive of illegal occupa

DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAMversusTHIRU. C. VE. SHANMUGAM

2025 INSC 9766 August 2025Disposed off

The Tamil Nadu government launched the "Ungaludan Stalin" welfare scheme, naming it after a living political leader. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a representation before the Election Commission under Clause 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and subsequently a writ petition

JAMNALALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 9356 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a minor rape victim appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order that suspended the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 389 of the CrPC and released him on bail. The accused had been convicted under Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of the IPC, receiving a 20‑year r

DHANYA MversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2025 INSC 8096 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant’s husband, Rajesh, who runs a lending firm, was declared a ‘notorious goonda’ and detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 based on a police recommendation citing several criminal cases. He was already on bail in those cases, and the detaining authority did n

A. RAJAversusD. KUMAR

2025 INSC 6296 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, A. Raja, contested and won the Devikulam Assembly seat, a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes, by filing a nomination stating he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste, supported by a caste certificate. The respondent challenged the election, alleging that the appellant's paternal grandparents migrat

MOHAMMED ASARUDEENversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2025 INSC 7466 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, accused in a NIA case, challenged an order of the Special Court that granted witness protection to a large number of witnesses under sub‑section 2 of section 44 of the UAPA and the corresponding provision in the NIA Act, without recording individual satisfaction for each witness. The High Court upheld mo

MOHIT SURESH HARCHANDRAI & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 8126 May 2025Disposed off

Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (HOCL) occupied a premises leased from the Harchandrai family for over three decades before the landlords served a notice of termination in 2000 and obtained an eviction decree. After a protracted litigation spanning more than 25 years, the Supreme Court examined the appropriate per‑squ

ARABIAN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 6306 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Arabian Exports Private Limited (the appellant) claimed insurance proceeds for flood damage amounting to Rs 5,71,69,554 against National Insurance Company Ltd. (the respondent). After a long delay, the respondent offered a much lower sum of Rs 1,88,14,146, which the appellant accepted by signing an undated voucher and

RAMKIRAT MUNILAL GOUDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

2025 INSC 7026 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 3‑year‑9‑month‑old child based on three strands of circumstantial evidence: a disputed 'last seen together' testimony, an alleged extra‑judicial confession, and a forensic soil match. The Supreme Court examined whether the investigation was

SIDDHI SANDEEP LADDAversusCONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 7146 May 2025

The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging the High Court's order on six disputed Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) questions. It evaluated the correctness of answer keys for Questions 56 and 77, upheld the High Court's answer for Question 78, and found that Questions 88, 115 and 116 were either improperly framed or

JASPAL SINGH KAURALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2025 INSC 4576 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jaspal Singh Kaural, had a consensual physical relationship with the complainant after promising to marry her and care for her children, leading her to obtain a divorce. When the appellant later refused to marry and threatened her children, the complainant filed an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The

SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD.versusM/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 4536 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. insured a single voyage of its barge Srijoy II from Mumbai to Kolkata with New India Assurance for the period 16 May‑15 June 2013, subject to a special condition that the voyage must commence and be completed before the monsoon sets in. The vessel departed on 6 June 2013, was forced to anchor d

BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 4586 April 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, a former judicial officer, was charged under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC for allegedly promising marriage to a woman who was in the midst of a divorce, subsequently having a consensual relationship and later avoiding her. The complainant claimed the appellant used his position to exploit her, whi

RAJIV GHOSHversusSATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

2025 INSC 4676 April 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff, the owner of a premises, sued the defendant, the son of the original tenant, for recovery of possession. In his written statement the defendant unequivocally admitted that his father was the sole tenant and that the plaintiff was the owner, and that rent had been paid till May 2021. Relying on these admi

K. GOPIversusTHE SUB-REGISTRAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 4626 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K. Gopi, sought registration of a sale deed executed by Jayaraman Mudaliyar, but the Sub‑Registrar refused on the ground that the vendor’s title was not established. The High Court upheld the refusal, relying on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, and dismissed the appellant’s writ petition

GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2025 INSC 3356 March 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Gyanendra Singh, was convicted for raping his nine‑year‑old daughter, resulting in convictions under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, with a life sentence and a fine. He appealed, arguing that because the offences overlapped, the special law (POCSO) under

YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 3386 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a contractor and a store manager, were charged with offences under Sections 304 Part II, 304A, 182 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the deaths of two employees who were electrocuted while working on a sign board using an iron ladder. They filed discharge applications under Section 227 of the

STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.versusARABINDA RABHA & ORS.

2025 INSC 3346 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Assam government advertised 104 constable posts in 2014, conducted selection in 2016, and after a change of political regime, the incumbent PCCF highlighted serious anomalies, leading the government to cancel the select list. Two writ petitions challenged the cancellation and a fresh advertisement; the Gauhati High

JAMIN & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 3306 March 2025Dismissed

The appellants Jamin and Akil were summoned as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC after the original murder trial had concluded and the co‑accused were convicted. They challenged the summoning order, arguing that the trial court could not entertain a Section 319 application after the trial and that the High Court ha

M/S SHRI SENDHUR AGRO & OIL INDUSTRIESversusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 3286 March 2025Disposed off

Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries, a proprietorship based in Coimbatore, defaulted on an overdraft facility and Kotak Mahindra Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Chandigarh. The petitioner sought transfer of the criminal case to a court in Tam

GOPAL SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 2636 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged with murder and causing hurt under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC, later reduced to Section 304 Part II by the High Court. The prosecution relied on two alleged eye‑witnesses, PW‑1 and PW‑3, and four court witnesses, none of whom identified the appellants in the presence of the court. T

SANJAYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 3176 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sanjay was convicted of murder and rape of a four‑year‑old girl, X, and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The prosecution's case relied on the victim’s last‑seen testimony, an extra‑judicial confession by the accused that led to the recovery of the body and clot

VIHAAN KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 1626 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vihaan Kumar was arrested on 10 June 2024 for alleged offences under the IPC, but he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC. The High Court held that the information given to his wife and the entry in the police diary did n

AYYUB & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 1686 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a suspected romantic relationship between Ziaul Rahman and his cousin Tanu. After Ziaul’s death in a physical assault, Tanu allegedly committed suicide, and the complainant Vijay (R‑2) filed an FIR accusing the appellants of abetting her suicide under Section 306 IPC. The High Court refused to quash

RAJA KHANversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 1676 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Raja Khan was convicted for murder and concealment of evidence based on circumstantial evidence, including a weapon and gold chains recovered after his alleged disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution relied on the recovery of a stone, a gandasa, and gold chains, as well as testimo

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIAversusCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

2025 INSC 1556 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, an individual with salary and partnership income, filed his income‑tax returns for AY 2011‑12 and AY 2013‑14 well after the statutory due dates, attracting show‑cause notices under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act. He sought compounding of the offences under the 2014 Guidelines; the first application

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGHversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 1546 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a Tata truck insured with National Insurance Company, suffered a fire loss on 8 June 2014 while the vehicle was covered by a valid National Permit. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the insurer to settle the claim on a non‑standard basis, relying on a prior judgment. The i

MAYA SINGH AND OTHERSversusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 1616 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, family members of Laxman Das Mahour who died in a bus accident, challenged the High Court's reduction of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had calculated loss of dependency using a multiplier of 9 on the deceased's annual income of ₹4,57,000, arriving at a total aw

GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2025 INSC 1606 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged dowry demands, mental and physical harassment by her husband and in‑laws, and implicated the appellant Geddam Jhansi (her mother‑in‑law’s sister) and her son Geddam Sathyakama Jabali as pressurising her to obey her husband’s wishes. The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Sec

BHARAT AAMBALEversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 786 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja and appealed on the ground that the trial was vitiated by non‑compliance with Section 52A, which governs inventory, sampling and magistrate certification of seized narcotics. The Supreme Court examined the legislative purpose

