(401) RENUKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet — Scope of Inquiry — Mini Trial — The High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, particularly under Sections 498-A, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot embark upon an inquiry into the credibility or reliability of the evidence presented in the FIR/Chargesheet — Comparing allegations in India Law Library Docid # 2425178
(402) 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
(403) 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
(404) 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
(405) 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
(406) 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
(407) 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
(408) 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
(409) 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
(410) 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
(411) 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
(412) 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
(413) 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
(414) 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
(415) SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT SECRETARY/ DEPUTY SECRETARY/ SECRETARY, INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 29-04-2025 Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 45 — Repudiation of Policy — An insurer can repudiate a life insurance policy within three years from its inception/revival/rider date on grounds of fraud or material misstatement/suppression — After three years, repudiation is permissible only on the ground of fraud, the burden of proving which lies heavily on the insurer. India Law Library Docid # 2425303
(416) INDRA AND OTHERS Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-04-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 & 168 — Compensation — Death of Student (MBBS) — Assessment of Notional Income — Future Prospects — When assessing compensation for the death of a young, meritorious student pursuing a professional course like MBBS, Tribunals must adopt a realistic, holistic, and just approach, moving beyond rigid arithmetical calculations or minimum wage standards — The assessment should factor in the deceased’s high academic achievements (like clearing competitive exams l India Law Library Docid # 2425423
(417) SATPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-04-2025 Border Security Force Act, 1968 — Section 11(2) — Border Security Force Rules, 1969 — Rules 17, 22 & 177 — Dismissal vs. Termination — Interpretation of Rule 22 — Show Cause Notice — A critical distinction exists between ‘termination of service’ (a broader, potentially non-punitive cessation) and ‘dismissal from service’ (a punitive penalty for misconduct barring future government employment and pension) — Rule 22(1) of the BSF Rules, 1969, explicitly provides for issuing a show cause notice whe India Law Library Docid # 2425424
(418) GIRIRAJ PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-04-2025 Service Law — Regularization of Services — Irregular vs. Illegal Appointments — Interpretation of Uma Devi Judgment — Legitimate Expectation — Articles 14 & 21, Constitution of India — Employees who have rendered long and continuous service (10-30 years) on various posts, whose initial appointments were irregular but not illegal (including ad-hoc, part-time, or without formal appointment letters, but against sanctioned posts), and who completed ten years of service on or before 08.07.2009 (the d India Law Library Docid # 2425464
(419) AMIT Vs. SHRI GANESH RAJ BANSAL AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-04-2025 Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 81, 83, 87 & 100 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Election Petition — Rejection at Threshold — Requirement of Material Facts and Cause of Action — An Election Petition, being a statutory right and governed by the self-contained code of the RP Act, must strictly comply with Sections 81 and 83 thereof — It must contain a concise statement of all material facts on which the petitioner relies to establish the grounds under Section 1 India Law Library Docid # 2425465
(420) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. BHIYA RAM VISHNOI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 29-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 42 Rule 1 — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of Record — Misapplication of Precedent — A review petition is maintainable when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, such as the erroneous application of a legal precedent by the Court (both Single Judge and Division Bench) to the facts of the case, where the facts of the case under consideration are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case laying down the precedent — Wrongful reliance India Law Library Docid # 2425466