May 5 – May 9, 2025
1) Liability of tractor & its insurer extends to a passenger’s death resulting from motor accident caused by tractor via trailer
The Court held that, in motor accident cases, the liability of a tractor and its insurer extends to the motor accident caused by the tractor through the trailer, which resulted in the death of a passenger.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (Appellant), thereby upholding the enhanced compensation awarded by the Karnataka High Court to the legal heirs (Respondents) of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident.
Cause Title- The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Honnamma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 625)
Date of Judgment- May 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
2) Implosion or explosion in internal or external machinery of transformers which caused fire: Supreme Court dismisses Powergrid’s plea against CERC
The Court dismissed the Civil Appeals filed by Powergrid Corporation of India Limited against the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).
The Appeals filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 arose out of the common Order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
Cause Title- Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 626)
Date of Judgment- May 5, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
3) Right to put questions to witness recalled under Order 18 rule 17 is given only to Court; cross-examination not ordinarily permitted without leave of the Court
The Court explained that as per Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the right to put questions to the witness recalled under Rule 17 is given only to the Court and even cross-examination is not ordinarily permitted on the answers given to such questions, without the leave of the Court.
The Special Leave Petitions before the Court were filed against the Order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting the Petitioner’s Petition filed under Rule 17 of the CPC. A Review Petition also came to be dismissed.
Cause Title- Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 628)
Date of Judgment- May 5, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Can the dispute raised by insured after signing advance receipt & giving discharge voucher to insurer be referred to arbitration? Supreme Court answers
The Court observed that the questions as to whether the insured was compelled to sign the standardized voucher/advance receipt forwarded to it by the insurer out of economic duress and whether the arbitration claim was sustainable after accepting the offered amount, are within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Appeals by special leave were directed against the Order of the Bombay High Court in an Arbitration Application.
Cause Title- Arabian Exports Private Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 630)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
5) A duly issued caste certificate amenable to challenge only under concerned statute, not Election Petition
The Court held that a duly issued Caste or Community Certificate is amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition.
The Court clarified thus while allowing CPI(M) leader A. Raja’s Appeal and setting aside the 2023 Judgment of the Kerala High Court that had invalidated his election from the Devikulam Assembly constituency.
Cause Title- A. Raja v. D. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 629)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
6) Non-availability of grounds for dissolving Hindu marriage not bar to exercise Article 142
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage of a quinquagenarian couple on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Court discarded the contention that divorce could not be granted just because none of the available grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved were present. The Appeal before the Court challenged the judgment of the Patna High Court upholding the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the Appellant-wife.
Cause Title- A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 631)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
7) Court can also suo motu dismiss Suit on the basis of admissions made under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
The Court observed that, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the Courts, on its own motion, can also dismiss the suits based on admissions made.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed an Appeal and upheld the Decree of the Single Judge, dismissing a Partition Suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Cause Title- Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 632)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
8) Supreme Court restores summoning order in abetment of suicide case; says telling a physically challenged man that he should die is not banter
While remarking that telling a physically challenged man he and his family should die, in the immediate aftermath of a grievous acid attack, is not banter, the Supreme Court restored the decision of the Trial Court summoning the accused under Section 306 of the IPC.
The Court set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had set aside an Order summoning the accused to face trial under Section 306 and 34 of the IPC. The Court revived the decision of the Trial Court summoning the accused, who allegedly taunted the deceased, stating that he and his family “should die of shame” for not having taken action against the acid-attack assailants.
Cause Title- Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 634)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice KV Viswanathan
9) Supreme Court dismisses Appeal to maintain seal on sonography machine, saying no justifiable reason for indefinite sealing based on pending proceedings under PCPNDT Act
The Court dismissed an Appeal to maintain the seal on a Sonography Machine, stating that there is no justifiable reason to keep it sealed indefinitely based on the insistence that the proceeding is still pending and has not attained finality.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the District Appropriate Authority, thereby upholding the Gujarat High Court’s Order to open the seal of a seized sonography machine. The Court said that “keeping the sonography machine in a sealed condition for a further indefinite period would only result in making the machine either useless or worthless.”
