https://www.advocatekhoj.com/ Subscribe to the latest Supreme Court judgments with complete details of case numbers, parties name, judge names and headnotes. en-us Copyright 2026 AdvocateKhoj Thu, 12 Mar 2026 06:16:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Mar 2026 06:16:00 +0530 AdvocateKhoj Feed Generator 144 43 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/ https://www.advocatekhoj.com/images/site/logo.jpg [Civil Appeal No. 3279 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 10967 of 2024]. Leave granted. The appellants are permitted to place on record the additional documents, as prayed for. More often than not, the quality of law and order in the society and maintenance thereof depends upon the character of the persons serving in the police force. It becomes imperative that the recruitees in the disciplined force should be the persons beyond reproach and men with rectitude. The exposition of the above narrative is required to be applied in its four corners while examining the challenge to judgment and order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 297 of 2023, which is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the appellant-the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition of respondent-original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' as per the present position) by judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 in which the respondent had challenged the rejection of his candidature by the screening committee for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the police force on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20109 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20109 [Miscellaneous Application No. 2238 of 2025]. The above words of Henry Ward Beecher assume great significance in the present case, more particularly when the courts are asked to give their decision on the question whether an individual can choose to accept life by preferring to die. The famous Shakespearean dilemma of "to be or not to be", which had so far remained as a literary quote, is now being used for judicial interpretation to canvass the liberty to die. The present Miscellaneous Application ("MA") has been filed by a mentally and physically incapacitated applicant, namely, Harish Rana, through his parents, in the captioned SLP that came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2024. By way of the said order, this Court resolved the matter between the parties by ensuring that adequate care and necessary treatment are provided to the applicant, including but not limited to the provision of home care, at the expense of the respondents. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20108 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20108 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2827 - 2829 of 2018]. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 17651 of 2022. This judgment deals with three matters arising out of separate orders passed by different High Courts. Since the questions of law involved in all the cases are substantially identical and common, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The facts giving rise to the respective appeals are set out below. The present Civil Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 6387, 6388 and 6389 of 2017, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants and affirmed the common order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1, Chennai Bench in O.A. Nos. 1133, 1132 and 1375 of 2014. Respondent No. 1 in CA. Nos. 2827 and 2828 of 2018, Rohith Nathan, secured All India Rank 174 in the Civil Services Examination, 2012 under the OBC category. His father was employed in a private organisation namely M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd., and was drawing a salary exceeding the prescribed creamy layer limit under the extant guidelines. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20107 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20107 [Civil Appeal Nos.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23846-47 of 2025]. Leave granted. The instant appeal(s) are directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2025 of the High Court of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "High Court") in Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 4339 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 7312 of 2024. By the impugned judgement, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "MCGM") under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act") and confirmed the judgment and order dated 19th REPORTABLE and 20th of October, 2022 of the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 84 of 2012 dismissing the application filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act by MCGM for setting aside the award dated 05.06.2010 of a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. The challenge made in the proceedings of Section 34 was threefold - improper constitution of the tribunal, limitation and interest. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20106 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20106 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 15378 of 2024]. Leave granted. Overzealous investigation is as fatal to prosecution as are the lethargic and the tardy. Framing a case on public perceptions and personal predilections ends up in a mess, often putting to peril an innocent and always letting free the perpetrator. Here, we have a case of gruesome death of a couple when their house was gutted in a fire, with the son and daughter-in-law accused of murder. The entire case is founded on motive; the ill-will the son harbored against the father for not having given him his due share in the ancestral property. The entire village was against the son and the mishap ended in an investigation where truth was sacrificed at the altar of perceived vengeance, ably assisted by the Investigating Officer's selective but careless pursuits, derailing the entire prosecution. On the early hours of 23.11.2016, a shanty in which a lawyer and his wife were residing was gutted in a fire, killing the old man immediately and his wife after two days in a hospital at Patna. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20105 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20105 [Civil Appeal No. 862 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8374 of 2025]. Leave granted. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of appeals involving identical issues. Vide common judgment1, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2, seven writ appeals3 were disposed of. The Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Single Bench whereby writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein were dismissed. The dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of the Assistant Engineers (Electrical)4, directly recruited and internally selected candidates. The appellants are the direct recruits, and the private respondents are the internally selected candidates. Briefly, the facts relevant to the issue under consideration, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing, are as follows. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board5 contemplated selection to the post of AE on direct recruitment basis and for internal candidates. Both have their separate quotas. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20104 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20104 [Civil Appeal Nos. 9052-9053 of 2022]. The present Appeals are directed against the order dated 11.10.2022 ("Impugned Order") passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ("NCLAT"), in Company Appeal (AT) No.104 of 2021 along with Contempt Case (AT) No.02 of 2022, whereby the NCLAT set aside the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ("NCLT") declining interim relief in CA Nos.147 and 199 of 2021 in CP No.159(MB) of 2021, but confined interim protection to a direction restraining the parties from taking any "perceptive steps" for a period not exceeding one month, and further directed that the contempt proceedings be heard by the NCLT. The Appellant No.1, Moniveda Consultants LLP (formerly Gauri Rajeshwari Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), claims to be a 40% shareholder of Respondent No.1, Shajas Developers Private Limited. The Appellant No.2 is a partner of Appellant No.1 and was appointed as a Promoter-Director of Respondent No.2, JLS Realty Private Limited. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20103 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20103 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011]. These appeals have been preferred by four accused/convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in a case concerning the murder of one Balkishan. Criminal Appeals Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011 have been preferred by accused Dablu (A-1), accused Kamlesh (A-2) and accused Pratap @ Pratap Narayan (A-5), whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012 has been preferred by accused Vinod @Ajay (A-4). Out of the six accused persons, one Govind Singh (A-3) had died earlier and the main accused Vikram remains absconding. All the aforesaid appellants were convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and for life along with fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code1 respectively. They were acquitted of the charges under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The aforesaid conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.11.2010 whereby the appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed. Wed, 11 Mar 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20102 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20102 [Civil Appeal No. 13581 of 2025]. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 29th February 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7940 of 2015 whereby the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court while upholding the validity of the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 20151. The case before us concerns the Smt. Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library2, an institution that has been in existence for nearly a century. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to briefly trace the history of the Institute & Library and the circumstances in which it was established. The Institute & Library were established in the year 1924 by Shri Sachichidanand Sinha3, a distinguished public figure of his time and a prominent son of the State of Bihar, who served as the first President of the Constituent Assembly for an interim period. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20101 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20101 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12486 of 2025]. Leave granted. Bereft of proof of the conspiracy theory and finding absence of the demand of bribe, the conviction of both the accused was overturned by the High Court. The Central Bureau of Investigation (the 'CBI') which laid the trap at the instance of the complaint made by PW1, is in appeal. We heard Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindar Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Moraria, learned counsel for the appellant-CBI and Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-accused. PW1, the complainant, was the partner of a firm whose Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act was the 1st appellant/1st accused; A1. There was a notice issued to the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 as pending in the office of A1, to finalize which PW1 had approached the 2nd appellant/2nd accused; A2, an Income Tax Inspector, who was the subordinate of A1. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20100 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20100 [Criminal Appeal No(s)._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1977 of 2026]. Heard. Leave granted. The appellant, Pooranmal1, along with one Ladu Lal faced trial in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2010 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, Rajasthan2. Both the accused were convicted by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012, for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 [Sections 103 (1)/3(5) of the Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234] and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC [Section 238 of the BNS] and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20099 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20099 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023]. Leave granted. The present appeals call into question the common judgment dated 22nd February, 2023, passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu1 in a batch of intra-court appeals2 along with connected writ petitions3, whereby the learned Division Bench dismissed the said intracourt appeals and writ petitions and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the appellants' claim for regularisation of their services. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, are stated hereinafter:- The respondent-State, vide order dated 14th December, 2009, issued SRO No. 3844 titled "Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009"5. The said SRO envisaged the appointment of personnels to posts relating to teaching staff, medical officers, nurses, para-medical, para-dental and technical staff in the Government Medical Colleges on academic arrangement basis. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20098 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20098 [Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2025]. The appellants, investors in a minority, cry foul on the allegation of their being arbitrarily disgorged of their shareholdings and eased out of the 1st respondent company, (BTL for brevity) in a grossly unfair manner, making a sham of an evaluation fixing the share price at an unreasonably low value. Shorn of the details, the 1st respondent, a closely held company having 1.09% of its shareholding with individuals, decided to reduce its share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act 20131 by cancelling 28,457,840 equity shares held by the identified minority shareholders by paying an amount of Rs.163.25/- per equity share of Rs.10/- each. The resolution was passed by a Special Resolution with a majority of more than 99.90%, the sanction for which was sought before the National Company Law Tribunal (the NCLT hereinafter). The NCLT found that the decision to deduct the Dividend Distribution Tax from the price fixed for the individual shares was arbitrary and directed the BTL to pay the identified individual investors; without the tax deduction, Rs.196.80/- per equity share. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20096 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20096 [Civil Appeal No. 8743 of 2013]. These batch of appeals raise an important question regarding legal status of two Sugarcane Cooperative Societies on bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and interplay between Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Reorganisation Act) and Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (2002 Act). The core issue is whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation of Section 103 of 2002 Act, despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework governing State reorganisation. For the facility of reference, facts from C.A. No.8743 of 2013 are being referred to. Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Bajpur (Society) is a Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society whose area of operation originally included 96 villages in Bajpur and 34 villages in Suar, District Rampur in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20095 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20095 [Civil Appeal No. 3255 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6453 of 2024]. Leave granted. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff whose suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 4.6.2002 was decreed by the Trial Court. However, in appeal by the respondent(s)/defendant(s), the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Resultantly, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff stands dismissed. The sale agreement dated 4.6.2002 was in respect of house property bearing No.1-91/1 (Old No.1-17/2) constructed on Plot No.l admeasuring 406.33 square yards in Survey No. 1 situated at Medchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The agreement was for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh) and defendant(s) had received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) as advance. The agreement was registered on the same day with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20094 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20094 [Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 20419 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 5.12.2025 in Criminal Petition No.12215 of 2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati wherein the High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in the subject First Information Report1 being Crime No. 171 of 2025 registered at Bhavanipuram Prohibition and Excise Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 34(a) read with Sections 34(1)(i), 34(1)(ii) and 34(e) read with Sections 50B(b), 34(f) read with Sections 34(2) and 34(h) read with Sections 34(2) and 34(h) read with Sections 34(2) and 36(1)(b & c) read with Sections 36(1)(i) and 37(b) read with Sections 37(i) and 50 read with Section 50B(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20093 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20093 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1220 of 2021]. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 16452/2023. The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented period of suffering and disruption, which brought grief and hardship to countless families across the country. Many lives were lost, and many households were left to bear sorrow that cannot easily be expressed in words. The present proceedings arise in the aftermath of that difficult time. The Court approaches the issues raised with a deep sense of empathy for the human loss endured during the pandemic, while remaining mindful that the questions before it must be examined with care and within the constitutional limits of judicial determination. At the outset, it is relevant to note that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, registered as W.P.(C) No. 1220 of 2021 (Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.), was instituted before the Supreme Court by parents of young individuals who had received COVID-19 vaccination and are stated to have died thereafter. Mon, 09 Mar 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20097 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20097 [Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011]. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment dated 12th August, 2009, and the subsequent judgment rendered in review on 15th March, 2011, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior,1 in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and Review Petition No. 300 of 2009, respectively whereby the appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed and the review of the appellant was dismissed. By the aforesaid orders, the judgment and decree dated 25 March 1996 passed by the Court of the Vth Additional District Judge, Gwalior2, in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1990 was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The appellants3 herein instituted in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1990, seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 to 4, respectively, in the said suit. Mon, 09 Mar 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20092 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20092 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3075/2024]. Leave granted. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 8th August 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 70355 of 2022. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against one of the accused, namely, the sister-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 3), while declining to extend the same relief to the present accused-appellants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 2). The facts giving rise to the present appeal, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows:. The complainant married Dr. Rishi Raj, the son of the present appellants, on 8th July 2019. On 31st March 2021, the husband instituted a divorce petition against the complainant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga, Bihar. Mon, 09 Mar 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20091 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20091 [Civil Appeal Nos. 11746-11747 Of 2024]. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, "IBC") marks a fundamental shift in India's insolvency regime: from a court-centric model to a creditor-driven process. At its core lies the doctrine of commercial wisdom: a conscious legislative choice to vest decisive authority in the Committee of Creditors (for short, "CoC"), comprising financial creditors who bear the economic consequences of failure. The IBC recognises that decisions on viability, valuation, and acceptable haircuts are inherently commercial, not judicial. Courts, therefore, do not substitute their assessment for that of the CoC. The adjudicating authority performs a supervisory role, ensuring statutory compliance and procedural fairness but refrains from second-guessing economic bodies, in this case, the CoC. The doctrine of commercial wisdom thus embodies both institutional discipline and legislative intent: insolvency resolution must be efficient, market-responsive and guided by those best placed to evaluate commercial risk. Fri, 27 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20079 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20079 [Civil Appeal No. 3200 of 2016]. