An appellant challenged the use of Urdu on the Patur Municipal Council’s signboard, claiming it violated the 1965 Act and, later, the 2022 Act making Marathi the official language. After the Council rejected her complaint, the Collector upheld that decision, the Divisional Commissioner reversed it, and the Bombay HC dismissed her petition. The Supreme Court held her Section 308 application untenable, as only the Chief Officer may invoke it post-2018 amendments, and clarified the 2022 Act does not bar additional languages—especially Eighth Schedule languages like Urdu—alongside Marathi. The appeal was dismissed as based on a legal misconception.
Hitesh P. Sanghvi filed a civil suit on November 21, 2017 seeking to declare a Will of February 4, 2014 and Codicil of September 20, 2014 executed by his father null and void after his death on October 21, 2014. He learned of them in November 2014. Defendants moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as time-barred. The City Civil Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed, permitting evidence on limitation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the suit governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act with a three-year period from accrual on February 4, 2014, expiring by February 4, 2017. No evidence is required when limitation appears on the plaint. The Court rejected any “full knowledge” distinction and ruled that if the primary relief is barred, ancillary reliefs fail. Section 3 strictly and immediately mandates dismissal of time-barred suits without exception.
In a case, a mother-in-law alleged her daughter-in-law pressured her son to live with her parents and, upon refusal, began abusing the complainant, culminating on June 30, 2024, when jewelry and cash were forcibly taken. The daughter-in-law argued malafide intent that a mother-in-law cannot file under Section 12 of the DV Act. The trial court held the complaint disclosed prima facie domestic violence at the summoning stage, rejecting narrow view of “aggrieved person.” The High Court dismissed the Section 482 CrPC challenge, upholding the September 13, 2024 summons, and affirmed that any woman in a domestic relationship may seek relief.
The Supreme Court held that Article 32 cannot be used to attack its own judgments—recourse lies only to review or curative petitions. It rejected the notion that Rajesh Chander Sood was decided per incuriam, noting mere disagreement doesn’t suffice. On merits, it reaffirmed Sood’s upholding of the State’s financial cut-off date, the reasonableness of its retiree classification, and its power to withdraw unviable welfare schemes. Emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation, the Court dismissed the writ as misconceived and waived costs given the petitioners’ status as retired senior citizens.
The Supreme Court quashed a Section 498A IPC case against in-laws, noting the FIR lacked specific dowry allegations and only mentioned vague "taunts." The complainant had lived separately for years, and the FIR was filed 14 years after marriage, just days after divorce summons. The Court criticized the High Court’s "extremely pedantic" approach, stressing that courts must be cautious in matrimonial disputes, particularly when allegations surface after years of marriage, immediately after divorce initiation, or when relatives are implicated without clear charges. The Court reaffirmed that minor taunts cannot automatically amount to cruelty under Section 498A.
The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell creates no ownership rights under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and a proposed purchaser cannot sue a third party claiming title and possession. The Court emphasized that plaints lacking cause of action or barred by law must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A mere injunction suit without seeking title declaration is not maintainable. It also flagged concerns over large cash transactions violating Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act. The Court allowed the appeal, rejected the plaint, and issued directions to curb undisclosed cash dealings.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Amarjeet Pandey, accused of enticing a minor, applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Court noted the applicant’s clean record, the victim’s claim of being 18, her voluntary travel to Gujarat, and absence of injuries. It criticized administrative lapses in conducting the ossification test, highlighting bureaucratic delays and lack of medical facilities. Despite conflicting claims about the victim’s whereabouts, no definitive age proof was produced. Bail was granted with conditions, including non-tampering with evidence and mandatory appearance at key trial stages.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a father for his son’s death, stressing that strong circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction even without proof of motive. The Court found a complete chain of evidence pointing to guilt: gunshot residue on the appellant's hand, no blood on the screwdriver claimed to be the suicide weapon, and ballistic reports confirming a gunshot from close but not contact range. It rejected the suicide theory based on medical and ballistic findings. False explanations by the accused further strengthened the case. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court and High Court's judgment.
The Supreme Court, acting on a letter from retired Gujarat District Judge B.B. Pathak, took suo motu cognizance of a critical issue—large sums of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 remain unclaimed and lie with various Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and Labour Courts across the country. Data from several High Courts revealed staggering unclaimed amounts, including ₹459.10 crores in Bombay, ₹282 crores in Gujarat, and ₹239 crores in Allahabad. To address this, the Court issued a series of binding directives aimed at ensuring rightful compensation reaches claimants. These include enhanced documentation, verification of bank details, direct bank transfers, and creation of monitoring dashboards by High Courts. The Court also called for a mass outreach campaign involving legal services authorities and local officials to trace beneficiaries. Compliance reports are due by July 30, 2025, with the next hearing on August 18, 2025. These directions will remain effective until formal rules are enacted.
A Muslim Bar Council member elected to the Waqf Board cannot continue as a Board member once their Bar Council term ends. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and upheld the appellant's appointment. This judgment provides clarity on Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995, affirming that a Bar Council representative's tenure on the Waqf Board is co-terminus with their membership in the Bar Council.
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the landlord’s right to evict a long-term tenant from a cinema building in Allahabad, leased in 1952. Despite earlier failed eviction attempts, the Court accepted the appellant’s plea under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972, citing a bona fide need to start a business for family sustenance. The tenant was directed to vacate by 31 December 2025. The judgment reinforces that a landlord’s genuine need for self or family use is a valid eviction ground, and long-term tenancy alone cannot outweigh pressing requirements of the property owner.
In a recent case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the repatriation of a Canadian-born child to the mother, emphasizing that Indian courts cannot be misused to defy valid foreign judicial orders. The father had brought the child to India with Canadian court permission for a brief visit but failed to return, violating custody and communication orders. The Canadian court later granted sole custody to the mother. The High Court found the father’s retention of the child unjustified, noted the child’s expired Indian visa, and observed a positive bond between mother and child, reinforcing the need to uphold international comity.
A writ petition under Article 32 sought gender-neutral guidelines for domestic violence complaints and a constitutional review of Section 498A IPC (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), claiming misuse and violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 498A, emphasizing its importance in protecting women from dowry-related harassment. The Court stressed judicial restraint in challenging legislative policies, stating that intervention is only warranted if the provisions are arbitrary, mala fide, lack rational connection to their objective, or violate Fundamental Rights.
In a case involving Jyoti Beck, who alleged fraudulent marriage and caste-based harassment by Vishnu Sahu (deceased), his first wife Pramila Devi, and her children, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order taking cognizance of the case. Jyoti claimed she was ousted from her home and harassed due to her caste, invoking provisions of IPC Sections 498A, 406, 420, and the SC/ST Act. The High Court had earlier remanded the matter, questioning the lack of detailed reasoning in the Magistrate’s order. The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate’s cognizance order does not need to be a reasoned one and only requires prima facie satisfaction. The appellants are permitted to seek discharge during trial proceedings.
The Court made several key findings in the case. First, it ruled that objections to the execution of an award could be raised under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on the grounds of jurisdictional issues or voidness, even if no petition had been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Secondly, the Court relied on established precedents, including *Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.* and *Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta*, to conclude that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), all claims not included in the resolution plan are deemed extinguished. Finally, the Court determined that since the respondent’s claim was extinguished after the resolution plan’s approval, the Facilitation Council lacked the jurisdiction to pass the arbitral award.