Supreme Court Roundup April 2025 | Stories on Manual Scavenging; Modification of Arbitral Award; Child Trafficking; and Appointment of Justice B.R. Gavai as 52nd CJI

This comprehensive roundup brings together the Court’s most impactful rulings and judicial developments from the month.

Published on By
Supreme Court Roundup April 2025

Top Stories

ACQUITTAL

‘Not enough material to upset Trial Court’s acquittal order, especially when there was no evidence regarding death being result of homicide’; SC sets aside husband’s conviction under S. 302 IPC

In a criminal appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision convicting the accused-husband for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and upholding the acquittal of the in-laws for alleged murder of the daughter-in-law, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ. allowed the appeal, considering that the husband—accused had a plausible explanation that he was on duty when the death of his wife occurred. It was the husband who first intimated to the police about the sudden and unnatural death of his wife. Read more here

[Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 744]

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of man accused of burning wife and three daughters alive in 17 year old case

Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the three-judge bench of Abhay S Oka*, Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. upon reappreciating the evidence, found that the view taken by the High Court, that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt was a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence on record. Even if an alternative view could be reasonably drawn from the same evidence, the Court reiterated that this alone does not justify overturning the order of acquittal. In criminal law, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, and unless the evidence decisively proves guilt, the acquittal must stand. Read more here

[Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913]

ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION

Non-issue of notice to certain parties under S. 21 of A&C Act does not strip the Arbitral Tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead: SC

The issue instant appeal was whether service of notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) on a person and joinder of such person in the application under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrator are prerequisites for an arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over him, and further, when can an arbitral tribunal implead a person to the arbitration proceedings. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the A&C Act is mandatory as it fixes the date of commencement of arbitration, which is essential for determining limitation periods and the applicable law, and it is a pre-requisite to filing an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act. However, merely because such a notice was not issued to certain persons who are parties to the arbitration agreement does not strip the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead them as parties during the arbitral proceedings. Read more here

[Adavya Projects (P) Ltd. v. Vishal Structurals (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 806]

Want to know more about India’s 52nd Chief Justice BR Gavai? Read Know your Judge- Supreme Court of India: Justice B.R Gavai

BAIL

SC berates Allahabad HC’s callous approach in granting bail to persons accused of child trafficking; directs States to implement BIRD’s report

In a significant ruling, while considering the instant appeals filed by the kith and kin of the children who came to be trafficked, praying for cancellation of bail granted by Allahabad High Court to the accused persons; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., set aside the bail orders passed by the High Court and the accused persons were directed to surrender before the committal court and the committal court in turn shall remand them to the judicial custody. Additionally, the Court directed that once charge is framed by the Trial Court in individual cases, the concerned Trial Court shall proceed with the recording of the evidence preferably on day-to-day basis and complete the proceedings of the trial within 6 months. The Court also directed the State Governments to implement recommendations made by Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD) to combat child trafficking cases. Read more here

[Pinki v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781]

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Contempt of Court | SC delivers split verdict on acceptance of unconditional apology by errant Advocates; Matter to be placed before CJI

While considering the instant matter concerning abuse of process of Court by an Advocate on Record (AoR) and a lawyer, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi** and Satish Chandra Sharma**, JJ., reached a spilt verdict on the issue of acceptance of unconditional apology by the errant advocates. As a result, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Read more here

[N. Eswaranathan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 805]

Misguiding the Court to pass an order, which was never intended to be complied with, is commission of Contempt: SC

While considering the instant contempt petition, wherein the Court deliberated over the non-compliance of its directions by the respondent (contemnor); the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih*, JJ., sternly remarked that the contemnor had been taking the Court for a ride from the very beginning and that the misuse of the process of Court with an intent to tarnish the image of judiciary, threatening the integrity, and the efficiency of the judicial system cannot be allowed to be overlooked and ignored in the garb of non-fulfilment of the directions. A party, misguiding the Court to pass an order which was never intended to be complied with, would constitute an act of overawing the due process of law and, thus, commit contempt of Court. Read more here

[Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Assn. v. Shaji Augustine, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 931]

ELECTRICITY ACT

Electricity Act, 2003 mandates that Regulations framed by the State Commissions must serve larger public interest: Supreme Court

While considering the instant appeals concerning the imposition of restrictions and conditions on the exercise of open access for captive power plants and other large consumers of electricity via Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 framed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission in the exercise of its powers under Section 42 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., held that statutory scheme under the Electricity Act mandates that regulations framed by State Commissions must serve the larger public interest. Read more here

