(121) TATA MOHAN RAO Vs. S. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 09-05-2025 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Deliberate and Wilful Disobedience — Ignoring High Court's Directions and Warnings — Tehsildar evicting residents and demolishing houses despite explicit High Court orders restraining such actions and specific warning against repetition — Such conduct constitutes clear contempt of court — Actions were inhumane and showed a total lack of humanitarian consideration — Rejection of leniency due to adamant and callous conduct India Law Library Docid # 2425707
(122) UMASHANKAR YADAV AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Scope of interference by High Court — Refusal to quash FIR/Chargesheet for offences under Ss. 186 and 353 IPC — Duty of High Court — Appellants, associated with an NGO, accompanied labour officials for a raid concerning bonded/child labour — Difference of opinion arose regarding the place and manner of recording statements of rescued labourers — Appellants allegedly took labourers away before their statements could India Law Library Docid # 2425492
(123) MURUGANANDAM Vs. MUNIYANDI (DIED) THROUGH LRS.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Registration Act, 1908 — Section 49, Proviso — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 14(3) — Specific Performance — Admissibility of unregistered agreement — An unregistered agreement of sale, photocopy filed with plaint, was sought to be brought on record as original — Lower courts dismissed the application citing non-registration and non-stamping — The proviso to S.49 of the Registration Act allows such a document India Law Library Docid # 2425493
(124) MAHENDRA MAGRURAM GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJDAI SHAW AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 43 Rule 1; Order 41 Rule 33 — Appeal against Order refusing Interim Injunction — The High Court, in an appeal arising from an order refusing the grant of interim injunction (under Order 43, Rule 1 read with Order 41, Rule 33 CPC), travels beyond its jurisdiction by dismissing substantive prayers of the suit itself. India Law Library Docid # 2425494
(125) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. GAURAV KUMAR AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Environmental Law — Sand Mining — Regulatory Framework — Zero Tolerance for Unauthorized Activities — The law and regulations governing sand mining must be unequivocally upheld, demanding zero tolerance for unauthorized activities and strict adherence to these regulations is non-negotiable — Absolute standards, tough policies, strict enforcement, and quick accountability are compelling for effective regulatory control due to the severe ecological impact of unregulated sand mining. India Law Library Docid # 2425495
(126) DISHA KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional Evidence — Admissibility of Scholar Register at Appellate Stage — Relevance to Paternity Dispute — The appellate court committed a material illegality by rejecting an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to bring on record a scholar register — The appellant's father's name at the time of school admission in 1976, was considered relevant, especially when coupled with the effect of an adoption deed relied upon by the defendant, for pronounci India Law Library Docid # 2425496
(127) M. SEETHARAMA @ SEETHARAMA GOWDA Vs. THE MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Motor Accident Claims — Compensation — Pain and Suffering — Enhancement — Where the appellant suffered multiple injuries including fractures to the right femur, right clavicle, right tibia and fibula with vascular compromise, leading to a Syme’s amputation (ankle joint, preserving heel pad for weight bearing), the compensation for pain and suffering awarded by the High Court at Rs. 1,20,000/- was India Law Library Docid # 2425497
(128) GURVEER SINGH ALIAS GARRY Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34, 120-B — Bail — Enlargement of bail sought by the appellant, the main accused in a murder case — Allegations of premeditated ambush and fatal shooting — Taking into consideration the period already spent in custody and the likely delay in trial due to key eye-witnesses being abroad, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted bail subject to conditions. India Law Library Docid # 2425655
(129) IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Criminal Procedure — Bail — Policy and Strategy — Supreme Court addresses the issue of pendency of criminal appeals in High Courts and explores policy strategies for grant of bail — Amicus Curiae appointed to assist the Court — Extensive note submitted highlighting various issues and constructive suggestions. India Law Library Docid # 2425656
(130) KARAN PATIDAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Rejection by High Court — The present appeal arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 16th December, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, wherein the appellant's application for grant of bail was dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 2425657
(131) ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Denial by High Court — The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28th August, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the appellant's application for bail was rejected. India Law Library Docid # 2425658
(132) GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 154 — Hostile Witnesses — Relevance in Bail Adjudication — A significant factor influencing the grant of bail was the prosecution's own counter affidavit revealing that its first three key witnesses, namely PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, have been declared hostile during the trial, thereby prima facie weakening the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution case. India Law Library Docid # 2425659
(133) DASHRATH PATRA Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 08-05-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Conviction confirmed by High Court — Assault with iron pipe — Insanity defense — Accused’s mental condition at the time of occurrence is a crucial factor. India Law Library Docid # 2425828
(134) SUNIL KUMAR KHUSHWAHA Vs. KATRAGADDA SATYANARAYANA AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment of Functional Disability — Amputation of Leg — Impact on Vocation (Fruit Seller with Shop) — In determining compensation for permanent disability due to amputation of the right leg from the knee, the functional disability must be assessed in relation to the claimant’s vocation and its impact on earning capacity — Where a claimant, a fruit seller operating from a shop and filing income tax returns, suffers such amputation (physical disability 5 India Law Library Docid # 2425484
(135) KANUBHAI GOKALBHAI BARIYA Vs. JAYDIPSINH GOPALSINH PAREKHIYA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability — Amputation and Deformity — In determining compensation for permanent disability, the assessment should focus on functional disability rather than merely physical disability — Where a claimant suffers amputation of the right leg below the knee (assessed physical disability 80%) and deformity of the right hand (assessed physical disability 10%), and medical evidence indicates the leg stump is deformed with no India Law Library Docid # 2425485
(136) P. NALLAMMAL Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION POLICE, DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 109 IPC — Abetment of Offence of Disproportionate Assets by Non-Public Servant (Spouse) — Intentional Aiding — A non-public servant, such as the spouse of a public servant, can be convicted for abetment of the offence of possessing disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act read with Section 109 IPC, if evidence demonstrates intentional aiding — Such aiding can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances India Law Library Docid # 2425486
(137) M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S BANSAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 9 & 37(1)(b) — Constitution of India — Article 227 — Appealability of Order Refusing Ex Parte Interim Relief in Section 9 Petition — Jurisdictional Issue Left Open — The Supreme Court, while hearing a challenge to a High Court order passed under Article 227 which granted interim relief against bank guarantee encashment after the Commercial Court had merely issued notice on the Section 9 petition (thereby implicitly refusing ex parte relief), decl India Law Library Docid # 2425487
(138) TATA STEEL LTD. Vs. RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61(2) — Limitation for Appeal to NCLAT — Strict Interpretation — Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes a mandatory limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal before the NCLAT — The proviso allows the NCLAT to condone a delay for a further period not exceeding 15 days, provided sufficient cause is shown — The total permissible period for filing an appeal is thus strictly limited to 45 days ( India Law Library Docid # 2425488
(139) KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Compensation — Parity between Adjacent Villages — Lands situated in adjacent villages, acquired under a common notification for a common public purpose, possessing similar potential and advantages (like proximity to highways NH-8 and KMP Expressway), must be compensated equitably — Overturning the uniform compensation awarded by the LAC and Reference Court and creating a significant disparity based on isolated sale deeds from different villages, without cogent eviden India Law Library Docid # 2425489
(140) MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 07-05-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Discretionary Relief — Protection against Dispossession — The High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, should decline to grant relief against dispossession where the writ petitioners fail to establish a prima facie valid title and actual, rightful possession — A mere claim of possession, especially when title is suspect and shrouded in dubious transactions, is insufficient to invoke such India Law Library Docid # 2425498