(21) SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Approach of Court — Courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly in appeals — The focus should be on substantial justice rather than technical considerations, recognizing that litigants generally do not benefit from delay and refusal to condone may defeat meritorious claims — The doctrine demanding explanation for “every day’s delay” must be ap India Law Library Docid # 2424978
(22) M/S. A.J. SHETTY AND CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. ST. ANTONY’S CHARITY INSTITUTES AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise/Settlement in Appeal — Where parties to an appeal arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation resolving the underlying dispute (concerning possession, mesne profits, etc.), the Court may take the settlement agreement on record and dispose of the appeal in terms of the settlement, treating the statements therein as undertakings to the Court. India Law Library Docid # 2424979
(23) RAJAN CHADHA AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJAY ARORA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Judicial Propriety and Discipline — Coordinate Benches — Contempt Proceedings — It is contrary to judicial propriety and established principles for one Single Judge of a High Court to effectively review or sit in appeal over a substantive finding, such as holding a party guilty of contempt, arrived at by another coordinate Single Judge of the same Court in the same contempt proceedings after considering the merits. India Law Library Docid # 2424980
(24) PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Service Law — Seniority — Effect of Court Direction and Finality — Where a High Court, while directing the appointment of candidates, explicitly specifies that their seniority will be reckoned from the date of their actual appointment, and this direction attains finality (through dismissal of Special Leave Petition and subsequent review/clarification applications), the candidates cannot later claim seniority from an earlier date (like the year of selection or vis-à-vis batches appointed prior to India Law Library Docid # 2424981
(25) RAMYASH @ LAL BAHADUR Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 362 — Finality of Judgment — Scope of Correction — Once a Court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a criminal case, Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibits any alteration or review of the same, except for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error — The provision mandates finality to judgments after signature. India Law Library Docid # 2424982
(26) MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 23-04-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 483 [Corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.] — Bail — Considerations — Allegation of Conspiracy vs. Specific Overt Act — Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. — In evaluating a bail application under Section 483 BNSS for offences including Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 331(8), 115(2), 103(1) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Court considers the specific role attributed to the accused. Where the primary allegation is of co India Law Library Docid # 2425050
(27) DINESH SHARMA Vs. EMGEE CABLES AND COMMUNICATION LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Civil vs. Criminal Nature of Dispute — The High Court commits a serious error in quashing an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC solely on the premise that the dispute arises out of a long-standing business transaction and non-payment of dues, thereby deeming it purely civil in nature — The existence of a civil remedy or a contractual relationship does not automatically bar criminal prosecution if the allegations India Law Library Docid # 2425097
(28) SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA (MOMIN) Vs. SHIA IMAMI ISMAILI OMIN JAMAT SAMAJ AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Civil Procedure Procedure, 1908 — Order 23 Rule 3 (Proviso), Rule 3A, Order XLIII Rule 1A(2) & Section 96(3) — Remedy Against Compromise Decree for a Party to the Suit — A party to a suit who contests the factum or validity (lawfulness) of a compromise recorded by the court, resulting in a consent decree, cannot directly maintain a First Appeal under Section 96(1) CPC challenging the decree on that ground — The mandatory and exclusive first remedy for such a party, post the 1976 Amendment Act (A India Law Library Docid # 2425098
(29) DURGA PRASAD Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 23-04-2025 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Remand vs. Finality — Extraordinary Delay — While the ordinary rule in judicial review is to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority upon finding a procedural deficiency, this rule is not absolute — Where there has been an extraordinary and inordinate delay between the incident giving rise to the charges and the final culmination of proceedings, coupled with the employee's superannuation and advanced age, the High Court (or Supreme Court) can exer India Law Library Docid # 2425099
(30) M/S DEEPAK AND CO THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT POONAM PORWAL Vs. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 22-04-2025 Tender — Integrity Pact (Annexure ‘G’) — Deficiency — Absence of Witness Signatures — Rectification Post Bid Opening — Permissibility — Discussion on whether permitting a bidder (Respondent No. 2) to rectify the deficiency of missing witness signatures on the submitted Integrity Pact (Annexure ‘G’) after the opening of financial bids vitiates the tender process. Consideration of the nature of the Integrity Pact as a document signifying compliance in anticipation of the award, rather than purely India Law Library Docid # 2424862
(31) RAMANUJ KUMAR Vs. PRIYANKA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Dissolution of Marriage — Irretrievable Breakdown — Where the marriage between the parties has completely and irrevocably broken down, evidenced by long separation (over a decade), failed reconciliation attempts, absence of marital ties, and no willingness shown by either party to restore the marital bond, the Court, in order to do complete justice and prevent the perpetuation of hardship, can exercise its jurisdiction under India Law Library Docid # 2424913
(32) KANCHHU Vs. PRAKASH CHAND AND OTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 9 Rule 13 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree — Scope of Interference — The High Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution over orders dismissing an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, is required to examine the correctness and legality of the findings rendered by the lower courts regarding the sufficiency of cause shown by the defendant fo India Law Library Docid # 2424914
(33) THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON AND ANOTHER Vs. VENKATESAN @ SENU @ SRINIVASAN @ BASKARAN @ RADIO @ PRAKASAM[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 374(2), 428, 482 — Inherent Powers vs. Specific Remedy — Finality of Orders — The High Court ought not to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. when: (i) the specific relief of set-off was considered and rejected by the trial/convicting court; (ii) the said rejection attained finality as it was not challenged via the available statutory remedy of appeal against conviction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; and India Law Library Docid # 2424915
(34) CHELLAMMAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Section 4 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 360, 361 — Mandatory Duty of Court to Consider Probation — Where an accused is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions specified in Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (regarding the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, and character of the offender making it expedient to release on probation) are attracted, a mandatory duty India Law Library Docid # 2424916
(35) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RAMESH CHANDER DIWAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 197 —Penal Code, 1860 — Section 21, Twelfth (a) — Protection of Sanction — Public Servant on Deputation — A public servant, appointed by the State Government and holding a civil post, who is subsequently sent on deputation to serve in another organization (such as a Municipal Corporation) on a temporary basis, continues to be a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 21, Twelfth (a) of the IPC and remains covered under the protective umbrella of Sec India Law Library Docid # 2424917
(36) NIDHI BHARGAVA AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Assessment of Compensation — Loss of Dependency — Income Tax Returns (ITR) — Relevance and Admissibility — In determining the income of a deceased for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Income Tax Return (ITR) pertaining to the Financial Year immediately preceding the date of the accident is a legally admissible and reliable statutory document — The relevance of such an ITR stems from the income period it covers (the relevant India Law Library Docid # 2424918
(37) N. VIJAY KUMAR Vs. VISHWANATH RAO N.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2025 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 118(a) & 139 — Presumptions and Rebuttal — Standard of Proof — Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act mandate statutory presumptions that a negotiable instrument was made for consideration and that a cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability, once execution is admitted or proved — These presumptions are rebuttable — The onus lies on the accused to raise a probable defence sufficient to create doubt about the existence of the considerati India Law Library Docid # 2424919
(38) 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
(39) 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
(40) 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