BISHWAJIT DEYversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2025 INSC 326 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bishwajit Dey, owned a truck that was stopped at a police checkpoint in Assam where two soap boxes containing 24.8 g of heroin were discovered. The drug was found in the vehicle but the charge‑sheet named only a third‑party occupant, Md Dimpul Ali, as the accused; the owner and driver were not alleged to

ABDUL NASSARversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2025 INSC 356 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Abdul Nassar, was convicted of raping and murdering a nine‑year‑old girl, offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, and was sentenced to death. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts, forensic DNA evidence linking the appellant’s semen to the victim’s clothing, and te

ADARSH SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SWAWLAMBI SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 13895 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a cooperative society registered under the Jharkhand Self‑Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, sought exemption from stamp duty on a land transfer to its members under Section 9A of the Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988. The State, through a memorandum issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Re

THE STATE OF JHARKHANDversusTHE INDIAN BUILDERS JAMSHEDPUR

2025 INSC 13085 December 2025Directions issued

The State of Jharkhand appealed a High Court order that restored an arbitral award allowing claims that the civil court had struck down as prohibited by specific contractual clauses. The High Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, hold

SHAIL KUMARIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 9365 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Shail Kumari was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly drowning her two children after taking them to a pond. The trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑2, while other potential witnesses were not examined. On appeal, the Supreme C

KALLU NAT ALIAS MAYANK KUMAR NAGARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2025 INSC 9305 August 2025Dismissed

The petition challenged the order of the trial court and the High Court that summoned Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar as an accused under Section 193 of the CrPC in a murder‑rape case, despite his name being omitted from the charge‑sheet. The core issue was whether a Court of Session, after a case is committed to it

VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 9615 August 2025Case Partly allowed

The petition challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 29 January 2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the accompanying Office Memorandum of 30 January 2025, which altered the regime of environmental clearance for building and construction projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the 2006 Sc

NADEEM AHAMEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2025 INSC 9935 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Nadee m Ahamed was seized with approximately 125 g of heroin while a co‑accused was found with about 130 g, leading the trial court to treat the combined 255 g as a commercial quantity and convict both under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the

ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusVIGYAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 9285 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC) financed a bleaching powder unit that defaulted, leading to its possession of the unit and subsequent litigation. Respondent Vigyan Chemical Industries sued the defaulting borrower and later impleaded OSFC, claiming repayment with interest calculated under the repealed Inte

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S KAMAKHYA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.

2025 INSC 8055 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India, as railway authority, issued demand notices alleging mis‑declaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, after the consignments had been delivered. The respondents paid the demands but later sought refunds, contending that such post‑delivery notices were illegal under Sections 73 an

M/S BALAJI TRADERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 8065 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a betel nut trader, was threatened at gunpoint by the accused and his associates, who demanded a monthly payment of five lakh rupees and attempted to kidnap him. The trial court issued a summons under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for putting the complainant in fear of death to commit exto

HARJINDER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2025 INSC 6345 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, father of the deceased Dharminder Singh, challenged the High Court's order quashing a summons issued by the trial court under Section 319 of the CrPC against respondent No.2 (Varinder Singh) for alleged abetment to suicide. The incident involved a confrontation on 10 May 2016 where the deceased was taunt

SAROJ SALKANversusHUMA SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6325 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Saroj Salkan, filed a partition suit under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act seeking division of five properties inherited from her father, Major General Budh Singh, against the legal heirs of her brother and sister. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 o

RAJENDRA ANANT VARIKversusGOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR

2025 INSC 6335 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rajendra Anant Varik, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonoured cheque and was ordered to pay compensation. He appealed, and the First Appellate Court acquitted him, holding that the complainant was an unlicensed money‑lender under the Goa Money‑Lenders Act, whic

GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 6585 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants, Gopal Govind Lakade and another, filed a criminal application seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against them. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the application outright without issuing notice to the respondents and without providing any reasons. The appellants

JOYI KITTY JOSEPHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 3275 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The wife of a man detained under the COFEPOSA Act challenged his preventive detention, arguing that the detaining authority had not applied its mind and had ignored the stringent bail conditions imposed by the magistrate. The Supreme Court examined the factual matrix, which showed the detainee’s involvement in a large‑

PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusV. RAJAMANI & ANR. ETC.