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.10.1993, M/s Darshak Trading Company, respondent No.6 herein, obtained a cash-credit facility for withdrawal of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as a loan from Bhagyalakshmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., the appellant herein. Mercantile goods belonging to respondent No.6 were hypothecated to the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, stood as guarantors/sureties for the said loan obtained by respondent No.6 and executed contracts of guarantee in favour of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.6 in connivance with some officers employed by the appellant withdrew amounts far in excess of the Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) that had been sanctioned. Respondent No.6 defaulted in repaying the loan to the appellant. As a consequence, the appellant filed Lavad Suit No.181/1995 before the Board of Nominees, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.26,95,196.75/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs, Ninety-Five Thousands, One Hundred Ninety-Six and Seventy-Five Paise Only) along with interest from respondent No.6. Fri, 27 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20076 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20076 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8737 of 2021]. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.8737 of 2021. The dispute before us has had a litigious history and hence, a reference to the previous round of litigation would be necessary to understand the factual background. Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004 was introduced by way of an amendment on 18th September, 2004. Rule 6A reads as follows: 6A. Exemption from qualification: (i) Candidates appointed as Lecturer in Engineering Colleges in the Technical Education Department on or before the 27th March 1990, who have completed 45 years of age on the date of notification published for filling up the posts of Professor, Joint Director (Engineering College Stream) and Director of Technical Education as the case may be are exempted from acquiring Ph.D. Degree for eligibility for the above posts. (ii) Candidates applying for the post of Assistant Professor are exempt from possessing Ph.D. Degree but they have to acquire Ph.D. Degree within seven years of the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor as stipulated by the All India Council for Technical Education. Fri, 27 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20075 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20075 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 14989 of 2023]. Leave granted. This is an appeal challenging the final judgment and order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Appeal No. 433 of 2023 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") titled as "Union of India and 2 others v. Larsen & Tubro Limited (L and T)". Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and upheld the Order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Jhansi, and thereby upheld the Arbitral Award dated 25.12.2018 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that the underlying dispute originates from the Agreement dated 27.01.2011, bearing No. CME/NCR/JHSW/MOD/2010 (Turnkey), executed between the appellants (Union of India & North Central Railway Administration) and the respondent (Larsen & Tubro Limited [L&T]). Fri, 27 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20074 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20074 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2584-2585 of 2026]. The appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2025 whereby the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ('APTEL') modified the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi ('CERC') and directed that Respondent No.1, Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd. ('APNRL'), was Page 2 of 19 entitled to (i) compensation for coal purchased through eauction/ import to meet the shortfall in tapering linkage granted to it pending operationalization of the Ganeshpur captive coal block, and (ii) compensation on account of Change in Law events with effect from 25.08.2014 as per Article 10.2 of the PPA1/PSA2, along with carrying costs till actual payment was made. On 05.01.2011, a PSA was executed between the Appellant, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ('WBSEDCL') and Respondent No. 3, PTC India Limited3 ('PTC') for supply of 100 MW of power for a period of 25 years. Fri, 27 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20073 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20073 [Civil Appeal No. 6094 of 2019]. These appeals, arising out of different orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal2 and the National Company Law Tribunal3, raise a common question of law; one which would appear to be well settled, yet, has been canvassed before us in its entirety. The issue, at large, is, whether simultaneous proceedings for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process4 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20165 against the principal debtor as well as its corporate guarantor, or vice-versa, are maintainable?. It would seem, as has been mentioned earlier, that the issue stands squarely covered by a decision of this Court in BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr.6. However, since elaborate arguments were advanced spanning over a couple of days, covering a wide array of arguments, we have considered the matter in some depth. It is also imperative to mention, in all fairness to learned senior counsel/counsel for either side, that we are not tasked with assessing the correctness of BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. (supra). Thu, 26 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20072 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20072 [Writ Petition (C) No(s). 1082 of 2020]. The strength of a constitutional democracy is tested not merely by the liberties it guarantees in abstraction, but by the manner in which it treats those who stand at its margins, including persons deprived of their liberty with due process of law. Prisons, though instruments of lawful confinement, are not spaces where constitutional values can cease to operate. The guarantee of life and personal dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends beyond the prison gates and obliges the State to ensure that incarceration does not degenerate into inhumanity. Overcrowded prisons, bereft of humane living conditions and rehabilitative avenues, strike at the very core of this constitutional promise and call for sustained institutional response rather than sporadic remedial measures. It is within this constitutional conscience that the present proceedings have emerged. Thu, 26 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20071 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20071 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 4524 of 2023]. Leave granted. The present appeal assails the Final Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2022 passed in Crl. M.C. No.2802 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'). On 21.10.2005, one Mr. Joy Mandi was informed, about an alleged discrepancy in the labelling of the subject drug, alleged to be manufactured and sold by the Respondents, by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Thrissur, Kerala. On 05.01.2006, Mr. Joy Mandi filed a Complaint with Appellant No.2-Drug Inspector regarding the discrepancy in the labelling of the drug alleged to be manufactured and sold by the Respondents. Admittedly, no bill of purchase of the drug was placed on record in the Complaint Case. On 16.01.2006, Appellant No.2 received the Complaint dated 05.01.2006 filed by Mr. Joy Mandi, whereafter Appellant No.2 commenced an enquiry into the subject-matter of the said Complaint. Thu, 26 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20070 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20070 [Civil Appeal No.___________ of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 9558 of 2023]. Leave Granted. We have heard Mr. Rutwik Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel, for the Respondents. The Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2022 in RSA No. 123 of 2021 (for short, "impugned judgment") in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 100/524 of 2011-2005 (for short, "Civil Suit") before the Court of Civil Judge, Baripada, is the Appellant. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 2, respectively, in the Civil Suit. The subject matter of the Civil Appeal is described in Schedule - 'A' of the plaint, which is detailed as below (for short, "Plaint Schedule Property"): The land situated in Mouza - Baripada town Ward No.4 (Golapbag) under Baripada town Police station recorded in the name of the anima Bose under Khata No.6. Thu, 26 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20069 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20069 [Civil Appeal Nos. 002545 - 002548 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12343-12346/2018]. Leave granted. These six appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 1 whereby four writ petitions i.e., W.P. No. 1543 of 2009; W.P. No. 6544 of 2009; W.P. No. 393 of 2010; and W.P. No. 1779 of 2010 were disposed of. A plot of land bearing No. 21, admeasuring 810 Sq. mtr., pertaining to Survey No. 14, Village Chembur, Tehsil Kurla, Bombay Suburban District 2 was subjected to auction sale to recover dues of Mahanagar Co-operative Bank 3 payable by a partnership firm i.e., M/s. Borse Brothers4. The firm had availed cash credit facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Bank. As it failed to repay the amount, proceedings were initiated by the Bank under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 19605. In the said proceedings, on 04.04.1994 the Cooperative Court passed an ex parte award of Rs.24,19,904.92 plus interest @ 17.5% per annum against the firm, which was represented through its partners including Panditrao Borse. Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20068 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20068 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2557-2578 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6074 - 6095 of 2019]. Leave granted. The present batch of appeals arises out of the common judgment and order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 in Sales / Trade Tax Revision Nos. 617 of 2012, 527 of 2015, 383 of 2017, 410 of 2017, 47 of 2018, 528 of 2015, 529 of 2015, 7 of 2018, 8 of 2018, 9 of 2018, 457 of 2012, 458 of 2012, 459 of 2012, 460 of 2012, 461 of 2012, 462 of 2012, 464 of 2012, 465 of 2012, 466 of 2012, 467 of 2012, 468 of 2012 and 469 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the revisions preferred by the appellant and affirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad2 holding that the appellant's product "Sharbat Rooh Afza" was liable to Sales Tax / Value Added Tax at the rate of 12.5% under the residuary entry contained in Schedule V of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 20083. Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20067 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20067 [Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021]. Leave granted. