(1) SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Service Law — Appointment — Validity — Discrepancy in Category Certificate — No Undue Advantage — An appointment secured on merit cannot be set aside merely due to a discrepancy between the candidate’s actual reservation category (Backward Class - BC) and the category mentioned (Most Backward Class - MBC) in the qualifying Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate, especially when: (i) the candidate applied for and was selected under their correct category (BC); (ii) they secured higher marks t India Law Library Docid # 2425190
(2) PUNIT BERIWALA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope of Inquiry — The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection — The Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and must proceed assuming the averments to be true — Investigation should not be thwarted at the initial stage unless no cognizable offence India Law Library Docid # 2425191
(3) RENUKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet — Scope of Inquiry — Mini Trial — The High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, particularly under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot embark upon an inquiry into the credibility or reliability of the evidence presented in the FIR/Chargesheet — Comparing allegations in India Law Library Docid # 2425178
(4) VISA COKE LIMITED Vs. M/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 8 & 9 — Service of Demand Notice — Service of a demand notice under Section 8 upon Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of the Corporate Debtor, delivered at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office, constitutes valid service on the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9, provided the notice clearly and substantively demands payment of the operational debt from the India Law Library Docid # 2425180
(5) S.D. JAYAPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Service Law — Pension — Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 17 — Counting of Contractual Service — Persons initially appointed on a contractual basis and subsequently regularised in service without interruption are entitled under Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to count their prior contractual service period for pensionary benefits, provided they exercise the option under Rule 17(1)(b) to either refund the monetary benefits received for the contract India Law Library Docid # 2425181
(6) RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i), 58(1)(a)(i) — Constitutional Validity — Pecuniary Jurisdiction based on ‘Consideration Paid’ — Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i), and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act, which determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District, State, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions based on the ‘value of goods or services paid as consideration’ instead of the ‘compensation claimed’ (as under the 1986 Act), are constitutionally valid. India Law Library Docid # 2425182
(7) P. KUMARAKURUBARAN Vs. P. NARAYANAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of Plaint — Limitation — Mixed Question of Law and Fact — Date of Knowledge — Where the plaint specifically pleads facts alleging fraud or unauthorized execution of documents (sale under a limited Power of Attorney) and asserts a date of knowledge of such facts which brings the suit within the limitation period prescribed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the issue of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact — Such a India Law Library Docid # 2425183
(8) JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Electricity Law — Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) — Determination — Timing vis-à-vis Tariff Order — Determination of Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) under the Electricity Act, 2003 and relevant State Regulations (Rajasthan Tariff Regulations, 2014, Reg 90) is not mandatorily required to be simultaneous with the determination of the general tariff — CSS can be determined separately based on the prevailing tariff applicable to the relevant consumer category as per the formula provided in the regulatio India Law Library Docid # 2425184
(9) SHARDHAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Land Laws — Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act) — Section 5 — Limitation — Reasonable Time — Even though Section 5 of the PTCL Act does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for filing an application for restoration of granted land, such an application must be made within a reasonable time — An application filed after an unreasonably long delay (in this case, 23 years after the alienation and 14 years after the A India Law Library Docid # 2425185
(10) KAMAL DEV PRASAD Vs. MAHESH FORGE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 4(1)(c), Explanation 1; Schedule I, Part II — Loss of Earning Capacity — Multiple Injuries — Functional Disability — When an employee suffers multiple injuries specified in Schedule I, Part II in the same accident (loss of phalanges in multiple fingers of the operational hand), the assessment of loss of earning capacity is not rigidly confined to the mere aggregation of percentages prescribed therein for individual injuries — Considering the Act’s bene India Law Library Docid # 2425186
(11) SRI MALAKAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Personal Expenses Deduction — Dependency of Husband — In determining the number of dependents for calculating deduction towards personal expenses, even if a husband is able-bodied, it cannot be assumed, in the absence of specific employment details, that he was not at least partially dependent on the income of his deceased wife — Therefore, the family unit size should include the husband alongside the children India Law Library Docid # 2425187
(12) AMARVEER KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Income Assessment — Unskilled Labourer / Unorganized Sector — Where specific proof of claimed employment (accountant) and salary (Rs. 15,000/-) is rejected for lack of evidence (account books, PF records), the income of the deceased can be assessed notionally — Considering precedents establishing income for unskilled labour (Ramachandrappa) and applying the principle of incremental enhancement recognized in Pranay Sethi, a reasonable India Law Library Docid # 2425188
(13) ARATHY RAMACHANDRAN Vs. BIJAY RAJ MENON[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Family Law — Child Custody — Paramount Consideration — Welfare of the Child — In matters of child custody, the paramount and sole consideration must be the welfare and best interests of the child — Parental rights, desires, or the love and affection shown by either parent, while relevant, are secondary to the child's physical, mental, and emotional well-being. India Law Library Docid # 2425189
(14) AADITYA KHAITAN @ ADITYA KHAITAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Test for Interference — The power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash an FIR is exercisable when the allegations made in the complaint/FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused — The examination is of the complaint as a whole, without delving into the merits, assessing reliability, or conducting a meticulous analysis of the material — India Law Library Docid # 2425107
(15) K. P. TAMILMARAN Vs. THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 154 — Hostile Witness — Evidentiary Value — The evidence of a witness permitted to be cross-examined under Section 154 by the party calling him (often termed ‘hostile’) cannot be discarded altogether as a matter of law — It remains admissible evidence forming part of the record — It is for the Court, exercising prudence and caution, to consider the testimony as a whole, along with other evidence, and determine its credibility and the extent to which it can be relied India Law Library Docid # 2425108
(16) M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - II[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2025 Central Excise Rules, 1944 — Rule 56(2) & 56(4) — Principles of Natural Justice — Re-classification — Test Reports — Where re-classification of goods leading to a higher duty demand is proposed based on chemical test reports, principles of natural justice and the mandate of Rule 56(2) require that copies of such test reports, forming the sub-stratum of the demand, must be furnished to the assessee — Merely providing a gist of the test results, especially within show-cause notices, constitutes a India Law Library Docid # 2425131
(17) CHUNNI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 — Murder vs. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder — Mens Rea — Intention/Knowledge — All ‘murder’ under Section 300 IPC is ‘culpable homicide’ under Section 299 IPC, but the converse is not true — The critical distinction lies in the degree of mens rea (intention or knowledge). A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of: (i) intention to cause death; or (ii) intention to cause bodily injury lik India Law Library Docid # 2425132
(18) CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED Vs. SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Scope of Judicial Review — Arbitral Award — Plausible View — The jurisdiction of a court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act to set aside an arbitral award is highly restrictive and confined strictly to the grounds enumerated therein (sub-sections (2) and (2A)) — The court cannot act as an appellate body, re-appraise evidence, or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator merely because a different interpretation or conclusion is p India Law Library Docid # 2425133
(19) GBJ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SRIHARAN SRIPATHMANATHAN AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-04-2025 Insolvency and Banking Law — SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Intervention by Courts — Maximizing Asset Value — Where a successful auction purchaser under SARFAESI challenges a High Court order that entertained a higher offer from a third party post-auction acceptance, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its inherent power during the Special Leave Petition proceedings, may invite fresh bids from the original auction purchaser and the third party to ensure maximization of the value of the secure India Law Library Docid # 2425192
(20) OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WEL. ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2025 Allotment — General Category Allottees — Eligibility Criteria — Multiple Plots within Family — The Court modified its earlier order dated 03.10.2019 concerning eligibility criteria — Accepting the Special Committee's prior observation (in its procedural order dated 04.10.2018) that the restriction limiting eligibility to one plot per family should not disentitle persons who paid the full sale consideration at market rates, the Court permitted those General Category allottees, previously found in India Law Library Docid # 2425093