(1) MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S FARIDABAD IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-01-2025 General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 10 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 4 — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) — Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but only to the extent that it benefits a party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a court holiday — The benefit of Section 4 is not available when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday — Additionally, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act India Law Library Docid # 2421487
(2) Dr. SHARMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-01-2025 Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 — Rules 10 and 28 — Applicability of — The court clarifies that Rule 10(ab) of Part II of the KS and SSR is not applicable to appointments on promotion in the Administrative and Teaching Cadres of the Medical Education Services — The court reasons that G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 is a special rule that supersedes general rules like the KS and SSR and that it was issued when the general rules were already in place — Additionally, Rule 10(ab) India Law Library Docid # 2421488
(3) RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA Vs. DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-01-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125(4) — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 9 — Restitution Decree Does Not Automatically Disqualify Maintenance — The court establishes that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. — The mere existence of such a decree, and the wife's non-compliance, is not sufficient to trigger the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. India Law Library Docid # 2421489
(4) NBCC (INDIA) LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 10-01-2025 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Sections 8, 17 and 18 — Section 18 is not restricted to registered suppliers — The court determines that the phrase "any party to a dispute" in Section 18 of the MSMED Act is not limited to a "supplier" who has filed a memorandum under Section 8 — The court emphasizes that the legislative intent of Section 18 is to provide a remedy for dispute resolution that is open to any party, regardless of registration India Law Library Docid # 2421490
(5) GOVERDHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-01-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 304 Part I — Murder — Appeal against conviction — Appellants were initially convicted of murder but the charge was later modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC — The court upheld this modification, citing the lack of clear motive, premeditation, and definitive intent to kill, despite the fatal injuries inflicted — The judgment considered the credibility of the sole eyewitness, the timing of the FIR, and the ove India Law Library Docid # 2421479
(6) RAMESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-01-2025 Criminal Law — Cross-complaints arising from the same incident should ideally be tried by the same court — The court noted that the two trials arising from the two FIRs should have ideally been tried by the same judge or court for a better appreciation of the evidence and consistency in the decisions — Although the trials proceeded separately, they were, in reality, cross-cases related to the same incident, stemming from a clash between two family groups on the same day. India Law Library Docid # 2421480
(7) INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAM Vs. MATHEW K CHERIAN AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-01-2025 Railways Act, 1989 — Section 143 — Statutory provisions can apply to new situations not initially envisioned by the legislature — The court ruled that a law can be applied to new facts and situations, even if those situations did not exist at the time of the law’s enactment, as long as the language of the law is broad enough to encompass them — The court stated that the law should not be limited to the meaning at the time of enactment but should be interpreted to include new developments. India Law Library Docid # 2421481
(8) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-01-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 11 and 34 — Validity of ex-parte arbitration awards — State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order regarding the retirement age of respondent, a former employee of a hospital that was taken over by the State Government — The case revolved around the validity and enforceable ex-parte arbitration awards obtained by respondent against the State Government, based on the disputed existence of an arbitration agreement — The State argued t India Law Library Docid # 2421482
(9) MAMTA KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-01-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 —Abetment of Suicide — The appellant sought anticipatory bail after the High Court rejected her plea — The State of Punjab acknowledged her participation in the investigation and stated no further custodial interrogation was needed — The Supreme Court granted her anticipatory bail, considering the State of Punjab's submission that she cooperated with the investigation — The decision was based on the recognition that custodial interrogation was no longer neces India Law Library Docid # 2421483
(10) THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-01-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 80 — High Court's order to allow the Respondent's application to amend the plaint and dispense with the requirement of a notice under Section 80 was valid — The court determined that the subsequent debarment orders and events formed a continuous cause of action originating from a memo issued on 08.03.2016 — This meant that the amendment did not alter the original nature of the civil suit — Additionally, because the cause of action was continuous, the ap India Law Library Docid # 2421486
(11) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BANSAL WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 5 and 14 — Interest on Arbitral Award — Appellant-Insurance Co. Ltd. appealed a High Court decision affirming an Arbitral Tribunal's award of interest to respondent for a delayed insurance claim payment — The claimant initially pursued a consumer complaint before arbitration, causing a four-year delay (2003-2006) which the tribunal condoned, excluding it from interest calculations — The appellant argued the claimant should not receive interest for delays attributa India Law Library Docid # 2421443
(12) S. RAJASEEKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 162 — Scheme for golden hour — Obligation of Central Government — The court emphasizes the statutory obligation of the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — This obligation is not discretionary but a legal requirement. India Law Library Docid # 2421444
(13) OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — Section 9(2) — Claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a case, even after final disposal and a Presidential Order and that courts have a mandatory duty to consider such claims in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — The court emphasized that the pursuit of truth is paramount in the justice system, and procedural or technical hurdles should not prevent courts from ensuring justice, especially for juveniles — The court also ruled that lower courts India Law Library Docid # 2421445
(14) INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs. SRI BALA & CO. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 . Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1921 — Section 7 — Powers of trustee to apply for directions — A property dispute over land in Kodaikanal arose from a 1991 sale agreement between appellant and respondent — The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in 1993 but failed to pay court fees, leading to its rejection — A second suit was filed in 2007 — The appellant argued the second suit was barred by the law of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, as the cause of action acc India Law Library Docid # 2421446
(15) DR. SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Contempt Petitions — Contempt Petitions related to non-compliance with a previous order — While it does not explicitly state a ratio decidendi, it does lay out a procedure for resolving the matter — The court directs the authorities to adjudicate the issues through a fact-finding enquiry conducted by the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University — This decision is based on the court's view that issues of actual working days, salary arrears, and pension cannot be decided in contempt proceedings India Law Library Docid # 2421491
(16) DHIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Contempt Petitions — Contempt Petitions related to non-compliance with a previous order — While it does not explicitly state a ratio decidendi, it does lay out a procedure for resolving the matter — The court directs the authorities to adjudicate the issues through a fact-finding enquiry conducted by the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University — This decision is based on the court's view that issues of actual working days, salary arrears, and pension cannot be decided in contempt proceedings India Law Library Docid # 2421492
(17) MEERA SINGH Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Contempt Petitions — Contempt Petitions related to non-compliance with a previous order — While it does not explicitly state a ratio decidendi, it does lay out a procedure for resolving the matter — The court directs the authorities to adjudicate the issues through a fact-finding enquiry conducted by the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University — This decision is based on the court's view that issues of actual working days, salary arrears, and pension cannot be decided in contempt proceedings India Law Library Docid # 2421493
(18) HALDHAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Contempt Petitions — Contempt Petitions related to non-compliance with a previous order — While it does not explicitly state a ratio decidendi, it does lay out a procedure for resolving the matter — The court directs the authorities to adjudicate the issues through a fact-finding enquiry conducted by the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University — This decision is based on the court's view that issues of actual working days, salary arrears, and pension cannot be decided in contempt proceedings India Law Library Docid # 2421494
(19) VIJAY PRABHU Vs. S.T. LAJAPATHIE AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Sections 12 and 12(3) — Specific performance of part of a contract — The court held that specific performance of a part of a contract is generally not allowed, except under specific circumstances as outlined in Section 12 — The court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Section 12(3) because they were found to be not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and therefore in default, and because the terms of the contract did not India Law Library Docid # 2421495
(20) JAI KRISHNA PRASAD YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-01-2025 Contempt Petitions — Contempt Petitions related to non-compliance with a previous order — While it does not explicitly state a ratio decidendi, it does lay out a procedure for resolving the matter — The court directs the authorities to adjudicate the issues through a fact-finding enquiry conducted by the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of the University — This decision is based on the court's view that issues of actual working days, salary arrears, and pension cannot India Law Library Docid # 2421496