Cause Title- District Appropriate Authority v. Kaushik Babulal Shah & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 637)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale
10) Comparable Sale Deeds may only be considered if they pre-date Section 4 Land Acquisition Act notification
The Court reiterated that comparable Sale Deeds may only be considered if they pre-date the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), which would consequently be truly reflective of the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time.
The Court was hearing a batch of Cross-Appeals preferred by the Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and various landowners, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the land situated in the concerned villages.
Cause Title- Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 638)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
11) NCLAT has no power to condone delay beyond period stipulated under IBC
The Court held that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period stipulated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the NCLAT which allowed Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of delay in filing an Appeal.
Cause Title- Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 639)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
12) Courts should refrain from interfering with invocation of bank guarantee except in cases of egregious fraud or where encashment would result in irretrievable injustice
Expounding the legal position on the invocation of bank guarantees, the Court reiterated that Courts should refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee except in cases of fraud of an egregious nature or in cases where allowing encashment would result in irretrievable injustice.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Appellants challenging the order of the Orissa High Court restraining the Appellants from invoking the bank guarantee during the pendency of the proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Cause Title- M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd v. M/s Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 640)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
13) Supreme Court Bench delivers split verdict on acquittal of former AIADMK Minister’s wife in disproportionate assets case
The Court gave a split verdict with respect to the acquittal of P. Nallammal, the wife of former AIADMK Minister late A.M. Paramasivam in disproportionate assets related case and placed the case before the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was dealing with four Appeals.
Cause Title- P. Nallamal v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 643)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
14) Disability assessed for determining motor accident compensation should be functional disability: Supreme Court allows Appeal of injured watchman
While awarding over Rs 28 lakh motor accident compensation to an injured watchman who suffered 80% disability, the Court reiterated that the disability assessed for determining compensation should be the functional disability.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed against the amount of compensation awarded in a motor accident case.
Cause Title- Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya v. Jaydipsinh Gopalsinh Parekhiya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 641)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
15) Functional disability can’t be assessed at 100% only because motor accident victim can’t carry on the vocation that he was carrying earlier
The Court held that functional disability of 100% can’t be assessed only because the injured cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier.
The Appellant approached the Court challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Cause Title- Sunil Kumar Khushwaha v. Katragadda Satyanarayana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 642)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
16) Order of discharge & denial of disability pension based on medical opinion without reasons not valid
The Court held that an Order of discharge and denial of disability pension based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons is not valid.
The Court held thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench by which the claim for grant of disabilities pension was denied.
Cause Title- Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 644)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
17) When records of property title are seized along with property under PMLA, accused is entitled to true copies thereof
The Court held that when records, instruments or documents of title of the property are seized along with the property under Sections 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) the accused from whom the same are seized is entitled to true copies thereof.
The Court held thus in a batch of two Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Sarla Gupta & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 645)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
18) Courts not fragile as flowers: Supreme Court while dismissing Contempt Petition against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey
While observing that Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under ludicrous statements, the Court refrained from taking action against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks made against the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court of India.
However, condemning such behavior, the Court held that hate speech cannot be tolerated and any attempt to cause humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence. The Petition before the Supreme Court was filed under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India seeking initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey for having made deliberate and scandalising remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India.
Cause Title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 647)
Date of Judgment- May 5, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
19) Registration of document gives notice to world about its execution; but doesn’t confer unimpeachable validity
The Court held that the registration of a document gives notice to the world about its execution but does not confer an unimpeachable validity.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals filed against the Order of the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench in a Writ Appeal filed from the Judgment in a batch of Writ Petitions dismissed by a common Order.
Cause Title- Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 646)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
20) Supreme Court quashes charges against anti-trafficking activists branded ‘criminals’ for alleged ‘overzealous’ rescue raid of bonded labour/minor children from brick kiln
The Court quashed criminal charges against Anti-Trafficking Activists, stating that they suffered the ignominy of being branded as “criminals” for alleged overzealousness in a raid to rescue bonded labour/minor children from a brick kiln.