2025 INSC 3295 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree for specific performance and possession of a suit property against the vendors, but the vendors failed to execute the sale deed. The appellants sought execution of the decree, while the respondents (nephews of the vendors) claimed to be cultivating tenants and objected to the delivery o

VIJAY BAHADURversusSUNIL KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 3325 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Vijay Bahadur contested the election of Gram Pradhan in Chaka village, alleging a discrepancy of 19 votes between the Presiding Officer’s oral statement (1194 votes) and Form 46 (1213 votes) and claiming irregularities such as missing poll‑booth diaries and police interference. He filed an election petiti

SITA RAM & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 3595 March 2025Disposed off

The case involved a dispute in which the deceased Prem Lal was assaulted by his brother Pyare Singh and two friends, Sita Ram and Onkar, who struck him on the head with a sickle (darat) and beat him. The victim later lodged an FIR himself, was hospitalized, developed gastroenteritis and died nine days later; the post‑m

P.M. LOKANATH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 2025 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a property in Bangalore, filed two civil suits to protect their possession and claim ownership. Respondent No.2, a rival heir, lodged an FIR under IPC sections 448 and 506 alleging threats by the appellants to withdraw the suits, leading to a criminal case. The appellants sought quashing of th

FRANK VITUSversusNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ORS.

2025 INSC 305 January 2025Disposed off

The case concerned whether a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 must be impleaded as a party in bail applications filed by a foreign national under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Supreme Court examined the statutory powers of the Civil Authority and the Regi

JIT VINAYAK AROLKARversusSTATE OF GOA & ORS.

2025 INSC 315 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jit Vinayak Arolkar, was charged under Section 420 IPC after a complaint by the fourth respondent alleging that he sold a portion of a jointly owned property without consent of all co‑owners. The dispute centered on whether the sale deeds executed by the appellant, as attorney for the vendors, involved a

NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 13864 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR alleging his sister was shot by her husband, based on a nine‑year‑old niece’s information. The deceased gave two statements to police under Section 161 CrPC, first naming the husband and later implicating the husband’s mother, brother and brother‑in‑law as instigators; she later died. The pro

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.versusTAGHAR VASUDEVA AMBRISH & ANR.

2025 INSC 13804 December 2025Dismissed

The respondents, co‑owners of a 42‑room residential building in Bangalore, leased the property to a company which sub‑let it as a hostel for students and working professionals. The respondents sought an advance ruling that the rent received was exempt from GST under Entry 13 of Notification 9/2017, which provides exemp

SADIQ B. HANCHINMANIversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY

2025 INSC 12824 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a private criminal complaint alleging that the accused had forged an e‑stamp rent agreement to illegally occupy his property and had committed offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) referred the matter to the

AMANJOT SINGH CHADHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 11274 September 2025Disposed off

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution directing all States and Union Territories to implement Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, which mandates rules for registering Sikh Anand Karaj marriages. The Court noted that while some jurisdictions had notified such rules, many had not, resul

SHYAM LALversusSHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 10784 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The owner of a utility van involved in a fatal accident filed five claim petitions and appealed against the High Court's order directing the insurer to "pay and recover". The insurer argued that the policy’s "limitation as to use" clause barred coverage for passengers, contending the vehicle was effectively a goods car

DEEPAK KUMAR SAHUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 9294 August 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 450 and 376(2) and POCSO Act section 4 for raping a 15‑year‑old girl after forcing her onto a cot in the porch of her house. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the victim's detailed testimony, corroborated by her brother, parents, and neighbours, while medical evid

OPERATION ASHAversusSHELLY BATRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 9324 August 2025Dismissed

Operation Asha, a not‑for‑profit society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, provides health services to the under‑privileged. After the society’s CEO terminated co‑founder Dr. Shelly Batra, she and her mother filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging financial impropriety

NARAYAN YADAVversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 9274 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Narayan Yadav, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) in which he confessed to killing Ram Babu Sharma during a drunken quarrel. The trial court convicted him of murder under Section 302 IPC, a conviction later altered by the High Court to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part

BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJUversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 9344 August 2025Dismissed

The father was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his ten‑year‑old daughter. The trial court, relying on the victim's testimony, corroboration from her elder sister, and forensic DNA evidence, sentenced him to life imp

GHANSHYAM SONIversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2025 INSC 8034 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ghanshyam Soni, was accused under sections 498A, 34 and 406 IPC for alleged cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, a police officer, with incidents said to have occurred in 1999. The complainant filed a complaint on 3 July 2002, leading to an FIR on 19 December 2002 and a charge‑sheet in 2004, after whic

VAIBHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 8004 June 2025Disposed off

The appellant Vaibhav was convicted for murdering his friend Mangesh under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under the Arms Act, based solely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that Mangesh accidentally shot himself with his father's service pistol, citing the bullet trajectory, lac

HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (BISCUIT DIVISION) & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 8014 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Harina​gar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) (HSML) applied to close its biscuit unit after Britannia Industries terminated a 32‑year job‑work agreement. The State Government, through a Deputy Secretary, sent a letter on 25 September 2019 asking HSML to resubmit its application, claiming the original lacked cogent re

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusSMT. HONNAMMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 6254 May 2025Dismissed

The deceased was a coolie travelling on a trailer that was being pulled by a tractor insured by The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company. Due to rash driving, the tractor and trailer toppled, causing the deceased's death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.9,50,000 compensation and held that the employe

SHUBHKARAN SINGHversusABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 6284 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner challenged the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's rejection of his application to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court examined the scope of that rule, noting that it confers a power exclusively on the court trying the suit to recall and re‑examine a witness, and that parties

G.V. ADHIMOOLAM & ORS.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

2025 INSC 6814 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who are relatives of the complainant, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash FIR No. 21 of 2019 alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 342, 294(b) and 506(1). The complainant claimed he had invested Rs. 1.5 crore in a Nissan car dealership run by the appellants, was denied pa

SOUMEN PAUL & ORS.versusSHRABANI NAYEK & ORS.

2025 INSC 4514 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the recruitment of assistant teachers in West Bengal primary schools, where the eligibility rule required a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Because the COVID‑19 pandemic delayed the 2020‑22 D.El.Ed. batch, several candidat

A. RAJENDRAversusGONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 4474 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a shareholder and suspended managing director of a corporate debtor, filed two appeals under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) without first applying for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the limitation perio

KOUSIK DAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 4484 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, who were in‑service elementary teachers as of 10 August 2017, completed an 18‑month Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) through NIOS under the NCTE’s ODL scheme and applied for recruitment under a 2022 West Bengal notification. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaiveer S

KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJUversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 4444 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor based entirely on circumstantial evidence, a confession narrated by a police officer, and DNA/FSL reports. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the 'last seen' testimony, the admissibility of the confession under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of t

SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.versusDR. KULBIR SINGH RANA

2025 INSC 3194 March 2025Dismissed

The Sports Authority of India (SAI) challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that directed it to treat two physiotherapists as "Initial Constituents" under the 2022 Recruitment Rules, converting them from contractual to regular employees. In the Delhi High Court, SAI’s counsel sought only an extension o

PATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 3224 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar by blackmailing him with compromising photographs. The prosecution's case hinged on a suicide note, alleged blackmail, and the recovery of money and ornaments, none of which were subs

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search