FAMILY LAW

Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to dissolve marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown; Grants wife visitation rights with daughter

In an appeal filed against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, which had upheld the Family Court’s decision for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Three-Judge Bench comprising Vikram Nath*, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the marriage between the parties had completely and irrevocably broken down. The Court noted that multiple attempts at reconciliation through mediation had failed and that neither party had demonstrated any willingness or inclination to restore the marital relationship. The parties had lived separately for over a decade, with no existing marital ties. In its considered view, continuation of such a marriage would have only perpetuated hardship and served no meaningful purpose. Read more here

[Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 867]

LAND LAW

Proviso to S. 26(1) of 2013 Land Acquisition Act lays down method for computing land’s market value on the date of acquisition notification: SC

While considering the instant appeal wherein the appellant claimed that Gujarat High Court had erroneously held that the date for determination of market value of yet to be acquired, He-0-11-41 sq. meters land shall be 01-1-2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act); the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan*, JJ., opined that proviso to Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act lays down the methodology for computing the market value of the land on the date of the acquisition notification. The use of the word “shall” in Section 26(1) proviso is reflective of the legislative mandate that Section 11 Notification is the date for determination of the compensation. Read more here

[Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 832]

MOTOR VEHICLE

Supreme Court enhances compensation for BDO who lost both his legs in a 25-year-old motor accident

In an appeal filed against the compensation granted in a motor accident case, where the claimant lost both his legs, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ. held that the Tribunal had erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver, and the High Court had similarly committed the same error in affirming the Tribunal’s decision. The Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Court further opined that the entire amount of ₹16,00,000/- should be awarded as compensation, considering that the accident occurred in 1999, and it would be unjust to base the award on the present circumstances, 25 years later. The long delay in the proceedings was compensated by the interest awarded. Read more here

[Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 636]

Motor Vehicles Act | SC issues extensive directions on dispensation of large amounts of compensation lying deposited with MACT & Labour Courts

In the instant suo motu petition, wherein the Court took note of large amounts payable by way of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (the 1923 Act’) which are lying deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) and Labour Courts; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., pointed out that it is not clear how many States have exercised the rulemaking power under Section 176(a) of the MV Act for prescribing the form of the application under Section 166(1) of the MV Act. Applications for compensation can be made by the persons who have sustained injuries or by the owners of the damaged property and in case of fatal accidents, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Even an agent duly authorised by the person injured or the legal representatives of the deceased can also file a claim petition. Read more here

[Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals & Labour Courts, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 876]

QUASHMENT OF FIR AND PROCEEDINGS

‘Contribute to legal system instead of fighting cases against each other’; SC quashes cross FIRs & proceedings ending dispute between 2 Kodaikanal lawyers

In a criminal appeal against the Madras High Court dismissing the plea for quashment of criminal proceedings in a matter arising from a dispute between two advocates, practicing in the Courts at Kodaikanal, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and impugned proceedings. Read more here

[Ramesh Kumaran v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 667]

“Consensual relationships, where possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of false pretext to marry after fall out”; SC quashes rape case against former judge

In a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court refused to discharge the accused charged under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ. said that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of fallout. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and terminated the proceedings as the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual. Read more here

[Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 741]

Supreme Court upholds consumers’ right to peaceful protest; Quashes defamation complaint filed by developer against homebuyers

In an appeal filed by the homebuyers against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed their petition seeking quashing of both the complaint and the summons in a defamation case, the Division Bench of K.V. Viswanathan* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that the right to protest peacefully without violating the law was a corresponding right that consumers ought to enjoy, just as a seller enjoys the right to commercial speech. The Court observed that any attempt to portray such protests as criminal offences, in the absence of the necessary legal ingredients, would amount to a clear abuse of process and must be curbed at the outset. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, along with the order dated 04-10-2016 issuing summons to the homebuyers under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC, was quashed and set aside. Read more here

[Shahed Kamal v. A. Surti Developers (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 811]

“Findings in NI Act proceedings bind parties in subsequent cases involving same issue”; Supreme Court affirms applicability of res judicata in criminal matters

In a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, wherein the petitioner’s application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was dismissed, the division bench comprising of Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra*. JJ. allowed the appeal. The Court held that a person cannot maintain a prosecution based on allegations that had already been raised as his defence in earlier proceedings where he was the accused. It further observed that the business relationship existed solely between the two companies involved, with cheques and demand drafts exchanged from one company to the other, and no payment made by the complainant partner to the accused in his personal capacity. Thus, the Court held that the present case warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused. Read more here

[S.C. Garg v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 791]

POCSO

Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to restore original sentence and order release after convict serves excess term in POCSO case

In a criminal appeal concerning a matter under Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. noted that the convict had already undergone eleven years and eight months of incarceration. Observing that this period far exceeded the original sentence, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be best served by bringing the matter to a close. Accordingly, the convict was directed to be released from custody forthwith. Read more here

[Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 834]

SERVICE LAW

Principle of ‘over-qualification is not disqualification’ cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid rules or norms: SC

While considering the instant appeal concerning Kerala High Court’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s petitions challenging the cancellation of his appointment as ‘Boat Lascar’ in pursuance of the order passed by Kerala Administrative Tribunal; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ., held that the instant case was not fit and proper case where the Court exercises of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, since the appellant gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid. The Court emphasised that exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution would have been warranted in the instant case if palpable injustice was demonstrated. Read more here

[Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711]

Candidate without minimum qualifications prescribed by expert body not entitled to appointment or promotion in educational institutions: Supreme Court

In civil appeals filed by All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (‘Society’) against the order passed by the Bombay High Court, as well as the order passed in review later, wherein the Court directed the Society to extend the benefit of revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission to the teachers are presently teaching in engineering and technical institutes run and managed by the Society, which is a private body and is not under the grant in aid of the Government, the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. held that where a candidate does not possess the minimum qualifications, prescribed by an expert body, for appointment or promotion to a particular post in an educational institution, such a candidate will not be entitled to get appointed or will be deprived of certain benefits. Thus, the Court directed that the Society to release the higher pay scale to the teachers who were appointed prior to 15-03-2000, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the arrears, within four weeks from the date of this judgment. The Court further clarified that the remaining teachers who failed to acquire a Ph.D. within seven years as required, cannot be designated as Associate Professors nor be entitled to the higher pay scale. Read more here

[All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (Aissms) v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 689]

‘Illness is presumed to be service related if no disease is recorded by medical board at time of entry’; Supreme Court orders 50% disability pension for ex-serviceman

In an appeal filed by a former army personnel against the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal held that the appellant’s disability was less than 20%, and consequently, no relief was granted, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. highlighted that, the law had crystallized to the effect that if no mention was made by the Medical Board at the time of entry into service regarding the presence of a particular disease, the presumption was that the member contracted the disease due to military service. Consequently, the burden of proving that the disease was not attributable to or aggravated by military service rested entirely on the employer. Furthermore, any disease or disability that led to invaliding out of service was to be presumed to be above 20%, and as per the Court’s findings, it should have attracted the grant of a 50% disability pension. Read more here

[Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895]

Can promotion be denied based on adverse confidential reports which were never conveyed to the employee, depriving of opportunity to representation? SC answers

In a civil special leave petition by a former Commandant with the Border Security Force (BSF) who was denied promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) from the date his juniors were promoted, the three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to consider his case afresh. The Court held that the appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including further consideration for promotion to a higher rank in accordance with the rules and regulations/criteria prescribed by the competent authority within three months. Read more here

RESERVATION

Supreme Court issues notice in challenge to Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision on EWS reservation in PPSC Agriculture Development Officer recruitment

In a special leave petition filed against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) reservation in Punjab Public Service Commission (‘PPSC’) recruitment for Agriculture Development Officer, a division bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. issued notice, with a returnable period of 6 weeks. Read more here

[Harpreet Singh v. Sikandar Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 769]

‘Eligibility criteria declared by fresh advertisement cannot be changed midway through recruitment process’; Supreme Court upholds reservation of DSP post for SC Sports (Women)

In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the reservation of posts in the State of Punjab’s government services, including provisions for women’s reservation, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. emphasized that no alterations could be made to the recruitment process once the advertisement was issued and deemed it unnecessary to examine the legality of the subsequent roster system for the purpose of the case. Since neither the advertisement nor the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’), providing 33% horizontal reservation for women were challenged, the reservation stood valid. Read more here

[Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 761]

Are Ex-Military Nursing Service officers considered “ex-servicemen” for State reservation and employment? Supreme Court answers

In a case concerning whether the recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (‘PPSC’), which provided reservation for “ex-servicemen,” would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (‘IMNS’), the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that IMNS personnel are included under the “ex-servicemen” category. The Court directed that respondent 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and should be considered for appointment under this respondent 4’s appointment would not lead to the automatic termination of the appellant’s service. Read more here

[Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 789]

IBC

Read why Supreme Court upheld DHFL’s resolution plan by Piramal Capital and set aside NCLAT’s order

In a batch of civil appeals by Piramal Capital and Housing Limited (Piramal Capital) and others, Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) against the common judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (NCLAT), only to the extent that it modified the Resolution Plan (RP) by holding that the RP that permitted the SRA to appropriate recoveries, if any, from Avoidance applications filed under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) ought to be set aside and the Resolution Plan be sent back to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration on that aspect, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. set aside the impugned decision holding that the RP approved by the CoC was an outcome of the commercial bargain struck between the SRA and the CoC after several rounds of negotiations and deliberations. The said plan approved by the CoC was also further approved by the NCLT under Section 31(1) of IBC. In absence of any perversity, that was palpable on the face of the approved RP, and the CoC having taken a firm commercial decision with regard to the impugned clause of RP by voting overwhelmingly in favour of the RP, the NCLAT ought not to have interfered with the said clause of RP approved by the CoC and the NCLT. Read more here

[Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 690]

IPR

Supreme Court resolves complexities of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act with a two-pronged approach for design protection

In an appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court, wherein the Court in an alleged copyright infringement, set aside the order of the Commercial Court allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), the division bench of Surya Kant* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. upheld the decision of the High Court in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Furthermore, the Court directed the Commercial Court to deliver its decision on the pending application for an interim injunction filed by Inox within a period of two months. The Court also instructed the Commercial Court to conduct a trial and determine the true nature of the Proprietary Engineering Drawings based on the test outlined in this judgment, as well as address the other related IP right infringements claimed by Inox. The Commercial Court was given a timeline of one year to complete the trial, acknowledging the significant judicial time already wasted on this matter. Read more here

[Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780]

NDPS

Mere mention of certain psychotropic substances under Drugs & Cosmetics regime would not take them away from the purview of NDPS Act: SC

In the instant appeal the issue was whether production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consumption, inter-State import and export, import and export from India or transhipment of a psychotropic substance which is listed under the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not mentioned under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules would constitute an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act? The Division Bench of J.B Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that some psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are also mentioned under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) and the rules framed thereunder, because those substances while capable of being abused for their inherent properties could also be used in the field of medicine. However, the mere mention of certain psychotropic substances under the D&C regime would not take them away from the purview of the NDPS Act, if they are also mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act. Read more here

[Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819]

PROPERTY LAW

SC declares R. 55A(i) of Registration Rules as ultra vires for being inconsistent with provisions of Registration Act, 1908

While considering the instant appeal, which incorporated a challenge to the legality of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., declared the impugned Rule to be ultra-vires. The Court explained that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. Read more here

[K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740]

JUDICIAL REVIEW

When can Governor & President’s exercise of powers under Arts. 200 and 201 respectively, come under Judicial Review? SC elucidates

While considering the instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by State of Tamil Nadu aggrieved with the their Governor withholding of assent to and reserving for consideration of the President of 10 Bills enacted by the Legislature for the State of Tamil Nadu; Governor’s inaction to give sanction for prosecution against tainted public servants and pendency of several important files concerning premature release of prisoners and appointment of public servants; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan JJ., that reservation by the Governor of the 10 Bills for the consideration of the President in the second round was illegal, erroneous in law and is thus liable to be set aside. The Court further held that the Bills, having been pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time, and the Governor having acted with clear lack of bona fides in reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President, are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered. Read more here

[State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 770]

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC are enabling, discretionary and permissive: Supreme Court

While considering the instant petition challenging Calcutta High Court’s decision to affirm a decree of eviction; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., delved into the technicalities of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and relying on relevant precedents, said that primary object of Rule 6 is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of admission. The Court further stated that provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive. They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory. This is also clear from the use of the word “may” in the rule. The powers conferred on the Court by Rule 6 are untrammelled and cannot be crystallized into any rigid rule of universal application. Read more here

[Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 751]

APPOINTMENTS & TRANSFERS

KNOW THY JUDGE

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLOCK

Duration

Disposal

CCR

30-04-2025

118

54%

29-04-2025

468

164%

Previous Week

1420

90%

Previous Month

5034

89%

This Year

24485

104%

2024

60240

98%
Tags :
Leave a comment

Most Read

Must Watch

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *