(941) MOHAMMED ASARUDEEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2025 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 44 — Protection of witnesses — Nature of provision — Sub-section (1) permits in camera proceedings for reasons recorded, with a non-obstante clause — Sub-section (2) allows measures for keeping identity and address of witnesses secret upon court’s satisfaction of danger to life, for reasons recorded — Unlike sub India Law Library Docid # 2425920
(942) INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LAXMI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2025 Development Scheme — Earmarking of land for Green Belt — Condition for release of land — Original owner of land agreed to its use as a green belt as per a Layout Plan in return for release of its land — Society subsequently claimed compensation for the land used as a green belt — Held, the Society sought to derive dual benefit — Financial compensation while also enjoying the benefits of the green belt like better ambiance and increased utility for its own adjoining lands — Claim for India Law Library Docid # 2428556
(943) MUKESH DAMAMI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 06-05-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302/34, 364, 394, 420, 397 — Conviction and Sentence — Appeal — Bail Pending Appeal — Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and sentenced for various offences including murder, kidnapping for ransom, robbery, cheating, and armed robbery — High Court upheld conviction and sentence — India Law Library Docid # 2433810
(944) SHUBHKARAN SINGH Vs. ABHAYRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 18 Rule 17 — Recall of witness — Scope and Ambit — The power vested in the Court under Or. 18 R. 17 is primarily for the Court itself to recall a witness suo motu or on application, to put questions for clarifying any ambiguity or doubt arising from the evidence already on record — It is not a provision intended to enable parties to fill up lacunae in their case, conduct further examination-in-chief or cross-examination, or place additional material/evidence wh India Law Library Docid # 2425394
(945) POWERGRID COPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Electricity Act, 2003 — S. 178 — Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 — Regulation 53, Note 2 — Additional Capitalization — Replacement of Damaged Assets — Operation and Maintenance — Expenditure incurred on replacing damaged Inter-connecting Transformers (ICTs), which failed due to internal faults/fire shortly after commissioning, cannot be admitted as 'additional capitalization' India Law Library Docid # 2425395
(946) THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SMT. HONNAMMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 147 — Liability — Tractor-Trailer Accident — Uninsured Trailer — Root Cause — Where an accident involving death occurs due to the overturning of a trailer being pulled by an insured tractor, the liability of the tractor’s insurer extends to cover the accident — The crucial factor is the root cause of the accident being the insured tractor’s action in pulling/driving/moving the trailer, leading to the mishap in an unbroken chain of events — Principles requiring separ India Law Library Docid # 2425396
(947) ARYAN GOEL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Criminal Procedure – Special Leave Petition – Pre-Arrest Bail – Grant of interim protection made absolute where petitioner cooperated with investigation. India Law Library Docid # 2425654
(948) VISHAL TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Constitution of India — Article 32 — Writ Petition — Prayers — Suo Motu Criminal Contempt — FIR — Advisory on Hate Speech — Petition sought initiation of suo motu criminal contempt against Respondent No. 4 for remarks against the Supreme Court and CJI; direction for FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and direction for an advisory to curb hate/provocative speeches relating to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 India Law Library Docid # 2425501
(949) HARIRAJAN PILLAI Vs. SIYAD[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Proviso to Order V Rule 1 and Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act) — Time Limit for Filing Written Statement — Mandatory Nature — Forfeiture of Right Beyond 120 Days — Non-Applicability of Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — In a commercial suit, the statutory period of 120 days for filing a written statement is mandatory, and upon the lapse of this period, the defendant forfeits the right to file the India Law Library Docid # 2425503
(950) CHITHRA AND ANOTHER Vs. SASIKUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court — Rejection of Plaint — Usurpation of Original Jurisdiction and Supplanting Statutory Remedy under CPC — The supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly to ensure subordinate courts and tribunals act within their jurisdiction and not to usurp the original jurisdiction of the trial court or to supplant statutory remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedur India Law Library Docid # 2425504
