Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20.02.2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 1999 – u/ss.3, 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) – Prosecution case that accused-appellant along with others did house breaking by night and allegedly assaulted occupants of the premises – Upon entering the premises, the police found the house ransacked, and the household
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the Report submitted by the Expert Committee with regards to both Corbett Tiger Reserve and the general recommendations to be implemented with regards to Tiger Safaris and Tiger Reserves pursuant to the directions issued in dated 06.03.2024. Headnotes† Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Chapters IV, IV-A and IV-B – ss.2(24-A), 18, 35, 36-A, 36-C, 38-V – Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and protection of – Establishment of Tiger Safaris in
Issue for Consideration Whether the judgment of Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, convicting the appellant for the charges u/s.302, IPC and s.25, Arms Act and the sentence as directed, is based on cogent material and evidence sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. a place accessible to others – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if can sustain the conviction – Appellant convicted u/s.302, IPC and s.25, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if by itself can sustain the conviction of
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to seeking stay on the operation of the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water project. Headnotes† Water dispute – between the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka – Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water project – Application by the State of Tamil Nadu seeking stay on the operation of the permission given by Central Water Commission (CWC) to Karnataka Cauvery Neeravari Nigam to
Issue for Consideration The appellant insured its boiler (GT-23). During the policy period, a blast took place in that boiler. Whether the first respondent-insurance company appellant’s insurance claim based on Exclusion clause 5. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Boilers Act, 1923 – Appellant insured its Boiler no.GT-23 with the first respondent for Rs.1.60 crores – Boiler in question was registered under the Boilers
Issue for Consideration The present dispute pertains to transfer of proceedings initiated u/s.138 NI Act from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Adoni, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. What situations may prompt this Court to transfer a High Courts u/s.447 BNSS) to meet the ends of justice. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.446, 447 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142, 142A – Petitioner is proprietor of M/s Hari Cotton Traders and its sister concern, M/s Hari
Issue for Consideration Whether in respect of the goods purchased/services availed, the appellant would qualify as a “consumer” as defined in s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – filed complaint before the State Commission claiming deficiency in service stating that it purchased a software from the respondent but the software did not function properly; sought refund of the entire amount paid to the respondent – State Commission held that the complaint was not
742 : 2025 INSC 1311 In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary (I.A. No. 153500 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995) 13 November 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to declaring the Saranda Game Sanctuary in the State of Jharkhand with as sanctuary – Saranda forest area in the State of Jharkhand – Application seeking directions to the State of Jharkhand to declare the Saranda Game Sanctuary with area of 314.68 sq. km. as notified by the 1968 Notification by the erstwhile State of Bihar as a deemed sanctuary under
Issue for Consideration Appellant’s writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court on the ground of omission of the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal provided by the Customs Act, 1962 as well as on merits. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain seeking a writ of certiorari. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Silver weighing 252.177 kgs came to be seized – Respondent no.3 ordered confiscation of the seized silver and levied penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant – Appeal by the appellant – The CEGAT
709 : 2025 INSC 1306 In Re : Delhi Ridge (I.A. No. 117204 of 2024 (CEC Report No. 5 of 2024) In Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) And Issue regarding order dated 16th April 2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others 11 November Ridge against encroachments and environmental degradation. In view of that, the following three issues fell for consideration: (i) Issuance of final notification of the Delhi Ridge u/s.20 of the Forest Act; (ii) Removal of encroachments from the Delhi Ridge and the Morphological Ridge
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was right in declining to reverse the appellate order of eviction obtained by the respondent-owner against the appellants-lessee on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Headnotes Tamil Nadu Control) Act, 1960 – s.10(2)(i) – Eviction on the ground of wilful default – Respondent-owner leased out properties to lessee for a monthly rent of Rs. 48,000/-, however, the lessee paid Rs.33,000/- – Rent Controller fixed a fair rent which was upheld by the appellate
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the execution of the compromise decree passed in a dispute as regards performance of religious rituals and the custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with the common deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy, worshipped by the two sects, respondents; and whether the respondents had in fact violated its terms as alleged by the appellants. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Execution of the compromise decree – Temple dispute between two sections of Kuruba community, Kapadam families-appellant and Kamatam
Issue for Consideration Whether the present case meets the exacting threshold for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction of this Court and; whether two sets of outcomes of this Court can stand on an identical evidentiary foundation; whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the curative petition ought to be allowed and the petitioner be acquitted of the charges u/ss.302, 364, 376 and 201, IPC. Headnotes† Curative Petition – Nithari Case – Two sets of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether it was appropriate on part of the then Director Corbett Tiger Reserve to approach the High Court order when the same had been granted in the proceedings pending before this Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain petitions in proceedings pending before this Court – Suo Moto action pertaining to the illegal construction and
Issue for Consideration The High Court directed the appellant to appear before a Hospital for collection of blood samples for DNA profiling. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Penal Act – Respondent no.1 married one AL in the year 2001 – AL requested the appellant-doctor to refer his wife-respondent no.1, to a Gynaecologist, for the necessary treatment – However, instead of referring respondent no.1, the appellant developed physical relations with
Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the competence of the sanctioning authority u/s.19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whether the expression “competence” is to be understood as synonymous with “authority” or “jurisdiction” to remove the employee from 1988; whether a public servant is entitled to be exonerated from the criminal charge, if he gets a clean chit in the departmental proceedings instituted on the same charges and allegations, as were levelled in the criminal case; whether Explanation to s.19(4), PC Act, 1988 is applicable to the
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment whereby it allowed the appeals filed by the vendees and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court, while granting the relief of to Sell executed by the Original Vendors in favour of the Original Vendees and holding the Appellants-Subsequent Purchasers not to be the bona fide purchasers of the subject land for value without notice. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Unilateral termination of the
815 : 2025 INSC 1321 In Re: N. Peddi Raju and Others (Suo Moto Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2025) 10 November 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration Consideration of the apology tendered by the alleged contemnors, after they had tendered their unconditional against them) and it was accepted. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Scandalous allegations made against High Court Judge, suo moto contempt proceedings initiated – Apology tendered to Supreme Court – Consideration of – Suo moto contempt proceedings were
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the value of the duty paid bought out items delivered directly at the buyer’s site is liable to be included in the value of the boiler cleared by the assessee from its factory in completely knocked down (CKD) condition, for the duty; and whether the show cause notice is legal and valid under the extended limitation period as provided under the proviso to s.11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – ss.4, 11A – Excise Duty – Assessment – Invocation of
Issue for Consideration Whether an order rejecting the plaint u/Or.VII r.11 of the CPC is appealable u/s.13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11; s.2(2) – Appellant recovery of Rs.2.5 Crores – Respondents sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement as contemplated under the CC Act – Plaint rejected by trial Court – Appellant filed appeal