Issue for Consideration Writ petition filed u/Art.32 challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death against the petitioner, having been affirmed on appeal, declined in review, and followed by the rejection of mercy petitions and seeks its reconsideration in the light in the case of Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh; and whether Art.32 authorises this Court to reopen a capital sentencing exercise that has otherwise attained finality, solely to cure the procedural lapse the petitioner identifies. Headnotes† Constitution of India –
Issue for Consideration The following questions arise for determination: (i) the effect of respondent no.2/KPTCL’s delay in commissioning the 220 kV evacuation system upon the timelines stipulated for fulfilment of the CPs and achievement of (ii) the entitlement of appellant to invoke and encash the performance bank guarantee in the facts of the present case; (iii) the sustainability of the finding of Force Majeure recorded by the State Commission in the absence of the contractual notice contemplated under Article 14.5 of the PPA;
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondents succeeded in establishing a valid marital relationship between their mother and the deceased primarily on the basis of the oral testimony of P.W.2; and whether the relationship between the deceased and the presumed to be a valid marital union, in the absence of formal documentary proof. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.50 – Proof of relationship – Presumption of marriage – Appellant no.1-second wife of deceased, exerted her influence, and got the names of herself and
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to issuance of directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments. Headnotes† Judicial process – Justice delivery system – Delay in pronouncing judgments after hearings – Judicial deprecation – On facts, criminal appeal since 2008, heard and reserved for orders on 24.12.2021, but the judgment not delivered, and directed to be relisted before the Regular Bench – Propriety: Held: Extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard
Issue for Consideration The appellant has preferred Civil Appeal No.8544 of 2024 aggrieved by the two directions given by the High Court in the impugned order relating to additional payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre to the respondent as additional sale price and secondly, the direction to the of the auction property measuring 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.67 and to fix its boundaries. Headnotes† State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The respondent was the Managing Director of a company that had
2389 : 2025 INSC 1054 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands (I.A. No. 191387 of 2025 In I.A. No. 12465 of 2019 In Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. 25 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration Issue Lands. Headnotes† Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 – s.3(2) – Directions by the Supreme Court in the judgment and order dated 22nd May 2025 as regards Zudpi Jungle Lands – Modifications sought by State of
Issue for Consideration The issue involved in these petitions centres around the right of the stray dogs to live on the streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security of the citizens particularly the kids and elderly people from these very stray dogs, many of whom are suspected to communicable disease, i.e., rabies. Earlier, the Two Judges Bench of this Court issued directions on 11.08.2025 considering the disturbing pattern of dog bites in the country. Headnotes† Directions by the Supreme Court – Menace of dog bites – Mollification of the directions
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside notification cancelling the earlier notifications issued by erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra as unsustainable, quashing the subsequent notification issued by 1st appellant proposing to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) and directing the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioners who were selected pursuant to the earlier notifications
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards claim for parity in pay by the respondents appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Professors with Assistant Professors who are performing identical duties and functions. Headnotes† Service law – Equal pay for equal work Contractually appointed Assistant Professors teaching in various Government Engineering Colleges and other Institutions – Parity in pay with similarly placed Assistant Professors who are performing identical duties and functions sought – Single Judge held that they would be
Issue for Consideration Whether non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a fatal defect, rendering the Election Petition non-maintainable at the threshold. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.83(1)(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11 – Whether the requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to s.83(1)(c) of the RP Act is of a mandatory character: Held: This Court has underscored that the requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to s.83(1)(c)
1516 : 2025 INSC 1035 M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. v. Adil Ansari & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2864 of 2022) 22 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran,* J.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards order of the tribunal imposing compensation of Rs.50 Crores and other directions resulting in ineffective effluent treatment, storage of hazardous wastes – Case of respondent no.1 before the tribunal alleging that the appellant actively perpetrating environmental degradation and pollution as also extracting ground water; thus polluting the surroundings and also
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether it is necessary for the appellate court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence u/Ord. XLI r.27(1) CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27(1) of additional evidence in appellate court – Consideration of the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence u/Ord. XLI r.27(1), by the appellate court – Requirement – Decree for specific performance of agreement granted by the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the validity of the acquisition of land under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether the High Court rightly rejected the Society’s preliminary objection; whether the 2018 Amendment impacts in Tarabai’s case; and whether the High Court rightly set aside the public notice and the order approving the acquisition proposal. Headnotes† Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 – ss.3B, 3C(1) – Maharashtra Slum Areas
Issue for Consideration Accepting the recommendations of the EAC, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted Environmental Clearance (EC) to the project proponent on 19.04.2022. Aggrieved by the issuance of EC interested in environment, respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was allowed. Whether the decision of NGT requires any interference. Headnotes† Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 –
Issue for Consideration Whether the owner of the land in a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) has any preferential right to redevelop it under Chapter I-A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether such entails that the owner be specially notified and invited to redevelop the SR Area before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) takes a decision u/s.13 r/w s.3D(b)(iii), Slums Act; whether the power of the State Government to acquire land u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i), Slums Act is subject to the
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was correct in reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the MACT to the Appellant-claimant. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Reduction in Compensation by the High Court while travelling in an Omni bus – Suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 67,83,866 /- towards the compensation under various heads – However, the High Court reduced it to Rs.48,83,866/-
Issue for Consideration Having regard to the provisions of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, more particularly the expression “State Forest Service” as defined in r.2(g), whether any service in a State connected with forestry having members of gazetted status by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or is the approval of the Central Government relatable to and required in respect of a post in the State Forest Service; if it is answered that approval is relatable to the service and not post, what relief is the
Issue for Consideration A suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court, which was dismissed by the High Court in appeal, reversing the judgment and decree. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings and the judgment and decree passed by the Suit for specific performance – A suit was filed by the plaintiff, the appellant herein, alleging that an agreement was entered into with the 1st defendant, the 2nd respondent herein, for purchase of two properties which are more fully described as Item No.1 and Item No.2 – The trial
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the reduction of sentence awarded to the inspector convicted and sentenced u/ss.7 and 13(2) rw s.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe from a factory supervisor for issuing Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – Demand and acceptance by public servant – Reduction of sentence – Inspector of Central Excise convicted and sentenced u/ss.7 and 13(2) rw s.13(1)(d) for demanding and accepting a bribe of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to accused no.11 and rejecting the same of accused no.20. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25(1B)(a) – & 39 – Trial Court rejected the application for grant of bail of both the accused nos.11 and 20 – Both the accused preferred criminal appeal before the High Court – By the impugned order, the High Court granted bail to the accused no.11 and rejected the prayer for bail of