The Court allowed an Appeal by two activists from Guria, an organisation known for its work against human trafficking, challenging the refusal to quash a chargesheet under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC by the High Court. The Court stated that the High Court, in a “perfunctory manner” observed the issues involved disputed questions of fact.
Cause Title- Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 653)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
21) Valid & subsisting district survey report alone can be basis for application for grant of environmental clearance
The Court held that a valid and subsisting District Survey Report (DSR) alone can be the basis for an application for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC).
The Court held thus while upholding the law and the regulations governing sand mining, demanding zero tolerance for unauthorized activities.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 650)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2025
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
22) Unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of contract in specific performance suit
The Court explained that as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of a collateral transaction.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Order passed by the Madras High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed against the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the Appellant seeking permission to place on record a document dated January 1, 2000.
Cause Title- Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 652)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
23) High Court can’t dismiss substantive portion of suit itself in Appeal against Order refusing to grant injunction pending disposal of suit
The Court held that while considering an appeal against the order of the Trial Court refusing to grant an injunction pending the disposal of the suit, the High Court can’t dismiss the substantive portion of the suit itself and direct that the remaining part of the suit be agitated in a suit filed by the defendant.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an Order of the High Court virtually dismissing the suit while considering an application for an injunction.
Cause Title- Mahendra Magruram Gupta & Anr. v. Rajdai Shaw & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 651)
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2025
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
24) Every important issue must be vigorously debated by people & press even if it’s sub-judice before Court
The Court emphasized that every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub-judice before a Court.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by Wikimedia Foundation Inc., challenging the Order of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench.
Cause Title- Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 656)
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
25) Truth is always a chimera & illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led: Supreme Court while acquitting murder accused
The Court while acquitting accused persons in a murder case, remarked that the truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led.
The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the High Court’s Division Bench which reversed the acquittal and convicted two accused under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented By Assistant Superintendent Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 657)
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
26) Violation of principles of natural justice: Supreme Court sets aside Bombay High Court Order dismissing quashing Petition without assigning reasons
The Court set aside a Bombay High Court order dismissing a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR while observing that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as no reason was mentioned as to why the High Court was not inclined to even issue notice to the litigants.
The Court was considering a Criminal Appeal challenging the Order of the Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Cause Title- Gopal Govind Lakade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 658)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
27) Technicalities overstretched: Supreme Court orders original application filed u/s.14 of NGT Act to be treated as Appeal
While observing that technicalities had been overstretched to dismiss and oust the litigant challenging the construction of a motor road before the NGT, the Supreme Court ordered that the Original Application filed under section 14 of the NGT Act be treated as an Appeal under Section 16.
The Appeal before the Court was filed against the Order dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in which the Order granting sanction was challenged.
Cause Title- Vijay Kumar Padalia v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 660)
Date of Judgment- May 6, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
28) Supreme Court quashes attempt to murder case recording settlement between landlord & tenant
The Court quashed the offences alleged under sections 307 and 324 of the IPC after noting that the parties (landlord and tenant) had already settled the matter.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed against the Order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an Application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the summoning order in a case registered under Sections 323, 504, 324, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Nadeem Ahmad v. The State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 659)
Date of Judgment- May 7, 2025
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
29) Purchase tax imposed by Sections 7A & 5A of TN & Kerala General Sales Tax Act not ultra vires the Constitution
The Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the purchase tax imposed by Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Kerala Act) and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TN Act).
The Court dismissed a batch of Civil Appeals.
Cause Title- C.T. Kochouseph v. State of Kerala and Another Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 661)
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2025
Coram- Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan
30) Presumption U/S. 20 PC Act not applicable where demand has not been proved
The Court set aside the conviction of a public servant in a corruption case, while explaining that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable when the alleged demand has not been proven.
The Court allowed the Appeal against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court, which affirmed the Appellant’s conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act).
Cause Title- Paritala Sudhakar v. State Of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 655)
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2025
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanuallah
