ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(341) 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

(342) 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

(343) 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

(344) 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

(345) 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

(346) 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

(347) 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

(348) 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

(349) 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

(350) 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

(351) HIMANSHU SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025
Public Interest Litigation / Constitution of India — Article 32/136 — Homebuyers’ Grievances — Failed Subvention Schemes — Systemic Failure — Alleged Collusion — Investigation — In a large batch of petitions (>170) involving numerous homebuyers (>1200) aggrieved by the failure of ‘subvention schemes’ advertised by builders/developers, where tripartite agreements were entered into with Banks/HFCs, and subsequent defaults by builders led to coercive recovery from homebuyers despite non-completion/
India Law Library Docid # 2425197

(352) FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHA Vs. SUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025
Civil Procedure — Application for Speaking to Minutes — Scope — An Application for ‘Speaking to the Minutes’ is intended primarily for the correction of accidental slips or omissions, or clerical or typographical errors in judgments or orders — It cannot be utilized as a means to seek substantive modification, clarification that alters the reasoning or substance of the decision, or effectively achieve a review of the order, particularly when it involves incorporating specific details which
India Law Library Docid # 2425179

(353) K. VALARMATHI AND OTHERS Vs. KUMARESAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025
Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Scope — Rejection of Plaint — The High Court cannot, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, entertain an original application for rejection of a plaint filed before a subordinate court — The power under Article 227 is supervisory, meant to ensure
India Law Library Docid # 2425264

(354) STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. MISS BHAVNA TIWARI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025
Education Law — Medical Education — National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) — Post Graduate (PG) — Counselling Process — Seat Blocking — Systemic Issues — NEET-PG counselling process, conceived as transparent and merit-based, marred by widespread seat blocking malpractice skewing seat availability and disadvantaging higher-ranked aspirants — Systemic flaws identified, including fragmented governance
India Law Library Docid # 2425930

(355) HEAD CONSTABLE RAJ KUMAR ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 210, 197, 482 — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302, 341, 148, 149, 506 — Quashing of criminal complaint, summoning order, and charge framing against police officers accused of murder in an alleged encounter — Prima facie evidence from compliant, eyewitness depositions, SIT report finding police self-defence version false, and CCTV footage converging vehicles held sufficient to justify summoning and charge framing — Section 210 CrPC (stay of proceedings when p
India Law Library Docid # 2426802

(356) 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

(357) 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

(358) 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

(359) 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

(360) 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