(951) BINOOF KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Bail — Grant of bail — Appellant facing trial for offences under Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act — Appellant in jail since May 5, 2024, charge sheet filed, trial not commenced, twenty-one witnesses to be examined — Allegations stated to be false and vexatious — Supreme Court noted the facts and granted bail. India Law Library Docid # 2433800
(952) CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY Vs. ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61, 62 — Appeal against NCLT order — Condonation of delay — NCLAT dismissed appeal for delay in refiling — Supreme Court considered lawyer's lapses more leniently than litigant's — Viewed "sufficient cause" liberally in favour of justice — Directed NCLAT to hear India Law Library Docid # 2433814
(953) HARIRAJAN PILLAI Vs. SIYAD[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 05-05-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 15 and Commercial Courts Act Schedule — Written statement — Time limit of 120 days for filing — Forfeiture of right to file after expiry — Court not empowered to accept written statement beyond 120 days — Supreme Court decision in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others binding — High Court erred in allowing India Law Library Docid # 2433826
(954) SANTOSH DEVI Vs. SUNDER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 17 — Effect of fraud — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 6 — Grounds of exemption from limitation law — Suit for cancellation of sale deed — To claim exemption from the ordinary period of limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff must specifically plead and prove not only the fraud pertaining to the transaction itself but, crucially, that they were, by means of such fraud, kept from the knowledge of their r India Law Library Docid # 2425397
(955) KALYANI TRANSCO Vs. M/S.BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 62 – Appeal to Supreme Court – “Person Aggrieved” – Locus Standi – The phrase “any person aggrieved” in Section 62 indicates no rigid locus requirement for appealing an NCLAT order to the Supreme Court — Once CIRP is initiated, proceedings become in rem, making all creditors and other necessary stakeholders (including operational creditors and erstwhile promoters whose appeals were dismissed by NCLAT) potentially “persons aggrieved” entitled to file India Law Library Docid # 2425313
(956) SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF MADRAS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c)(iii) & 12 — Criminal Contempt — Forgery and Fabrication of Court Orders — Interference with Administration of Justice — Creating fake interim orders of the High Court, purportedly staying execution of a decree, and producing such forged orders before the executing court (Court Amin) to prevent execution constitutes a gross act of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii), being one of the most serious forms of interference with India Law Library Docid # 2425314
(957) P. SAKTHI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Service Law — Promotion — Right to Consideration — Effect of Set Aside Punishment — An employee possesses a fundamental right to be considered for promotion when eligible as per the rules and when selections are conducted — Denial of such consideration based on a past punishment is legally unsustainable and unjust if that punishment has already been set aside by a competent authority prior to the consideration period. India Law Library Docid # 2425315
(958) AMAN BHATIA Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 2(c)(i) — “Public Servant” — Interpretation — Legislative Intent — Public Duty — The definition of “public servant” in Section 2(c) is comprehensive and requires a wide, purposive interpretation to advance the Act’s object of curbing corruption — The legislative intent, shifting from the repealed 1947 Act, emphasizes the performance of ‘public duty’ rather than solely the traditional master-servant or principal-agent relationship or mode of appointmen India Law Library Docid # 2425316
(959) K.R. SURESH Vs. R. POORNIMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Contract Act, 1872 — Section 74 — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 22 — Forfeiture of Earnest Money vs. Advance Money — Distinction and Applicability of S. 74 — Earnest money serves a dual purpose: part-payment and security for performance — Its forfeiture upon the purchaser’s default, if reasonable and explicitly provided for, generally falls outside the scope of penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act — Conversely, forfeiture of ‘advance money’ (mere part-payment) or stipulations by wa India Law Library Docid # 2425317
(960) ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 02-05-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 2(1)(h), 7, 16 & 19 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine and Mutual Consent – An Arbitral Tribunal possesses the authority and jurisdiction, rooted in Sections 2(1)(h) and 7 and exercisable under Section 16, to determine whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement and, if so, to implead such non-signatory as a party to the arbitration proceedings — This power derives from the foun India Law Library Docid # 2425318