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 dated 30.07.2021 passed in Misc. Bench No. 16314 of 2021 whereby the writ petition of the appellants seeking quashing of FIR 2 No.0112 of 2021, dated 14.03.2021, lodged at Police Station (for short, P.S.) Hazratganj, District Lucknow, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, has been dismissed. Vandana Jain (appellant no. 1), Divya Bhatia, Siddharth Jain (appellant no.2) and Kanishk Jain (appellant no.3), described as first party, entered into a joint venture agreement4 dated 16.08.2010 with Motor General Sales Ltd. (Respondent No.2), described as second party. As per the terms and conditions of the JVA, the first party gave development rights to the second party for developing land i.e., Plot No. 61 (Old No. 276A), admeasuring 1500 Square Yards, bearing Municipal No. 3A/207 & 208, Azad Nagar, Kanpur. Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20066 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20066 [Criminal Appeal No. 3105 of 2025]. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Appeal No.533 of 1996. By that judgment, the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.342 of 1986 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code1 has been upheld. The case of the prosecution in brief is that as per the informant-Chetan Mandal on 15.08.1985 at about 03.30 P.M, while he was cutting grass at his courtyard, he heard shouts raised by his brother Bulaki Mandal. On coming out of his house and approaching the passage outside, he saw Shiv Prasad Mandal and Dindayal Mandal having garasas in their hands, Anirudh Mandal having a sword in his hand, who were all entering the courtyard of his brother's house. After raising slogans, they started assaulting him. Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20065 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20065 [Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009]. The Appellant(s) filed a Writ Petition No. 15936 of 1989 in the High Court of Allahabad seeking Certiorari quashing the Notice dated 07.06.1988 issued under Section 123 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act'), Report of the Tehsildar, Kairana dated 24.05.1989 and the Order dated 20.06.1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short 'SDO'), Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh and sought a further relief in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to give effect to the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The dispute pertains to a piece of land bearing Plot No. 2362, area 1 bigha 14 biswas, situated in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Conflict is between the Appellant(s)/Ram Narain (since deceased) & others, who purchased the land and claimed rights as owners, and the Respondents/Suraj Bhan & others, who are agricultural labourers occupying the land. Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20064 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20064 [Civil Appeal Nos. 7181-7182 of 2016]. The present lis before us is a protracted dispute spanning over a century, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants lay competing claims to the ancestral pujari rights and the right to perform puja of the deity Amogasidda - a saint who passed away 600 years ago and his Samadhi was built as a reverence at the temple situated in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka. The core controversy centres on who amongst these feuding families constitutes the hereditary wahiwatdar pujari entitled to conduct the religious ceremonies, receive the offerings from devotees, and hold the annual Jatra celebrations at the said temple. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the Principal Munsiff at Bijapur in Original Suit No.56/1982. Wed, 25 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20063 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20063 [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5/2026 in C.A. No. 7023/2025]. After some arguments, at the outset, Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel, sought permission to be discharged from the matter. Permission granted; the learned senior counsel is discharged from representing the alleged contemnors. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the alleged contemnors, who are present-in-person before the Court, pursuant to our Order dated 16.01.2026, which reads as under: 'Issue notice. List on 24.02.2026. If by that date the order of which non-compliance has been alleged is not fully complied and affidavit of compliance filed, the alleged contemnors no. 1 to 4 shall remain physically present in Court.' Though an Affidavit-in-Reply stands filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.4, but on a perusal therefrom, we find that only excuses seem to have been offered. The said Affidavit, inter alia, contends 'the answering respondent has taken several steps and efforts to try and comply with the order of this Hon'ble Court. Tue, 24 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20078 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20078 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023]. Leave granted. The appeal essentially raises the question of which insurance company has the liability to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant, injured in the collision of two vehicles. The brief facts to be noticed are that on 19.05.2013 at around 11:00 pm, there occurred a collision between a trailer and a truck. The trailer is insured by the appellant herein while the truck is insured by the respondent insurance company. The Tribunal, looking at the evidence of the claimant, who was a Cleaner in the truck and travelling in it, found negligence on the truck driver. The High Court, on an appeal by the insurer of the truck reversed the findings of the Tribunal and put the liability on the insurer of the trailer. Admittedly, the trailer was moving in front and the truck behind it. The allegation in the claim petition was that the sudden brake applied by the trailer resulted in a collision, injuring the cleaner grievously. Tue, 24 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20077 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20077 [Civil Appeal No. 7140 of 2022]. The present batch of appeals arises out of the impugned judgments and orders dated 18.08.2022 and 13.03.2023 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai bench (hereinafter referred to as "NCLAT"). By the said impugned orders, the NCLAT declined to interfere with the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "NCLT") and refused to adjudicate the appellant- liquidators' applications challenging the provisional attachment orders passed by the authorities under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, ("Benami Act"), holding that the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to entertain such challenges and that the remedy lies exclusively before the competent forum constituted under the Benami Act. Accepting the concurrent findings of NCLT and NCLAT, we have held that orders passed under Benami Act cannot be questioned before authorities under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"). For the reasons to follow, we dismiss these appeals. Tue, 24 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20062 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20062 [Civil Appeal No. 11417 of 2025]. Judicial impropriety vis-a-vis financial rectitude is the moot question arising in this appeal in the context of the proceedings pending under the Companies Act, 1956 and that initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, the IBC). The Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund of the bank who financed respondent No.2, approached the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC, the Company Law Tribunal, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) for recovery of an amount of Rs.154,33,12,274/- with future interest; on the principal of Rs.10,60,00,000/- disbursed by way of two term loans on 05.04.1999 and 12.12.2000; the default having commenced from 01.01.2003. Respondent No.2 resisted the claim on the grounds of pending proceedings with respect to a Scheme of Arrangement (SOA) under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and alleged suppression of such fact before the Adjudicating Authority. Tue, 24 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20061 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20061 [Civil Appeal No. 7424 of 2025]. Refusal to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161, against Ecstasy Realty Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, is in issue. CP (IB) 922/MB/C-I/2022 filed in that regard by Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'the debenture trustee') was dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I ('NCLT'), vide order dated 03.02.2023. The same stood confirmed in appeal by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('NCLAT'), vide judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed in the debenture trustee's Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 467 of 2023. Aggrieved thereby, the debenture trustee is in appeal before this Court under Section 62 of the Code. The respondent company proposed to erect a residential-cum-retail project in Mumbai and to meet its requirement of funds in that regard, it proposed to issue 850 redeemable non-convertible debentures of the value of ₹850 crore in two series, viz., Series A and Series B. Tue, 24 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20060 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20060 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2506-2507 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26979-80 of 2025]. Leave Granted. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals questioning the correctness of final judgments and orders dated 15th October 20241 passed in CM NO.16984 of 2024 and 17th January 20232 passed in CM No.13449 of 2021, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The order dated 15th October 2024 was an order passed in Review of the latter. The order dated 17th January 2023 was a consequence of a clarification having been sought of order dated 18th September 2019 passed by the High Court in FAO No.2017 of 20113. The facts as necessary for disposal of the appeal are: On 2nd November 2009, a motorcycle being driven by Ravinder Kumar, carrying two pillion riders, Smt. Hom Devi and Kanika respondent no.1 herein collided with a jeep, on account of the latter's rash and negligent driving. Smt. Hom Devi passed away and the other two people on the motorcycle received multiple injuries. Tue, 24 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20059 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20059 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 1837-38 of 2011]. Heard. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 19th July, 2010, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 745 and 774 of 2006, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals preferred by the accused, namely, Roop Singh, Mukesh Gujar s/o Phool Singh, Pintu @ Jitendra Kumar, Ajju @ Ajay Singh, Baddu @ Badda, Vimal Rana, Dhanraj, Kehari Singh, Parath Singh, Meharban Singh, Phool Singh, Durjan Gujar, Paggal @ Bal Kishan, Bhagwan Gujar, Prakash Gujar, Mukesh Gujar s/o Rustom Gujar, Gudda @ Meharban, Malkhan Singh, Pappu @ Pushpendra Gujar. The accused persons were put to trial before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur,2 in Special Case No. 51 of 2004. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 7th April, 2006, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code3 and Sections 323, 325, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and were sentenced in the terms set out below:-. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20057 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20057 [Criminal Appeal No(s).__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 12440 of 2023]. Heard. Leave granted. The original complainant, Shobha Namdev Sonavane1, is before us for assailing the order dated 1st March, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad2 in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2023, whereby respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were granted bail in connection with Crime No. 322 of 2022 registered with Kopargaon Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 354, 294, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 509, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 of Indian Penal Code, 18603 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20056 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20056 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 1000 of 2012] [Criminal Appeal No(s). 1232-1237 of 2012]. Heard. These two appeals arise from common judgment dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad1 in Criminal Revision Application No. 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 of 2005 whereby, the revisions preferred by the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were dismissed and their conviction for offence punishable under section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed. The details of revisions preferred by the original accused persons are noted hereinbelow: The case of the prosecution in brief is that secret intelligence was received by the Customs officers at Mandvi indicating that prohibited smuggled foreign wrist watches had been concealed near a fisherman's jetty. Specifically, it was reported that two jute sacks containing smuggled wrist watches of foreign brands such as Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh were concealed in two pits located on a newly laid road, opposite to the Mandvi Gram Panchayat Rest House. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20055 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20055 [Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2026]. Heard. Leave Granted. The scope of present Appeal is confined to a limited aspect that is challenge to the Impugned Judgement and Order dated 21.05.2025 passed in F.A.O No. 147 of 2021 by the Delhi High Court to the extent it has fastened the liability of payment of penalty imposed under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "EC Act") upon the Appellant - New India Assurance Company Limited (for short 'Insurance Company') in addition to the amount of compensation and interest while allowing the appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act against order dated 19.11.2020 and 08.02.2021. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are set forth hereinbelow. The Respondent no. 1-3 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased employee Shri Sandeep who was employed as a commercial driver by Respondent No. 4-Shri Manoj Kumar. On 13.02.2017 at about 1 pm when Shri Sandeep was driving the offending vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire Cab (LMV) bearing Registration No. HR 63C 6448 registered in the name of Respondent No. 4, he collapsed. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20052 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20052 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5915 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly 'the High Court' hereinafter) in CRM-M No. 52858 of 2022 (Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. State of Haryana). It may be mentioned that appellant as the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) for quashing of the complaint bearing No. COMA/116/2018 dated 19.09.2018 filed under various provisions of the Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (briefly, 'the PCPNDT Act' hereinafter) as well as the summoning order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. However, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid petition. At the outset, a brief recital of the relevant facts would be in order. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20051 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20051 [Civil Appeal No. 12219 of 2018]. By order dated 10.05.2018, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, disposed of Telecommunication Petition No. 63 of 2016 filed by the respondent, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited, purportedly implementing certain directions of this Court, as per its own interpretation. Aggrieved by such interpretation, the Union of India through its Department of Telecommunication (DoT), filed the present appeal. In substance and in effect, this appeal turns upon the judgment dated 02.02.2012 of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 423 of 2010 and 10 of 2011, reported in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others vs. Union of India and others1, and the later orders passed by this Court on applications filed in the context thereof. By the aforestated judgment, this Court had declared illegal the grant of Unified Access Service licences and allotment of 2G Band Spectrum to various parties, including the respondent herein, and quashed the same. Fri, 20 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20049 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20049 [Civil Appeal No. 5289 of 2022]. These three appeals arise out of separate orders dated 30.07.2018, 30.07.2018, and 21.11.2019 respectively passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 in Consumer Complaint Nos. 827 of 2017, 828 of 2017 and 2355 of 2017. By the impugned orders, the NCDRC directed the appellant to complete construction of the flats and hand over possession to the respondents in these appeals on or before 31.03.2019, 31.03.2019 and 31.03.2020 respectively, after obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate from the competent authorities. The appellant was further directed to pay compensation by way of simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 13.11.2014, 14.12.2013 and 20.08.2015 respectively till the actual delivery of possession. The NCDRC also directed the appellant to pay/credit rebate for the period from 01.09.2013 to 12.11.2014 at the same rate at which such rebate had earlier been credited to the account of the respondent Dr. Mohit Khirbat, and to pay litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents in each case. Fri, 20 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20047 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20047 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 9281 of 2025]. Leave granted. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 167 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The Appellants sought the quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017 (subsequently renumbered as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017). The Appellants are being prosecuted for contravening Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable under Section 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. The Appellant No. 1, M/s SBS Biotech, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical preparations at Mauza Rampur Jattan, Nahan Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.. The firm operates under valid drug licenses issued in Form-25 and Form-28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ('the Rules'), and is mandated to adhere to Schedule-M of the Rules. Appellant No. 2, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Santoshi, is the Production Head, and Appellant No. 3, Mr. Avinash Banga, was arrayed as the alleged managing partner at the relevant time. Fri, 20 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20046 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20046 [Civil Appeal Nos.10527-10528 of 2024]. These appeals, filed under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 arise out of the impugned judgment and final orders dated 30.07.2024 and 19.10.2023 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Commission) in the Review Petition and consumer case respectively. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are that landowners entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with the developer on 24.02.2012 and executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of the developer. On 21.02.2013, the developer obtained the sanctioned plan and a construction licence. Thereafter, from 29.07.2013, onwards the developer executed the Memoranda of Sale Agreements with the flat buyers. Under the Sale Agreements, the developer agreed to handover the possession of flats within 36 months. The initial 36 months period for handing over the possession of the flats expired on 24.08.2016. The grace period of six months also expired on 24.02.2017. Fri, 20 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20045 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20045 [Criminal Appeal No. 5357 of 2025]. his Appeal calls in question the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.389/2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Electricity Act 03), wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC along with default stipulations. On 28.07.2009, Bhagwati Bai (P.W.4) lodged a missing report at Pardeshipura Police Station, Indore, stating that her daughter Archana @ Pinki was missing from 25.07.2009. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the mobile phone of Archana @ Pinki was being used by a person who allegedly had custody of her, and was seeking a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh from her husband Rajesh (P.W.12). Fri, 20 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20044 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20044 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 20547/2025]. Leave granted. The appellants herein have impugned the final order and judgment dated 31.01.2023 passed in CRA No.167 of 2020 by the High Court at Calcutta, by which it commuted the award of death penalty to life imprisonment, however without the possibility of remission till the end of the appellants' natural lives. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the appellants contacted the deceased victim's father, demanding ransom in exchange for the victim's return. The next day, i.e. on 14.12.2014, the police arrested three persons including the appellants herein and one juvenile. Based on their statements, the police recovered the victim's dead body from the bank of the river Ganga, where it had been buried in a gunny bag. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 363, 364A, 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "POCSO Act"). Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20058 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20058 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2211/2024]. Present appeal has been instituted by Power Trust,1 a promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.2 under Section 62, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20163, challenging order dated 25.01.2024 by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi4. By the impugned order, NCLAT has upheld order dated 02.01.2024 by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench5, whereby the NCLT admitted an application filed under Section 7, IBC6 by REC Ltd.7 and initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process8 against the Corporate Debtor. A common loan agreement dated 19.06.2013 was entered into between the Corporate Debtor and 2nd Respondent to avail a term loan of Rs. 1859 crore for setting up of a thermal power plant at Haldia, West Bengal. Due to cost overruns, on 30.10.2015, the Corporate Debtor availed an additional term loan facility of Rs. 446.97 crore. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor entered into a power purchase agreement9 with the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20041 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20041 [Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5431 of 2026 arising out of Diary No. 30148 of 2022]. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 are aggrieved against the judgment dated 11.04.2019, passed by the High Court1 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 671 of 2018. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the Single Judge dated 22.02.2018 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2016, thereby affirming the termination of services of the petitioners therein. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 798 and 799 of 2026 are before this Court, aggrieved against the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal No. 567 of 2018 by the High Court vide order dated 01.11.2022. The High Court dismissed the aforesaid LPA relying upon earlier order dated 11.04.2019 passed in LPA No. 671 of 2018, since both the matters involved same issue. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants approached the High Court challenging their dismissal from the post of librarian on which they were appointed by the State of Bihar. Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20039 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20039 [Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012]. The present appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 28th December 2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2004 and Criminal Revision Case No. 2055 of 2004, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant-Accused and the criminal revision filed by the mother of the deceased were dismissed. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the High Court reduced the sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC to two years but increased the fine to ₹ 50,000/. It is pertinent to mention that the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision were filed against the judgment dated 23rd February 2004 in Sessions Case No.88 of 2003, whereby the Appellant-Accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fined ₹ 5,000/- under Section 306 IPC and one year simple imprisonment and fined ₹ 1,000/- under Section 309 IPC. Tue, 17 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20038 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20038 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2021]. The supreme objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence against crime by imposing adequate punishment. Leave Granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 18.12.2020 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment") passed in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 121 of 2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the High Court") wherein the criminal revision filed by the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "Private Respondents") was allowed by the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction of Private Respondents for the offences punishable under Section 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), but it modified the sentence awarded to them from three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹ 5,000/- each (totalling to ₹ 10,000/-) to period already undergone with an enhanced fine of ₹ 50,000/- each (totalling to ₹ 1,00,000/-). Tue, 17 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20037 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20037 [Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5624 of 2024]. Leave granted. A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered and in the present case, the murder of a sixyear- old girl went unpunished and her stepfather was incarcerated on mere conjectures. The impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the stepfather, on three circumstances. One, the last seen together theory propounded through a neighbour. Then, the ashes and the bony remnants from the charred remains of the child, having been recovered on the information supplied by the accused. And last, the skull and teeth recovered from a canal having tallied with the sample DNA profile of the biological parents of the girl child, establishing death unequivocally. The High Court also emphasized the aspect of no explanation having been offered by the accused regarding his knowledge of the location from which the bony remnants of the deceased were recovered; an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Tue, 17 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20035 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20035 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19708 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appellant is the complainant in FIR No. 0568 dated 29.12.2023, registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, on the file of P.S. Risiya, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh. He is aggrieved by the grant of bail to an accused therein., viz., Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary, respondent No.1, vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9871 of 2025 by a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The case of the complainant was that he had supplied foodgrains to the four named accused in the FIR, including respondent No.1, but he was paid only ₹5,02,57,000/- out of the total sum due and payable to him, i.e., ₹11,52,38,156/-. He claimed that cheques were issued but when those cheques were presented, they were dishonoured for want of funds. Tue, 17 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20034 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20034 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 16057 of 2025]. Leave granted. Nepotism and self-aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system, more so when it happens within a society comprising members of the government service, enabling housing facilities to its members by transparent allotment. The second respondent HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (for short, 'HEWO') is one such society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The enactment provides for establishment of societies for the promotion of literature, science, fine arts, diffusion of useful knowledge, diffusion of political education and for charitable purposes, as the preamble proclaims. Obviously, HEWO is constituted for a charitable purpose, especially on the principle that charity begins at home, to benefit its own members by allotment of housing facilities. In the present case, we are concerned with the allotment of two super deluxe flats in the apartment complex built by HEWO. Tue, 17 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20033 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20033 [Criminal Appeal No(s).__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2641 of 2021]. Heard. Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the appellant for assailing the order dated 16th December, 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Orissa1 in Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed the aforesaid revision preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 24th December, 2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, in G.R. Case No. 654 of 2009. The learned S.D.J.M., vide order dated 24th December, 2011 had taken cognizance against the appellant in connection with the FIR No. 55 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant and respondent No. 22 were born to the same parents; however, the respondent-complainant was subsequently adopted by one Shri Brundaban Nayak, who was issueless. Upon the demise of Shri Brundaban Nayak, the respondent-complainant inherited all the estates left behind by him. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20054 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20054 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8316 of 2024]. At the outset, it may be noted that the present judgment is structured in two parts. The first part addresses the civil appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petitions and examines the legality of the change of Land Use and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The second part separately considers the writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which raise an independent challenge to subsequent regulatory actions taken during the pendency of the appeals. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20134 of 2022 and CWP No. 18676 of 2022. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the change of Land Use dated 13.12.2021 granted in favour of "Shree Cement North Private Limited". Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8316 of 2024 has been filed by the writ petitioners in CWP No. 20134 of 2022. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20032 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20032 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 15349 of 2024]. Leave Granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the original complainant") challenging the Order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1047 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order") by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"), wherein the High Court disposed of the third anticipatory bail application filed by Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Accused"), while directing the Accused to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail. The High Court further directed that the trial Court shall grant bail to the Accused on the same day after imposing adequate conditions in accordance with law. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we deem it appropriate to refer to the allegations contained in the FIRs lodged in the present case and the consequential proceedings that have followed their institution. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20030 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20030 [Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2015]. The appellants herein, Manoj (A1) and Prakash (A2), who are related to each other as nephew and uncle, were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 19551 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by judgment dated 03.04.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Aurangabad2 in Special Case No. 22 of 1994. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad3. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present criminal appeals. The prosecution case is that the Public Works Department4 of the State Government had awarded the work of construction of a Khar passage in cement concrete along the Kannad - Bahirgaon Road, Aurangabad to Bharat Majdoor Credit Cooperative Society. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20029 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20029 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 29214 of 2019]. Leave granted. The appellants having registered themselves with the Employment Exchange claim to have worked as casual workers with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior for a considerable period of time. Under the expectation that they would be conferred temporary status and their services would be thereafter regularized, the appellants initially made representations to the Income Tax Department. On their request not being accepted, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench1 by preferring Original Application No.719 of 2012 with a prayer to consider their cases for regularization in service. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 13.05.2015 held that the services of the appellants were not liable to be regularized on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic criteria of regular service for a period of ten years as on 10.04.2006 in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.2. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20027 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20027 [Civil Appeal No(s). 1810 of 2021]. The question for our consideration is whether telecom service providers (TSPs), called upon to pay the license dues by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) can invoke moratorium on the basis of voluntary corporate insolvency resolution process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for restructuring of their assets. The asset in question is the Spectrum allocated to the TSPs through auction. The endeavour to treat spectrum as an asset in the hands of TSPs gives rise to a fundamental question as to its ownership, possession, use, transfer, or assignment. Its definition and legal province are the subject matter of our inquiry. This issue is not as complicated as it seems. We could demystify the legal challenge by first understanding spectrum as a material resource, precisely as what our Constitution refers to as the material resource of the community. If that be so, it is easy to find the path by simply following the State policy to ensure that spectrum and its benefits sub-serve common good - not uncommon good. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20026 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20026 [Civil Appeal No(s).__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 26653-26654 of 2024]. Leave granted. The present appeal(s) are preferred by the appellant Cricket Association against the final judgment and order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 12.06.2024 disposing of a clutch of Writ Appeals, namely Writ Appeal (MD) No. 896 of 2024 and Writ Appeal (MD) No. 915 of 2024. The appellant is a district cricket association formed in 1958, registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and governed by its rules and bye-laws and is affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association ('TNCA'), the State association. The facts in both the appeals before the High Court were distinct in content but analogous in form in the manner in which they sought to impugn the alleged lapses in the workings of the appellant, and are canvassed below in brief. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20025 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20025 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 17785 of 2024]. Leave granted. Both these appeals are preferred by the appellant, challenging the common impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 733 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 769 of 2024, whereby the High Court affirmed the rejection of approval to the appointment of the appellant as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) on the ground that he did not possess the requisite State Eligibility Test qualification in the concerned subject. As the issue in both these appeals is the same and as the Division Bench of High Court has passed a common judgment and order, both these appeals are being disposed of together by the present order. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant had entered the service as an Upper Primary School Teacher on 01.11.2002 and was promoted as High School Teacher on 15.07.2004. Fri, 13 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20024 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20024 [Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022]. This appeal, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161, impugns judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi2, dated 17.12.2021, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 68 of 2019 and I.A. No. 1078 of 2021. A brief narration of facts in a chronological order would be apposite. The first respondent (State Bank of India3), claiming itself to be the Financial Creditor4 of M/s. Metal Closure Pvt. Ltd. (i.e., the Corporate Debtor5), filed an application under Section 76 of IBC on behalf of self and on behalf of a consortium of banks comprising SBI, Punjab National Bank7, Corporation Bank and UCO Bank against CD for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process8, inter alia, alleging that CD is a defaulter of dues, exceeding Rs. 280 crores, payable against various credit facilities extended from time to time by members of the consortium. Thu, 12 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20028 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20028 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 19779 of 2024]. Leave granted. M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Limited, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore/Respondent No. 2 was a Public Limited Company, and on 30.06.2011, was incorporated as a Private Limited Company. The Cotton Corporation of India Limited, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore ("CCI")/Respondent No. 1 primarily engages in the business of sale and purchase of cotton/cotton bales. On 22.01.1998, a sale agreement was entered into between the first and second respondents for the sale of cotton bales. On account of a dispute in recovery of the sale price of cotton bales supplied under the sale agreement dated 22.01.1998, the first respondent raised an arbitral dispute in AP No. 9 of 1999 for recovery of Rs. 37,51,380/- with interest and cost. On 11.06.2001, the learned arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs. 26,00,572.90/- with future interest at 18% per annum and cost. Thu, 12 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20023 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20023 [Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018]. Leave granted. These appeals, filed both by the Union of India and by Exservicemen, under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 ('Act'), arise out of conflicting decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal ('Tribunal') concerning the period for which arrears of disability pension are payable. The Tribunal in certain cases directed payment of arrears of disability pension from specified cut-off dates, whereas, in others, restricted such benefits to 3 years prior to filing of the applications before the Tribunal. The present batch of appeals require this Court to determine whether entitlement to disability pension, once judicially affirmed, can be curtailed beyond a prescribed period by invoking limitation, delay or laches. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Civil Appeal Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 are noticed. The respondent in C.A. Nos.6820-6824 of 2018 was enrolled on 30.03.1988 in the Indian Air Force and was discharged on 31.03.2008 upon completion of tenure. Thu, 12 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20022 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20022 [Civil Appeal Nos. 1558-1559/2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27266-67/2024]. Leave granted. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by the impugned judgment and order dated 05th September, 2024 allowed a writ petition1 filed by the first respondent. A remand was ordered to the School Tribunal, Nagpur2 to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service upon quashing of the final order of dismissal from service. Incidentally, the Tribunal vide its order dated 8th August, 2019 had set aside an order of the first respondent dismissing the appellant from service and granted reinstatement together with consequential benefits to her. Perusal of the impugned order dated 05th September, 2024 reveals that the High Court considered a solitary point raised on behalf of the first respondent, i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into all the records and proceedings more particularly the resolution authorizing the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings against the appellant, and upon recording a satisfaction that the Tribunal needs to revisit the matter and without looking into any other point, expressed the view that a remand was indeed called for. Wed, 11 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20021 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20021 [Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12669 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 22824 of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2, Mazahar Khan, in connection with FIR No. 314 of 2024 registered at Police Station Saray Khwaja, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. The prosecution case, as borne out from the record, is that FIR No. 314 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 was lodged by the complainant alleging the existence of a large-scale organised scam and racket involving fabrication and circulation of forged legal qualifications and academic certificates, particularly within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that under the said racket, individuals were falsely projecting themselves as advocates and were appearing before this Court as well as various High Courts. Wed, 11 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20018 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20018 [Civil Appeal Nos.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 22628-22637 of 2024]. Leave granted. The point for consideration in the subject Civil Appeals is whether the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Tuticorin ("HWP") are covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("PG Act"). The Civil Appeals arise from a common Judgment dated 21.06.2023 in Writ Appeal No. 1687 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 19117 and batch. The impugned Judgment held and declared that the employees of HWP are not covered by the definition of Section 2(e) of the PG Act. Hence, the Civil Appeals are at the instance of the retired employees of HWP. The circumstances leading to the dispute between the parties are admitted and fall within a narrow compass. