Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of conviction of the father u/s.6 POCSO Act and s.506 IPC and imposition of life imprisonment, for committing sexual assault of his own minor daughter. Headnotes† from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.6, 29 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.506 – Sexual assault on minor – Repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault by father upon his minor daughter, aged ten years old – These acts were sustained, deliberate assaults within the
Issue for Consideration Whether the regulatory boards can, in exercise of powers u/s.33A of the Water Act and s.31A of the Air Act, impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante environmental damage. Headnotes† Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – s.33A – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – s.31A – The Division Bench of the High Court held that DPCC (regulatory body/Board) is not empowered to levy
Issue for Consideration Whether the four respondent companies were entitled to approach the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) for determination of the tariff for procurement of power by Appellant-GUVNL from their wind – ss.61, 62, 64, 86 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.32 – Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) entered into between GUVNL and the respondent companies containing a clause w.r.t the tariff applicable for purchase of power from the respondent companies’ wind energy projects
Issue for Consideration i) Whether the retirement of the appellant on medical grounds due to colour blindness, without offering alternative employment, is legally sustainable in light of applicable service regulations and binding settlements; ii) whether Clause 14 of the Memorandum executed u/s.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, remains valid, binding, and enforceable despite the subsequent 1986 settlement and internal administrative circulars; iii) whether the respondents complied with their duty to make a bona fide assessment of alternative employment
Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in declaring the Respondent No.2 as a ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on the date of the incident. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Procedure to be followed in determination of Age – FIR was filed against Respondent No.2 and his father u/ss.452 and 302, IPC – Respondent No.2 pleaded juvenility – Trial Court declared
1879 : 2025 INSC 912 Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Others Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 9932-9933 of 2025) 31 July 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration The matters herein present a challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of order of the Single Judge of the High Court, as Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule – Arts. 122 and 212
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants for conducting rally and dharna against the State Government, allegedly causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers, punishable u/ss.290, 341 IPC and s.34 of the Police Act, 1861, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.290, 341, 171F r/w.34 – Police Act, 1861 – s.34 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Causing obstruction to free
Issue for Consideration Whether any criminal offence in the background of the factual position is made out to justify criminal proceedings against the the same should proceed; whether on the same cause of action, based on the facts, both civil and criminal proceedings can simultaneously go on. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – Civil suit filed by the complainant against the appellants
2096 : 2025 INSC 973 The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay (Criminal Appeal No. 3301 of 2025) 31 July 2025 [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Pradesh and/or DG, Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Services at the relevant time, alleging misappropriation of funds and various other irrgeularities – Anticipatory bail granted by High Court – Challenge to: Held: On facts, in view of the allegations made, the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants u/s.482 CrPC to quash the complaint u/ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC pending before the magistrate. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Penal Code, 1860 – ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Quashing of criminal complaint – Testator on account of the fear of his estate being jeopardized by the alcoholic obsessions of his third son, bequeathed his properties in favour of the appellants-daughters-in-law by executing
Issue for Consideration During pendency of these appeals, son of original appellant (since deceased) filed an application seeking setting aside of the abatement and for substitution. Whether the applicant is entitled to be substituted in place of so as to continue to prosecute these appeals. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.372 – The applicant contended that having regard to the proviso to s.372 of the CrPC, the substitution applications may be allowed by condoning the delay in filing the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the University and State’s stance that government Notification dated 24.02.2021 extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years appellant due to non-satisfaction of the 10-year continuous teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal. Headnotes† Service law – Retirement – Extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years – Appellant served as a teaching staff member for 16 years at a
Issue for Consideration Issue arose to assail the correctness of the judgment of the High Court by which the criminal appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the respondents was set aside relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab, 2018 INSC 714. Headnotes† Criminal Law – Administration of the criminal justice – Acquittal on technical grounds by the High Court – Application of law available today – Respondents were convicted by the Trial Court – High Court allowed the appeal and
Issue for Consideration The core issue in the present matter revolves around determining the appropriate forum for the adjudication of disputes arising out of the Concession Agreement dated 05.01.2012 entered into between the appellant and Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – s.7 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The appellant and respondent no.1-Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation entered into a Concession Agreement for the augmentation of the road – Disputes arose between the parties
Issue for Consideration Whether the criminal proceedings filed against the appellants in-laws by respondent No.1-wife subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage between her and her husband and also when both the parties had agreed for an amicable compromise to settle all disputes, Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Invocation of – Complaint and FIR filed against the appellants u/ss.494 and 498A, IPC by respondent No.1-wife subsequent to the dissolution of the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to whether Indian Banks Association Clarification and HRMD Circular can override the 2014 guidelines for the purpose of pay fixation of ex-servicemen during re-employment; whether re-fixation as done by the respondent-Bank pursuant to the IBA guidelines dated 17.02.2014 and whether the High Court was justified in confirming such re-fixation; and if not, in what manner can the fixation of pay of ex-servicemen may be made on their re-employment and what reliefs can be granted to the appellants-ex-servicemen. Headnotes† Service
Issue for Consideration Whether the Tribunals below were justified in holding that the s.7 application under the IBC filed by the appellant on 15.01.2024 was barred by time; does the entry in the Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20 constitute a valid acknowledgement of debt by Limitation Act, 1963; will Para 5(I) or 5(III) of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 govern the situation. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.7, 238A – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.18 – Effect
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant- engineering student in a motor accident, resulting in amputation of his leg and 100% functional disability. Headnotes† Motor accident Reduction by High Court – Challenge to – Appellant-20 year old engineering student was riding a motorcycle, car ahead of him applied the brakes suddenly, the appellant’s motorcycle dashed into the car, the appellant fell down on the road and bus coming from behind ran over
Issue for Consideration Whether, an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence or in other of the fixed term of sentence as aforesaid, should the accused/convict seek remission of his sentence of “life imprisonment” by making an application to the competent authority for seeking “reduction of his sentence”. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.53,
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no.1-accused. Headnotes† Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Supreme Court cancelled the bail of respondents-accused granted by the High Court to move for bail afresh in event of any new circumstances emerging at a later stage – Earlier also the High Court had granted bail and in appeal thereagainst this Court had remanded back the matter – In terms with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent no. 1 applied