Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

R MAHADEVAN

54 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

KANIZ AHMEDversusSABUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 61030 April 2025Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the High Court's directions ordering police to evict occupants of an unauthorised two‑storey construction and to have the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) demolish the building, along with inspecting neighbouring properties. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had acted withi

LALITAversusVISHWANATH & ORS.

2025 INSC 17330 January 2025Dismissed

The mother of a deceased woman appealed against the High Court's order acquitting four accused of abetment of suicide under Sections 306, 498A and 34 of the IPC. The trial court had convicted them based on evidence of harassment, but the High Court set aside the conviction, finding no reliable proof of abetment. The Su

ASHOK SAXENAversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC.

2025 INSC 14830 January 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Ashok Saxena, entered the complainant's house armed with a knife during an altercation and stabbed the complainant's wife, who later died. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC for murder. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing lack of intent to k

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY

2024 INSC 93229 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging a judgment that dismissed a suit concerning 1,300 hectares of government land. The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days, which the High Court refused to condone, citing lack of sufficient cause.

STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHERversusMISS BHAVNA TIWARI & ORS.

2025 INSC 74729 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education, challenged a High Court order that awarded Rs.10,00,000 each to two NEET‑PG aspirants alleging seat‑blocking during counselling. The aspirants claimed that the mop‑up round denied them the opportunity to secure their preferred MD

M.S. SANJAYversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.

2025 INSC 17729 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a mortgaged property at an auction conducted on 31 July 2007 and received a sale certificate on 30 November 2007, thereafter developing the property. The guarantor of the original borrower challenged the auction before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which set aside the sale; the decision was later

R. SHAMA NAIKversusG. SRINIVASIAH

2024 INSC 92728 November 2024Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement on 3 March 2005 for Rs 30 lakh, paying Rs 12.5 lakh as earnest money, and later sued for specific performance of the contract. The trial court granted the decree for specific performance, but the High Court set it aside, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that he

XversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 90927 November 2024

The petitioner filed an FIR alleging rape (Sec. 376D) and kidnapping (Sec. 342) against the accused and a co-accused. The victim's statement was recorded under Sec. 164 CrPC, but neither the victim nor her mother (an eye‑witness) had been examined when the accused applied for bail. The trial court denied bail, but the

MANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYAversusMAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR.

2025 INSC 28227 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, brother of the deceased, challenged the Bombay High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal an acquittal of Mahesh Prakash Ahuja for murder. The trial court had acquitted the accused due to lack of reliable circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The High Court denied leave w

ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 92026 November 2024Dismissed

Rohit Kochhar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance and a permanent injunction for a commercial property situated in Gurgaon. The defendants contested the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relief required execution and registration of a sale deed in Gurgaon, which would forc

RAM LALversusJARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 30125 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed in his favour on 20‑01‑2012 directing him to deposit the balance consideration within two months. The decree was affirmed by the first appellate court on 21‑04‑2015, but no time‑limit for payment was stipulated. After a two‑year

S SHOBHAversusMUTHOOT FINANCE LTD.

2025 INSC 11724 January 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, S Shobha, obtained a gold‑pledged loan from Muthoot Finance Ltd. and later filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the company's actions. The High Court entertained the petitions despite observing that Muthoot Finance Ltd. is a private company and not a "State" within Arti

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

2024 INSC 91322 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, a group of brothers and their wives, sued the defendants, their brothers and sons, to cancel a sale deed and obtain a permanent injunction after the defendants allegedly transferred the jointly owned property to a son for a nominal consideration using a power of attorney that was not intended for sale.

NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE

2024 INSC 90222 November 2024Dismissed

The trial court had condoned a delay of four and a half years for the defendants to file their written statement. The plaintiff challenged this condonation, and the High Court set aside the trial court's order. The defendants filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. The S

RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH

2024 INSC 89121 November 2024Dismissed

The petitioners filed a civil suit that was dismissed for default, and the respondent's counter‑claim was allowed. The petitioners appealed the ex parte order but filed the appeal 534 days late. The first appellate court condoned this delay, attributing it to the alleged negligence of the petitioners' advocate. The res

RAHUL VERMA & ORS.versusRAMPAT LAL VERMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29621 February 2025Dismissed

The dispute involved a partnership firm where two of the three partners had died, and the legal heirs of one deceased partner sought to enforce an arbitration clause in the partnership deed to resolve a claim for rendition of accounts. The respondents argued that the heirs, being non‑signatories to the deed and without

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that directed the original sale certificate of auction‑purchased property to be handed over to the purchaser and that the stamp duty deposited by the purchaser be refunded. The dispute arose from the liquidation of M/s Punjab United Forge Ltd., where M/s Ferrous Alloy For

PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 125318 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Pawan Kumar applied online for a BPCL retail outlet dealership and was selected by draw of lots, offering land owned by third parties that was then subject to a dispute. An unsuccessful contender alleged that Kumar had supplied false information regarding the land ownership, leading the High Court to set aside Kumar's

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASHOK KUMAR SHARMA

2024 INSC 56418 July 2024Dismissed

The Delhi Transport Corporation dismissed a senior officer after a disciplinary enquiry that found seven of eight charges proved, but the enquiry was conducted without any prosecution witnesses or admitted documents. The officer challenged the dismissal, arguing that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the Board wer

DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

2025 INSC 26218 February 2025Disposed off

The appellants purchased an e‑stamp paper for a property transaction which was subsequently lost, prompting them to seek a refund of the stamp duty of Rs 28,10,000. The Delhi High Court ordered a refund of the principal amount but declined interest, leading the appellants to file a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dism

