Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below failed to award compensation under the head loss of earnings to the minor appellant; and whether the High Court erred in granting an adequate amount of compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Headnotes† – Compensation – Enhancement – Appellant-minor aged 8 years suffered permanent disability in a road accident – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3.90 lakh – High Court enhanced it to Rs. 8.65 lakhs – Interference: Held: Minor child who suffers death or
Issue for Consideration Reconsideration of the directions issued in the order dated 04.08.2025 in view of the request made by the Chief Justice of India. Headnotes† Directions by Supreme Court – Recall /deletion of – Vide order dated 04.08.2025, this Court set aside of the High Court of Allahabad wherein the concerned Judge had declined to quash the criminal complaint despite the matter being a purely civil dispute of recovery of money and held that the remedy of the civil suit for the said purpose was unreasonable – Matter was remanded back to High
Issue for Consideration The present matter raised important questions of law relating to interpretation and interplay between Section 144C and Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The question for consideration was on 153 to a proceeding under Section 144C namely, whether the period of eleven months as envisaged under Section 144C should be over and above the limitation period prescribed, particularly, under Section 153(1) or (3), as the case may be. In other words, whether the time consumed for concluding
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court by which it had accepted the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiffs for the first time in appeal and decreed the suit. Headnotes† Adverse possession – Plea cannot be raised for the first time in appeal – Suit filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of sale deed, dismissed by trial court – Appeal filed by the plaintiffs – First Appellate Court accepting the plea of adverse possession raised by them for the first time, allowed
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the writ petition be entertained at all having regard to the conduct of the petitioner-High Court Judge; does the In-house Procedure have legal sanction; is an inquiry and the consequent report in terms of the Procedure (which could be unfavourable a parallel and extra- constitutional mechanism; does paragraph 5(b) of the Procedure foul clauses (4) and (5) of Art.124 r/w. Arts.217 and 218 of the Constitution or abrogate any Fundamental Right of a Judge of a High Court; did the CJI/the Committee constituted by the CJI act in terms of
Issue for Consideration In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. Whether the High Court considered the relevant factors for Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.3/4(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(3) – Respondent no.2 was found guilty for the offences punishable u/s.3/4(2) of POCSO Act as well as u/s.376(3) of IPC – Respondent
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court by which it declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Suspension of under the various provisions under the IPC, POCSO and SC/ST Atrocities Act and maximum punishment of four years imposed – Appeal against conviction pending before the High Court – Meanwhile, the appellant filed an application u/s.389 seeking suspension of the substantive order of
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was totally based on conjectures and surmises; whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.302 IPC is sustainable in law. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – took her children to a pond/lake and drowned them – Trial Court convicted accused u/s.302 of IPC solely on the basis of evidence of PW-2 – The High Court upheld the conviction – Correctness: Held: The conviction in the present case could be sustainable only if the prosecution
Issue for Consideration Legal position and status of a regulatory asset; its position in the regulatory regime for determination of tariff; the rights and liabilities of stakeholders; consequences of regulatory failure to manage the regulatory asset as a reasonable measure; powers of the APTEL and this Court to ensure accountability and restitution. Headnotes† Electricity Law – Electricity Act, 2003 – Electricity Rules, 2005 – “Regulatory asset” – Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) adopted Multi Year Tariff
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the paver blocks should be permitted to be laid on the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue, which is the main road that connects Matheran from Dasturi Railway Station to the last point inasmuch as most of the habitations are situated on this road; if the answer to issue (i) is in the affirmative, then which type of paver blocks should be
Issue for Consideration Issue arose with regards to correctness of the interim order passed by the High Court that while launching and operating Government Welfare Schemes through various advertisements, the names of any living personality, photograph of any former or party insignia/emblem/flag of appellant shall not be included. Headnotes† Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 – cl.16A – Government Welfare Schemes after the names of any living personality, leaders – Permissibility – State of Tamil Nadu
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of the informant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 and 201/34 – and another lady convicted and sentenced u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 for the alleged murder of the son of the informant – Informant’s case that the appellant and her son, were in illegal occupation of the house owned by the victim together with the other lady and some unknown persons
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the appellant Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be said to have fulfilled all the requirements stipulated u/s.92 CPC for the purpose of instituting a suit under the said provision. Headnotes† Code of Civil – Requirements to be fulfilled for instituting a suit u/s.92 – Appellant society, is a not-for-profit society, registered under the 1860 Act – Respondent no.3-CEO of the appellant society, terminated the services/employment of respondent no.1-medical health professional and
Issue for Consideration The appellant came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable u/ss.450 and 376(2) of the IPC and s.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act]. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding and confirming the conviction and by the trial court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 450, 376(2) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.4 – Allegation that appellant- accused entered the house of victim aged about 15 years and sent her brother aged about 11
Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant u/Art.227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the civil proceedings and the orders passed by the Courts below regarding the computation of interest on the decretal amount and the Headnotes† Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of Sub silentio – When earlier judgment only adjudicated upon issue of limitation – Other critical issues were not adjudicated – Earlier judgment cannot be held to be a binding precedent on those undecided issues:
Issue for Consideration Whether the dispute between the respondents and the appellant arising out of the agreement incorporating the arbitration clause has become non-arbitrable in view of the initiation and pendency of the criminal cases; Recovery Act by the appellant-Corporation bars initiation of proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; whether the application u/s.11(6), Arbitration Act is barred by limitation; whether the issue relating to legality and validity of invocation of arbitral proceedings u/s.11(6)
Issue for Consideration Whether the Court of Session, without itself recording evidence, can summon a person to stand trial in exercise of its powers u/s.193, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as an accused (along with others committed to it by a Magistrate) on the basis form of statements and other documents as contained in the final report of the investigating officer u/s.173, CrPC independently of the provisions of s.319 of the said Code. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XIV – s.193 – Cognizance of offences by
760 : 2025 INSC 961 Vanashakti v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration The present petition challenges the notification dated 29.01.2025 (impugned notification) bearing number S.O. 523(E) issued by Construction Projects – Environmental clearance – Challenge to Notification dated 29.01.2025 and O.M. dated 30.01.2025 – According to the petitioner, the impugned notification dated 29.01.2025 totally changes the regime, which was provided by the notification dated 14.09.2006
Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.21(c) and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – to be heroin, weighing about 125gms and 130gms were recovered from the appellant and the co-accused, respectively – Since the gross weight of narcotic substance was 255gms thus, the seized contraband was treated to be of commercial quantity – Conviction u/ss.21(c), 29 and sentenced
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302, IPC to s.304 Part I. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 ss.302, 304 Part I – Confessional FIR, not admissible in evidence – Appellant-accused himself lodged FIR confessing the murder of the deceased in a drunken quarrel after the deceased allegedly made an obscene remark about the appellant’s girlfriend – Convicted u/s.302, IPC