(801) MAHENDRA DEV Vs. RADHE SHYAM PANDEY[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-02-2025 Contempt Proceedings — Contempt Proceedings should be paused when an appeal against the order in question is pending, especially when a stay of that order has been requested, as this prevents the remedy of appeal from being undermined — The court emphasizes that while filing an appeal does not automatically mean the original order can be ignored, changes made in compliance with an order being appealed can cause prejudice — The court also highlights that it is not appropriate to demand compliance India Law Library Docid # 2422294
(802) GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Vs. ANIL KARLEKAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-02-2025 Contract Act, 1872 — Section 74 — Forfeiture of Earnest Money — The court upheld the principle that forfeiture of earnest money is permissible under contract law, provided the terms of the contract are clear and explicit — However, the forfeiture must be reasonable and not unconscionable or one-sided — The court found that the forfeiture of 20% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) as per the agreement was unreasonable and disproportionate, especially in light of the one-sided nature of the contract, wh India Law Library Docid # 2422256
(803) GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-02-2025 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016 — Benefits and Facilities — The Supreme Court in a Public Interest filed by a person with a disability, ruled that all benefits and facilities previously restricted to persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) must now be extended to all persons with disabilities (PwD) — The Court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Respondent No.5) to revise its guidelines, issued on 10.08.2022, to remove restrictions and ensure that all India Law Library Docid # 2422257
(804) JAI RAM Vs. SOM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 03-02-2025 Succession Act, 1925, Section 263 — ‘S’s property was disputed between appellant and respondent — The District Court revoked respondent’s Letters of Administration, but the High Court overturned this, citing limitation —Can the High Court consider limitation as a ground for overturning the District Court's decision if not initially objected to? — Appellant High Court erred in considering limitation, as it wasn't initially objected to, and no evidence was presented —Respondent states that Limitat India Law Library Docid # 2422586
(805) TANYA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 64 and 61(2) — Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court order denying her anticipatory bail in a case involving offenses under Sections 64 and 61(2) — She argued the charges were frivolous, noting she is a journalism student and the main accused is already in jail — The state sought her custodial interrogation, citing sexual assault allegations — The Supreme Court granted her anticipatory bail, setting aside the High Court's order — Sh India Law Library Docid # 2422384
(806) APRUVA KIRTI MEHTA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Bail — Courts exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, should not act as recovery agents for realizing dues of the complainant from the accused; thus, directing payment of a significant sum as a condition for bail grant is impermissible, and the court must instead assess the bail application based on settled parameters, such as the likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or threatening witnesses, rather tha India Law Library Docid # 2422483
(807) SREEPRAKASH A.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Loan Dispute — Petitioners challenged a Kerala High Court order, which had overturned a single judge's decision favoring them in a loan dispute with the State Bank of India — The petitioners had entered a settlement in 2020 but defaulted after partial payment — The bank demanded full repayment, while the petitioners offered to pay interest and settle the liability — The High Court had directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to resolve the matter — The Supreme Court noted the release of proper India Law Library Docid # 2422388
(808) KUMARI SAHU Vs. BHUBANANANDA SAHU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Delay of 225 days — The appellant, a homemaker, filed a civil suit seeking declarations as the legally married wife of the late 'R' and regarding the legitimacy of the respondents as his children — The suit and her first appeal were dismissed — She filed a second appeal with a 225-day delay, which the High Court of Orissa dismissed based on the delay — The appellant argued that the delay was due to her counsel's negligence and that she, b India Law Library Docid # 2422295
(809) M/S. C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. Vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Contractual clauses — Enforceability of Clause 49.5 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) — The Court upheld the validity and enforceability of Clause 49.5 of the GCC, which states that in the event of any failure or delay by the employer (respondent) in fulfilling its obligations under the contract, the contractor (appellant) is not entitled to claim damages or compensation — Instead, the contractor is only entitled to an extension of India Law Library Docid # 2422149
(810) KULDEEP SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 375 Exception 2 and 376 — Marital Exception to Rape — The court reaffirmed the principle that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife cannot be considered rape under Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, provided the wife is above the age of 18 — This reinforces the existing legal position that marital rape is not recognized as a crime under Indian law, except in cases where the wife is a minor India Law Library Docid # 2422150
(811) RAKESH KUMAR CHARMAKAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 — Legal Right to Regular Pay Scale — The court established that employees who fulfill the conditions stipulated in government circulars and rules have a legal right to claim regular pay scales — The appellants, having completed more than ten years of service and having been appointed against sanctioned posts, were held to have a legal right to regular pay scales under the 1979 Rules and the Circ India Law Library Docid # 2422151
(812) SAU. JIYA Vs. KULDEEP[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 — Sections 12 and 13 — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Sections 6 and 9 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Where the parties have agreed to a divorce but are in dispute over maintenance or permanent alimony, the court must determine the quantum of maintenance based on a balanced consideration of various factors, including the financial status of both parties, the standard of living during the marriage, and the reasonable needs of the dependent spouse — The court should ai India Law Library Docid # 2422152
(813) KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-B — Dowry Death — Essential Ingredients of Section 304-B — The prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients to establish a case of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) India Law Library Docid # 2422153
(814) KARUPPUDAYAR Vs. STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LALGUDI TRICHY AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) — Interpretation of "Place within Public View" — For an offence to be constituted under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) the act of insult or intimidation must occur in a place "within public view" — A place "within public view" refers to a location where members of the public can witness or hear the incident — It does not necessarily have to be a public place but must be accessible to the publi India Law Library Docid # 2422154
(815) SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 31-01-2025 U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 6E and 6N — Violation of Statutory Provisions i.e Sections 6E and 6N — The termination during the pendency of conciliation proceedings violated Section 6E which prohibits altering service conditions or terminating employees without prior approval from the concerned authority — The termination also violated Section 6N, which mandates proper notice, wages in lieu of notice, and India Law Library Docid # 2422255
(816) LALITA Vs. VISHWANATH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306, 498A and 34 — Abetment of suicide requires more than just harassment or cruelty — There must be credible evidence that the accused aided or instigated the deceased to end their life. India Law Library Docid # 2422383
(817) SURESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 149 and 147 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence —Conviction in Circumstantial Evidence Cases — In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, excluding all other hypotheses, and mere suspicions, possibilities, or probabilities are insufficient; the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to demonstrate the accused's guilt with certainty, esp India Law Library Docid # 2422639
(818) JASMINBHAI BHARATBHAI KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2025 Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Scope of Order 22 Rule 5 —Applicability of Order 22 Rule 5 in Special Leave Petitions — The Supreme Court clarified that Order 22 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which deals with exemptions from surrendering, applies only to cases where the petitioner has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. India Law Library Docid # 2422642
(819) VELLORE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. RAJEBDRAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE DISTRICT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2025 Environment Law — Polluter Pays Principle — The polluter is absolutely liable for the harm caused to the environment and must bear the cost of both compensating the victims and restoring the damaged ecology — This liability is continuous and does not cease until the environmental damage is fully reversed — The principle applies not only to compensating individuals affected by pollution but also to the cost of reversing ecological damage. India Law Library Docid # 2422132
(820) M/S. JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 30-01-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 192, 202, 204, 468(2) and 482 — Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 16, 18(a)(i), 27(d) and 32 — Mandatory Reasoning in Summoning Orders — The Supreme Court holds that when a magistrate issues process (summons) against an accused in a criminal case, the order must contain reasons for doing so — The magistrate is required to apply his mind to the facts of the case and the applicable law, examining the nature of the allegations and the evidence India Law Library Docid # 2422133