NARAYAN DASversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 87217 July 2025Dismissed

Narayan Das was convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of 236 vials of codeine‑phosphate cough syrups and was sentenced to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000. The High Court, while dismissing his appeal, reduced the term to ten years, the statutory minimum, on the groun

SUBHELAL @ SUSHIL SAHUversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 24217 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu, was charged with offences under Sections 420, 201, 120‑B read with Section 34 of the IPC in a crypto‑currency scam involving about Rs.4 crore, of which Rs.35 lakh was attributed to him. He had been in custody since December 2023 while the trial, conducted before a Chief Judicial M

BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR.versusRANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 17517 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of the original defendants in a 1965 title suit, were restrained by a permanent injunction that barred them from disturbing the respondents' possession of the suit property. After four decades, the respondents filed an execution application in 2017 alleging breach of the injunction, leading the tr

SUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO & ORS.versusPENKI ARUNA KUMARI

2025 INSC 9217 January 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, partners of an unregistered partnership firm, filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs 30 lakhs from another partner of the same firm. The trial court held the suit maintainable, but the High Court reversed, invoking Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which bars suits by partners of an unreg

P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 72516 May 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, former public servants, were charged in a large‑scale corruption case involving alleged manipulation of liquor allocations and kickbacks. They applied for anticipatory bail, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court denied relief, relying on confessional statements recorded from co‑accused under Section 161 of

NAFEES AHMAD & ANR.versusSOINUDDIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 52016 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a High Court order that set aside a First Appellate Court judgment on the ground that it failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The central issue was whether non‑compliance with the rule—specifically the omission of "points for determination"—automatically vitia

VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 9016 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant Vijayakumar, together with friends, was returning from a movie late at night when they encountered the deceased, who was allegedly drunk and slapped the appellant. In a sudden altercation, the appellant picked up a cement brick and struck the deceased on the head, causing death, and later set the body on

OM PRAKASH AMBADKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 13916 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a police officer, was ordered by a Judicial Magistrate to register an FIR under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 and 506 IPC after a complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging humiliation and assault. The Magistrate, relying on the complainant’s narrative, directed police investigatio

RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 9616 January 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi, was intercepted on a train carrying three cartons later found to contain 50 kg of opium poppy husk. He claimed he was unaware of the cartons and had only complied with police directions to exit the coach. The trial court, relying on the seizure and the appellant's inability to e

JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusM/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

2025 INSC 53315 April 2025Dismissed

The respondent, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., sued Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another party for recovery of a sum based on an award. The Commercial Court pronounced a judgment, but the petitioners filed their appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 after a delay of 301 days and so

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH ALIAS SHAILESH R. SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 86914 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑founder of a media production firm, sought to quash an FIR filed by a rival media financier alleging offences under sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court, instead of simply deciding the petition, directed the parties to undergo mediation and ordered t

TAPAS KUMAR PALITversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 22213 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was arrested in March 2020 after his vehicle was intercepted and items allegedly linked to Naxalite activities were recovered. He has been in judicial custody for five years, with the trial still ongoing and only 42 of the planned 100 witnesses examined, some of whom have turned hostile. The central issue

IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

2025 INSC 97711 August 2025Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, examined a dramatic rise in dog bite incidents across India, especially in the National Capital Region, which disproportionately affected visually‑impaired persons, children, the elderly and the poor. Data presented showed a steep increase in reported bites and highlighted the public

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOWversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 96611 August 2025Disposed off

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd filed Civil Suit No.447/2025 seeking an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) granted the injunction without recording reasons or complying with the proviso requiring delivery of the application, affidavit, plaint and supporting

M/S TECHNO PRINTSversusCHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION & ANR.

2025 INSC 23611 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, a printing firm, was issued a show‑cause notice by the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation seeking an explanation why it should not be blacklisted for three years and its EMD forfeited, alleging breach of tender clauses relating to time‑bound delivery and other obligations. The appellant challenged the not

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 71910 December 2024Disposed off

The case involved a suit for specific performance of a 1996 sale agreement concerning a half‑acre land in Bilaspur. The trial court granted specific performance, but the first appellate court set aside that part of the decree, ordering only a refund of earnest money, citing alleged hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of th

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

DEVINDER KUMAR BANSALversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 3203 March 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Devinder Kumar Bansal, an Audit Inspector, was alleged to have demanded and facilitated a bribe during an audit of development work while the complainant's wife served as Sarpanch, with co‑accused Prithvi Singh collecting the money on his behalf. An FIR was lodged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Co

OMI @ OMKAR RATHORE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 272 January 2025Dismissed

The petitioners Omi (Omkar) Rathore and another were named in the FIR for a murder case but the investigating officer filed a closure report exonerating them and they were not included in the charge‑sheet. During trial, the first informant reiterated his FIR testimony implicating the petitioners, leading the trial cour

SANJAY DUTT & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 341 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Range Forest Officer alleged that the directors and office bearers of a company illegally uprooted trees using a JCB, violating Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, and sought prosecution under Section 19. The Special Environment Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR.versusM/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 381 January 2025Dismissed

M/s Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. held a 99.88% share in Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd. which reduced its share capital from 15,35,05,750 to 10,000 shares, proportionately reducing Jupiter's holding to 9,988 shares and receiving Rs. 3,17,83,474 as consideration. The Revenue argued that this reduction did not constitute a "

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