ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(281) ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF Vs. AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) — Section 11(3), 11(4) & Section 5A — Powers of Competent Authority — Deemed Conveyance — Nature of Proceedings — Scope of Enquiry — Adjudication of Title — Proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA for issuance of a certificate for deemed conveyance are summary in nature, as indicated by the MOFA Rules (Rule 13(5) prohibiting cross-examination) —
India Law Library Docid # 2424852

(282) ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED) Vs. ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 31 — Approval of Resolution Plan — Effect on Claims — Extinguishment — Binding Nature — ‘Clean Slate’ Principle — Once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) under Section 31 of the IBC, it is binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, creditors (including central/state government, local authorities, operational creditors), guarantors, and other stakeholders — Upon such approval, all claims, including
India Law Library Docid # 2424853

(283) LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 37 — Scope of Judicial Review — Power to Modify Award — Severability — The scope of interference by a Court under Section 34 or in appeal under Section 37 is limited — Following the precedent in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1, courts do not possess the power to modify an arbitral award; the “limited remedy” is only to set aside the award, either wholly or partially if severable, under the specified grounds — The Appellate
India Law Library Docid # 2424854

(284) VINOD BOOB Vs. DODBALLAUR SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Special Leave Petition — Disposal by Consent Order — Where a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the complainant challenging the High Court's order setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-respondents under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court in terms of a consensual order agreed upon by the parties, detailing specific payment terms.
India Law Library Docid # 2424855

(285) SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 26(1), Proviso and Section 11 — Date for Determination of Market Value — Mandatory Requirement — The proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 lays down a mandatory requirement, emphasized by the use of the word ‘shall’, that the market value of land acquired under the Act must be determined as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 11 — Thi
India Law Library Docid # 2424856

(286) LILABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal — Scope of Enquiry — Findings of Trial Court — The jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC is primarily concerned with the suspension of the execution of the sentence pending appeal, based on reasons to be recorded in writing — The court considering an application under S. 389 cannot undertake a merits-based review of the conviction or re-assess and cast doubt upon findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court
India Law Library Docid # 2424857

(287) SACHIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Complete Justice — Sentence Modification — Sentence Already Served — Where subsequent orders of the High Court and Special Court enhancing an initial sentence (from 7 years to life imprisonment) are found erroneous and set aside by the Supreme Court, resulting in the revival of the original lesser sentence, but the appellant has already undergone actual incarceration significantly exceeding even the revived original sentence (11 years 8 months vs. 7 ye
India Law Library Docid # 2424858

(288) MANJUNATH TIRAKAPPA MALAGI AND ANOTHER Vs. GURUSIDDAPPA TIRAKAPPA MALAGI (DEAD THROUGH LRS)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 & Rule 3A; Section 96(3) — Compromise Decree — Challenge Thereof — Bar on Fresh Suit — Exclusive Remedy — A compromise decree passed by a court under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, upon satisfaction that a suit has been adjusted by a lawful agreement or compromise, cannot be challenged by initiating a fresh suit on the ground that the compromise was not lawful (due to alleged coercion or fraud) — Order 23 Rule 3A CPC explicitly bars such a suit — Furtherm
India Law Library Docid # 2424859

(289) SANJAY COLARO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 279 — Rash driving or riding on a public way — Criminal negligence — Accused alleged to have driven motorcar in a rash and negligent manner, causing fatal accident to pedestrian — Conviction upheld by trial court, appellate court, and high court
India Law Library Docid # 2425737

(290) N. ESWARANATHAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Abuse of Process of Law — Successive Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — Filing a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the same High Court judgment after the dismissal of the first SLP on merits, particularly by engaging the same Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and failing to disclose the earlier dismissal while making incorrect statements, constitutes a vexatious petition, a misuse of the process of law, and a brazen attempt to obstruct the administration
India Law Library Docid # 2424791

(291) ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 21 — Notice Invoking Arbitration — Mandatory Nature and Effect of Non-Service — A notice invoking arbitration under S. 21 is mandatory (unless otherwise agreed by parties) as its receipt fixes the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings, which is crucial for determining limitation (S. 43), applicable law (including amendments to the Act), and fulfilling a prerequisite for
India Law Library Docid # 2424792

(292) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 — Attempt to Murder — Ingredients — Nature of Injury vs. Intention/Knowledge — To attract S. 307 IPC, the crucial element is the intention or knowledge to cause death with which the act is done, irrespective of the nature or severity of the injury actually caused. S. 307 uses the word ‘hurt’, not ‘grievous hurt’ or ‘life-threatening hurt’ — Therefore, an accused cannot be acquitted merely because the injury inflicted was not grievous or dangerous to life, if the ev
India Law Library Docid # 2424793

(293) SUBHASH AGGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Murder (Filicide) vs. Suicide — In cases based on circumstantial evidence where the question is whether the death was homicidal (filicide) or suicidal, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence — Conviction upheld where circumstances, including (i) gunshot residue (GSR) found on the accused father’s dominant (right) hand, (ii) th
India Law Library Docid # 2424794

(294) ANKIT MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Habitual Offender/Criminal Antecedents — Consideration of Nature of Current Offence — While the criminal antecedents and alleged status of an accused as a habitual offender are extremely relevant factors that ordinarily weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court’s discretion in granting such bail may not warrant interference if (i) the High Court has demonstrably considered the criminal history, and (ii) the spec
India Law Library Docid # 2424795

(295) AJAY RAJ SHETTY Vs. DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 2(17) — ‘Principal Employer’ — Scope and Determination — The definition of ‘principal employer’ under Section 2(17) is wide and includes not only the owner or occupier of a factory (or head of department in government establishments) but also the managing agent or any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment — Designation is immaterial if the person functions as a managing agent or supervises/controls the establishment
India Law Library Docid # 2424796

(296) SHAHED KAMAL AND OTHERS Vs. M/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 499, Exception 9 & Section 500 — Defamation — Imputation in Good Faith for Protection of Interests — Exception 9 to S. 499 IPC engrafts the principle of qualified privilege, stating it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided it is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good — Good faith requires due care and attention but, unlike Exception 1, does not
India Law Library Docid # 2424797

(297) DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. RAJ KUMAR ARORA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c) and 2(xxiii), Schedule & NDPS Rules, 1985 — Sch. I, Rules 53, 64, 65, 66 — Offence relating to Psychotropic Substances listed in Act Schedule but not in Rules Schedule I — Dealing in (producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing, exporting, or transhipping) any psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act constitutes an offence under S. 8(c),
India Law Library Docid # 2424798

(298) D.B. RAVIKUMAR Vs. G.S. SURESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Scope of Interference — The inherent power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, including an FIR, ought not to be exercised in a manner that prematurely scuttles a legitimate investigation, particularly when the FIR discloses the prima facie commission of cognizable offences.
India Law Library Docid # 2424846

(299) SHEELA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 4A(3)(b) — Statutory Penalty — Liability (Employer vs. Insurer) — It is settled law that the statutory penalty imposed upon an employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act for default in paying compensation without justification is the sole liability of the employer and is not required to be indemnified by the Insurance Company — The Insurer's liability is limited to indemnifying the employer for the principal compensation amount and interest thereon (un
India Law Library Docid # 2424927

(300) M/S SUNSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-04-2025
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Section 18(1), Second Proviso — Appeal to Appellate Tribunal — Pre-deposit Requirement — Scope of “any order” under Section 17 — The expression “any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [under section 17]” in Section 18(1), which is subject to the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the second proviso for an appeal by the borrower, requires meaningful interpretation — A
India Law Library Docid # 2425053