1430 : 2025 INSC 1274 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (I.A. No(s). 203615 & 218080 of 2024 and I.A. No. 210981 of 2025 In Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985) 31 October 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration In the present I.A. concerned only with is concerned with sealing of plot No.106 and the building thereon situated in New Rajinder Nagar Market (LSC), New Delhi – He has sought de-sealing of his premises – Whether the subject premises was intended to be used commercially: Held: The case of the applicant to enable
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant, while submitting a valuation certificate issued by a professional architect cum private valuer attached to the Income Tax Department, had complied with Clause 18 of NIT which required it to submit a ‘haisiyat praman patra’ Headnotes† Tender – Disqualification of bid – Tender floated by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad – Appellant’s technical bid for a tender rejected by the 1st respondent – Mandi Parishad on the ground that the haisiyat praman patra (solvency certificate)
Issue for Consideration What is the effect of undue and unexplained delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award upon its validity; is an arbitral award that is unworkable, in terms of not settling the disputes between the parties finally while altering their positions them no choice but to initiate further litigation, liable to be set aside on grounds of perversity, patent illegality and being opposed to the public policy of India; if so, would it be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Arbitration and
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the liability of the insurance company in the case of accidental fire. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Fire insurance – Accidental fire – Fire accident at the premises of the insured due to short circuit, resulting in repudiated the claim raised by the insured since the nature of damage did not support the manifestation of an occurrence which could reasonably and otherwise sustainably be concluded as an occurrence within the terms and conditions of the Insurance policies – National Commission held that
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in holding the appellants-accused no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 guilty for the offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 149 and ss. 302 and 307 r/w s.149 IPC and sentencing them, though appellant no. 1 and 2 trial court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149 and ss.302 and 307 r/w s.149 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Common object and vicarious liability – Appellant-accused persons members of an unlawful assembly armed with weapons arrived at the scene and
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the impugned order whereby the High Court held that the selection conducted under advertisement no.3/2018 cannot be given approval by the new amendments made in the Statutes and the authorities would be free to conduct afresh exercise by inviting candidates in terms of the new amendments made vide notification dated 30.06.2023 for the post of Associate Professor and Professor; whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order nullified the purpose for which Statute 9 was introduced and proceeded to extend
Issue for Consideration The High Court convicted the appellant/accused for committing the offence punishable u/s.302 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that appellant- accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with one B to kill incident, i.e. the intervening night when victim and her son were sleeping in their hut, the appellant/accused poured kerosene upon victim and set her ablaze – As a result, victim received severe burn injuries and she succumbed to the injuries – Her son received burn injuries to the
Issue for Consideration A) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the finding of the first appellate court qua payment of additional amount of Rs.1,95,000 by the plaintiff-appellant. If receipt of additional payment by D-1 and D-2 is proved, as found by the first appellate plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform its part under the contract; B) Whether the suit for specific performance was maintainable without seeking a declaration that termination of the agreement was invalid in law; C) Whether in the facts of the case the plaintiff was entitled to the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether any deviation from the prescribed route as per the permit granted by the state transportation authority, would impact on the liability of the Insurance Company for any accident which may take place while the vehicle is on such a deviated correctness of the order of the High Court which employed the ‘pay and recover’ principle. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Liability of the insurance company, when accident took place on deviated route of which the offending vehicle did not have the permit –
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction u/s.302 r/w ss.149 and 307 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w ss.149 and murder after forming an unlawful assembly – Parties close relatives of each other had a long-standing rivalry due to the pending land boundary dispute – On the day of the incident, an altercation took place between both the groups as the appellants broke the mendh (ridge) between the
Issue for Consideration The issue presently is as to how the offence u/s.195A of the erstwhile Penal Code, 1860, has to be construed and dealt with. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.195A – Threatening any person to give false evidence – Cognizable offence – When the is so, whether the power of the police to take action in relation thereto u/ss.154 CrPC and 156 CrPC can be doubted; Whether requiring the person to go before the Court concerned, i.e., the Court in which the proceeding is pending in relation to which false evidence is to be given, and inform
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court i.e., whether the High Court correctly reappreciated the evidence and reached a conclusion that the Trial Court’s conclusion was perverse, unreasonable or unsupportable Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – Allegation against the appellant of demanding a sum of ₹9,000/- as bribe for renewing the contract labour licenses – Allegedly, a part payment of ₹3,000/- was made by the complainant
Issue for Consideration Whether the NCLT and NCLAT were justified in dismissing the application of the appellant u/s.7, IBC, after holding that the appellant was not a financial creditor. Headnotes† Insolvency – ss.7, 5(8), 3(11), 3(12) – Companies Act, 2013 – s.55 – Appellant filed a s.7 petition against the respondent on account of failure to pay the redemption amount payable on account of maturity of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) – NCLAT confirmed
Issue for Consideration The High Court set aside the CAT’s decision dated 21.03.2002 and upheld the dismissal of the appellant from the service. Headnotes† Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 – Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) – Allegation and possession of excessive cash against the appellant-TTE – It was also alleged that appellant had forged a duty pass – Chargesheet was issued – Departmental enquiry initiated – Enquiry officer held that all charges were proved against the appellant –
Issue for Consideration Whether a suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, accompanied by a prayer for interim injunction, can be said to contemplate urgent relief within the meaning of s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, its institution. Headnotes† Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.12A – Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement – The appellant is engaged in manufacture of highly efficient industrial fans – A dealership agreement was executed on 01.09.2017 between the appellant and
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment whereby the prayer made by the appellant for interim custody of his lorry was rejected. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Substance Act, 1985 – ss.60, 63; 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.451, 452 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita – ss.497, 503 – Contraband (6 kilograms Ganja) was found in possession of the four accused persons
Issue for Consideration Various FIRs were registered pertaining to alleged allurement of Hindu persons to embrace Christianity. The following key issues fell for consideration before this Court: a) Whether FIR No.224/2022, having been lodged by a person not falling within one of in the unamended s.4 of the U.P. Conversion Act, is liable to be quashed on that ground alone; b) Whether FIR Nos.55/2023 and 60/2023 respectively could be said to be covered by the decision of this Court in T.T. Antony and thus are liable to be quashed; c) Whether the High Court committed any
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the High Court reducing it from 10 years rigorous imprisonment, as granted by the Trial Court, to 8 years rigorous imprisonment, calls for any interference. Headnotes† Sentence/Sentencing When not warranted – Appellant was convicted u/s.304 Part-II for the murder of one ‘S’ and was sentenced to 10 years – ‘S’ was the younger brother of ‘V’ who had allegedly raped ‘C’ (first cousin of the appellant) resulting in
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – – Complainant party and the accused party belonging to rival political factions, armed with weapons assaulted the victim indiscriminately resulting in his death later – FIR by the victim’s father that the incident began when the accused were damaging the hut of PW-3, and the
Issue for Consideration Petitioner in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1983 of 2025 sought transfer of the Suit for Infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the petitioner’s Suit for Groundless Threat adjudication. Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2174 of 2025 filed by Respondent no.1, seeking transfer of the Suit for the Groundless Threat of Infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court to the Delhi High Court. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –