(1) K. S. DINACHANDRAN Vs. SHYLA JOSEPH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved India Law Library Docid # 2437048
(2) OBALAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BHIHANI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible India Law Library Docid # 2437049
(3) SHAIK SHABUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same India Law Library Docid # 2437050
(4) M/S ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED (APGENCO) Vs. M/S TECPRO SYSTEMS LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-12-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial India Law Library Docid # 2437051
(5) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. (NEDFI) Vs. M/S L. DOULO BUILDERS AND SUPPLIERS CO. PVT. LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) — Applicability in Nagaland — Constitutional Mandate — Article 371A of the Constitution of India — Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland — Article 371A(1)(a)(iv) stipulates that no Act of Parliament concerning ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly resolves so — SARFAESI India Law Library Docid # 2436961
(6) SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 — Section 34(4) — Transfer of proceedings and effect of orders — Section 34(4) provides that any order made by the High Court at Patna before the appointed day in certain proceedings, shall for all purposes have effect not only as an order of the High Court at Patna but also as an order made by the High Court of Jharkhand — This deeming provision ensures continuity of judicial India Law Library Docid # 2436962
(7) CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Policy — Scope of Coverage — Proximate Cause — Repudiation of Claim — Loss occasioned by fire following an attempted theft/burglary — Policy covered 'Fire' as a specified peril with limited exclusions which did not include theft/burglary preceding the fire — Insurer denied claim arguing that the proximate cause was theft/burglary, which was excluded under the Riots Strike and Malicious Damages (RSMD) clause — Held: Once the loss is caused India Law Library Docid # 2436963
(8) JAYANTIBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376(2)(d) — Rape — Appreciation of Evidence — Conviction solely based on First Information Report (FIR) or previous statements of hostile witnesses — Admissibility and reliability — Victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case during trial — Court should be slow to act on the testimony of hostile witness and normally India Law Library Docid # 2436964
(9) RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. RAJVEER AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with Section 34 — Murder — Appeal against acquittal — Powers of Appellate Court — Reversal of acquittal — Principles — The guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt (must or should, not may be) — Once an accused is acquitted, the presumption of innocence is reinforced — Interference by the appellate court must be minimal and guided by "substantial and compelling reasons" — Reversal should not occur merely because India Law Library Docid # 2436965
(10) R. ASHOKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court to quash FIR — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Allegations against former Minister (Chairman of Regularisation Committee) regarding illegal land allotments to non-eligible persons — Principles for quashing FIR reiterated, including where institution and continuance of proceedings amount to abuse of process of court or securing ends of justice, or where proceedings are manifestly India Law Library Docid # 2436966
(11) TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. Vs. M/s PENNA ELECTRICITY LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-12-2025 Electricity Law — Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — Commercial Operation Date (COD) — Firm Power vs. Infirm Power — Payment of Fixed Charges — Applicability of Regulations — Dispute regarding whether power supplied by generating company (respondent) to distribution licensee (appellant) during the relevant period (29.10.2005 to 30.06.2006) should be treated as "firm power" entitling the respondent to fixed charges, or "infirm power" entitling only variable charges — India Law Library Docid # 2436967
(12) ARUN AND OTHERS Vs. SAU. MEENA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 16-12-2025 Hindu Law — Joint Family Property — Ancestral Property vs. Separate Property — Property received by a Hindu male (vendor) from his father, who had received it in a partition post-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) — Partition between father and his sons (vendor and brother) resulted in the property becoming the separate property of the father — Upon the father's demise post-HSA, the vendor inherited the property under Section 8 of the HSA (Succession/Inheritance) rather than by survivorship — Such India Law Library Docid # 2437003
(13) KUM. MIMONEE RAKESH KUMBHARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-12-2025 Scheduled Tribes — Validation of Caste Claim — Halba Tribe vs. Halba-Koshti Caste — Requirement of documentary evidence — Petitioner's claim for 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe status was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee despite remand by High Court — Courts are generally hesitant to interfere with the factual findings of the Scrutiny Committee unless perverse — Essential requirement for validating India Law Library Docid # 2436969
(14) RACHANA DEVELOPERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-12-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and not appellate — Interference is not warranted or permissible when statutory authorities act within their bounds and apply correct legal principles to admitted facts. India Law Library Docid # 2436970
(15) STATE OF U.P. Vs. AJMAL BEG ETC[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-12-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-B and 498-A) — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA, 1961) — Sections 3 and 4 — Dowry Death — Appeal against acquittal — Setting aside High Court's acquittal and restoring Trial Court's conviction — Essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC established by consistent prosecution evidence regarding dowry demand (motorcycle, TV, and cash) and continuous India Law Library Docid # 2436870
(16) THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Vs. MILKIYAT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-12-2025 Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 103 — Cooperative societies functioning immediately before reorganisation of States — Object and scope of ‘deemed conversion’ — Section 103 does not automatically convert a cooperative society registered under a State Act into a multi-State cooperative society merely due to State reorganisation (e.g., bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) — The conversion under Section 103 depends on whether the 'objects' India Law Library Docid # 2436871
(17) MANOJBHAI JETHABHAI PARMAR (ROHIT) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-12-2025 Criminal Law — Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence — Appreciation of Evidence — Principles Governing Circumstantial Evidence — A conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence must satisfy five conditions: (1) Circumstances must be fully established; (2) Facts established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) Circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency; (4) They must exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) Chain of evidence must India Law Library Docid # 2436872
(18) MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. ABRAHAM GEORGE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-12-2025 Agreement to Sell — Breach of Contract — Refund of Advance — Suppression of Material Fact — Reversal of Trial Court decree by High Court — High Court relying solely on a fleeting admission in cross-examination of plaintiff regarding prior knowledge (August 25, 2008) of mortgage on property, despite agreement being executed later (September 10, 2008) and parties admitting to no prior interaction before September 2008 — Supreme Court held reliance on such solitary, abstract India Law Library Docid # 2436873
(19) DANESH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. HAR PYARI (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-12-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Scope and Applicability — Transfer of mortgaged property pendente lite (after institution of suit by bank for recovery/foreclosure but before execution/attachment) is hit by Section 52 — Lack of knowledge of proceedings or possession of No Encumbrance Certificate does not constitute a valid defence against lis pendens, as the doctrine is India Law Library Docid # 2436874
(20) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. Vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-12-2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 37(1), 44C — Deduction of Head Office Expenditure in case of Non-Residents — Interpretation of Section 44C and 'Head Office Expenditure' — Distinction between ‘Common’ and ‘Exclusive’ Expenditure — Section 44C, being a special provision with a non-obstante clause, governs the quantum of allowable deduction for any expenditure incurred by a non-resident assessee that qualifies as 'head office expenditure' — The definition of 'head office India Law Library Docid # 2436875