ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(61) REJI KUMAR ALIAS REJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 376, 201 — Circumstantial Evidence — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Conviction for multiple murders (wife and four children) and rape (minor daughter) upheld where the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive (illicit relationship, suspicion of wife's infidelity), last seen testimony, incriminating conduct of the accused (giving false explanations, planned actions after the crime), and conclusive medical
India Law Library Docid # 2424920

(62) MD. FIROZ AHMAD KHALID Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Wakf Act, 1995 — Section 14(1)(b)(iii) read with Explanation II — Membership of Waqf Board — Muslim Member of Bar Council — Cessation of Membership — Interpretation — The eligibility of a Muslim Member of a State Bar Council to be elected as a Member of the State Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995, is contingent upon their holding the position in the Bar Council — This membership in the Bar Council acts as the requisite qualification — Upon ceasing to be a Member of the
India Law Library Docid # 2424921

(63) IN RE: COMPENSATION AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 —Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees’ Compensation Act) — Unclaimed Compensation Deposits — Judicial Concern and Suo Motu Action — Large sums of compensation amounts, awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, are lying unclaimed with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and Labour Courts/Commissioners across various states, depriving successful claimants of their rightful dues —ecognizing the gravity of the situa
India Law Library Docid # 2424922

(64) ANGADI CHANDRANNA Vs. SHANKAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Sections 100 & 103 — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference — Substantial Question of Law vs. Finding of Fact — The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC is confined to entertaining appeals involving a substantial question of law, which must be precisely framed — Re-appreciation of evidence or interference with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court (the final court of fact) is impermissible, unless such findings are shown to be perverse
India Law Library Docid # 2424923

(65) BARLA RAM REDDY AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 23(1) — Market Value — Determination Principles — Sale Exemplars — Market value for land acquisition must be determined as on the date of the Section 4 notification, representing the price a willing, informed buyer would pay to a willing, informed seller in an open market transaction, considering the land’s condition and potentiality — Comparable sale instances are the primary guide, provided they satisfy requirements of being genuine, proximate in time and l
India Law Library Docid # 2424924

(66) AEJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Failure to Put Incriminating Evidence (Dying Declarations) — Prejudice — Curability and Delay — The failure of the trial court to put material incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, specifically dying declarations (whether formally recorded or orally made to witnesses), to the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC is a serious irregularity This omission denies the accused an opportunity to e
India Law Library Docid # 2424925

(67) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAMINENI HOSPITALS Vs. PEDDI NARAYANA SWAMI AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025
Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — Concurrent Findings — Scope of Appeal — Where both the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), based on appreciation of evidence and medical records, have returned concurrent findings holding a hospital and its doctor medically negligent, the Supreme Court will generally affirm such findings unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to established legal principl
India Law Library Docid # 2424926

(68) B.S YEDDIYURAPPA Vs. A. ALAM PASHA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 17A — Prior Approval for Investigation — Relevant Considerations — What are the specific factors and criteria that the appropriate authority or government must consider under Section 17A of the PC Act before granting approval for the police to initiate any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant concerning acts related to their official functions or duties?
India Law Library Docid # 2424851

(69) ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF Vs. AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) — Section 11(3), 11(4) & Section 5A — Powers of Competent Authority — Deemed Conveyance — Nature of Proceedings — Scope of Enquiry — Adjudication of Title — Proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA for issuance of a certificate for deemed conveyance are summary in nature, as indicated by the MOFA Rules (Rule 13(5) prohibiting cross-examination) —
India Law Library Docid # 2424852

(70) ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED) Vs. ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 31 — Approval of Resolution Plan — Effect on Claims — Extinguishment — Binding Nature — ‘Clean Slate’ Principle — Once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) under Section 31 of the IBC, it is binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors (including central/state government, local authorities, operational creditors), guarantors, and other stakeholders — Upon such approval, all claims, including
India Law Library Docid # 2424853

(71) LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Scope of Judicial Review — Power to Modify Award — Severability — The scope of interference by a Court under Section 34 or in appeal under Section 37 is limited — Following the precedent in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1, courts do not possess the power to modify an arbitral award; the “limited remedy” is only to set aside the award, either wholly or partially if severable, under the specified grounds — The Appellate
India Law Library Docid # 2424854

(72) VINOD BOOB Vs. DODBALLAUR SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Special Leave Petition — Disposal by Consent Order — Where a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the complainant challenging the High Court's order setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-respondents under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court in terms of a consensual order agreed upon by the parties, detailing specific payment terms.
India Law Library Docid # 2424855

(73) SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 26(1), Proviso and Section 11 — Date for Determination of Market Value — Mandatory Requirement — The proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 lays down a mandatory requirement, emphasized by the use of the word ‘shall’, that the market value of land acquired under the Act must be determined as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 11 — Thi
India Law Library Docid # 2424856

(74) LILABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal — Scope of Enquiry — Findings of Trial Court — The jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC is primarily concerned with the suspension of the execution of the sentence pending appeal, based on reasons to be recorded in writing — The court considering an application under S. 389 cannot undertake a merits-based review of the conviction or re-assess and cast doubt upon findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court
India Law Library Docid # 2424857

(75) SACHIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Complete Justice — Sentence Modification — Sentence Already Served — Where subsequent orders of the High Court and Special Court enhancing an initial sentence (from 7 years to life imprisonment) are found erroneous and set aside by the Supreme Court, resulting in the revival of the original lesser sentence, but the appellant has already undergone actual incarceration significantly exceeding even the revived original sentence (11 years 8 months vs. 7 ye
India Law Library Docid # 2424858

(76) MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANOTHER Vs. GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 & Rule 3A; Section 96(3) — Compromise Decree — Challenge Thereof — Bar on Fresh Suit — Exclusive Remedy — A compromise decree passed by a court under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, upon satisfaction that a suit has been adjusted by a lawful agreement or compromise, cannot be challenged by initiating a fresh suit on the ground that the compromise was not lawful (due to alleged coercion or fraud) — Order 23 Rule 3A CPC explicitly bars such a suit — Furtherm
India Law Library Docid # 2424859

(77) N. ESWARANATHAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Abuse of Process of Law — Successive Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — Filing a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the same High Court judgment after the dismissal of the first SLP on merits, particularly by engaging the same Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and failing to disclose the earlier dismissal while making incorrect statements, constitutes a vexatious petition, a misuse of the process of law, and a brazen attempt to obstruct the administration
India Law Library Docid # 2424791

(78) ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 21 — Notice Invoking Arbitration — Mandatory Nature and Effect of Non-Service — A notice invoking arbitration under S. 21 is mandatory (unless otherwise agreed by parties) as its receipt fixes the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings, which is crucial for determining limitation (S. 43), applicable law (including amendments to the Act), and fulfilling a prerequisite for
India Law Library Docid # 2424792

(79) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — Ingredients — Nature of Injury vs. Intention/Knowledge — To attract S. 307 IPC, the crucial element is the intention or knowledge to cause death with which the act is done, irrespective of the nature or severity of the injury actually caused. S. 307 uses the word ‘hurt’, not ‘grievous hurt’ or ‘life-threatening hurt’ — Therefore, an accused cannot be acquitted merely because the injury inflicted was not grievous or dangerous to life, if the ev
India Law Library Docid # 2424793

(80) SUBHASH AGGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Murder (Filicide) vs. Suicide — In cases based on circumstantial evidence where the question is whether the death was homicidal (filicide) or suicidal, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence — Conviction upheld where circumstances, including (i) gunshot residue (GSR) found on the accused father’s dominant (right) hand, (ii) th
India Law Library Docid # 2424794