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 ("AE Act"), was enacted by the Parliament and is effective from 15.09.1962. The objective of the AE Act is to provide for the development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful purposes. Wed, 11 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20017 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20017 [Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 11965 of 2024]. Leave granted. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 12.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.40486 of 2022. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant and confirmed the order of his dismissal from service. The appellant was recruited as an attender in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar on 09.11.1998. According to the appellant, since he was indisposed with high fever, vomiting and motion from 03.08.2017 to 07.08.2017, he telephonically informed about his absence to the Office Superintendent. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, by a letter dated 05.08.2017, wrote to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, stating that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from 03.08.2017 to 05.08.2017; that he had not applied for any kind of leave; that his unauthorized absence caused inconvenience to the Court and that the Court was not able to function properly. Wed, 11 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20016 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20016 [Civil Appeal No(s)._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 17141 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal by the alleged contemnor is against an interim order passed by the High Court directing listing of the contempt petition for framing of charges. The short facts leading to filing of the contempt petition, followed by the direction as indicated hereinabove are as follows. The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college sometime in the year 1993. We are informed that the college was receiving certain financial assistance from the State and this ended with the advent of the Government policy dated 21.08.2000 not to grant and financial assistance to non-aided Government colleges. Challenging this policy by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, respondents sought directions for sanction of the posts and also for payment of salaries from out of Government exchequer. Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20048 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20048 [Civil Appeal No. 1478 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6146 of 2026 arising out of Diary No. 68939 of 2025]. Delay in refiling is condoned. Applications for (i) permission to file the petition; (ii) condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement; (iii) setting aside the abatement; and (iv) substitution, are allowed. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned counsel, Mr. Sujoy Datta, AOR accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2/caveator. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Misc. Jurisdiction Case No.1711 of 2019. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned senior counsel for the respondents. The main grievance of the appellants is with regard to the setting aside of the order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the trial court in Title Suit No.5031/2014. For ease of reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 07.09.2019 is extracted as under: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20042 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20042 [Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1 / 2025]. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions in Diary No. 15692/2025 and Diary No. 21813/2025 is granted. Application for intervention is allowed. Leave granted. The instant suo motu writ petition was registered in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, prompted by a letter dated 20.03.2025 received from an organisation named 'We the Women of India', through its Founder President, Ms. Shobha Gupta, Senior Advocate. Vide the said letter, she brought our attention to a judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ("High Court") in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the order of summons dated 26.03.2023 issued by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj to two accused persons in Complaint Case No. 23/2022. Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20036 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20036 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10711of 2025]. Leave Granted. This appeal at the instance of the accused calls into question the correctness of the final judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 3945 of 2025, dated 3rd July 2025 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. In terms of the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the accused's appeal arising out of the proceedings before the learned Special Judge1, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892 whereby his prayer for discharge under Section 2273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734, was allowed only in part. The chargesheet that was filed upon completion of the investigation in FIR No. 0653 of 2022 dated 15th November 2022 registered at PS Bilpank, District Ratlam. Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20015 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20015 [Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 @ SLP (C) Nos. 23647-23648 of 2025]. Leave granted. These appeals and the Writ Petitions raise before this Court a question of considerable, constitutional and environmental significance, namely the State's obligation to protect reserved forest in discharge of its constitutional mandate and the manner in which such obligation must be fulfilled, when long standing human habitation is asserted within the forest land. The appellants and the writ petitioners before this Court are residents of several villages which are situate in Doyang reserved forest, South Nambar Reserved Forests, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest and Gola Ghat Forest in the State of Assam. According to the appellants/writ petitioners, they and their predecessors have been residing in the villages for more than seventy years. The appellants/writ petitioners contend that their existence and residence have been acknowledged by issuing Aadhar Cards, ration cards and other identity documents by the state agencies. Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20014 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20014 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025]. Leave granted. Orchestrating the dissolution of a business empire built by the father, the children resorted to arbitration, conciliation and litigation to go their independent ways with their share of the pie, as is common in families with multiplying numbers and proliferating assets. Two out of the four siblings found an amicable partition through arbitration. The two remaining, along with their families are grappling with each other for an equitable partition of the huge assets and the vast properties amassed over the years. The respective families are represented by their eldest, the brothers, Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan who along with their immediate kin stakes equal claim to the assets, left to their joint share in the earlier arbitration and those accumulated thereafter. Vaikundarajan group relies on a Conciliation Award, strongly refuted by the Jegatheesan group, who took recourse first to arbitration, which failed and then to litigation. Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20013 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20013 [Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 54941/2025]. Respondent-Managing Committee of Namatara Girls' High School1 had approached the State Education Tribunal2, Bhubaneswar, Odisha with an application3 under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 for release of grant-in-aid. By an order dated 30th December, 2013, the Tribunal allowed the application by directing the State of Odisha and the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha to release grant-in-aid in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school in the manner as directed. The order dated 30th December, 2013 was carried in appeal4 by the State of Odisha before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack5 on 16th October, 2015. The appeal was time-barred. Not only that, the appeal was not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order. Since presentation of the appeal, for a period of 8 years to be precise, the State of Odisha had not filed the certified copy of the impugned order. Mon, 09 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20020 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20020 [Criminal Appeal No.___________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536/2026]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad dated 07.01.2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.11038/2025 by which the anticipatory bail application preferred by the appellant came to be rejected. We heard Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ankit Goel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. It appears from the materials on record that the First Information Report bearing No.560/2024 came to be registered with the Akbarpur Police Station, District Kanpur Dehat, State of Uttar Pradesh for the offence punishable under Section 80(2)/85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant before us is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased. The deceased was married to the brother of the appellant past 7 months. Mon, 09 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20019 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20019 [Civil Appeal No(s).__________ of 2026 arising out of @ SLP (C) No(s). 215-216 of 2023]. Leave granted. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Additionally, we have had the pleasure of listening to Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India, who made his submissions at our request. Documents filed, judgments relied upon, and the written submissions have been perused and duly taken on record. We are dealing with a batch of matters wherein the High Courts, vide the impugned judgments, have dismissed the first appeals filed by the appellant(s) under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") as being barred by limitation. The primary issue before us is on the interplay of Section 74 read with Section 103 of the 2013 Act, on the one hand, and Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1963 Act") on the other. Mon, 09 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20012 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20012 [Civil Appeal No.3318 of 2023]. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order1 passed by the Commission2 in the Complaint3 filed by the respondent whereby compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/- was awarded to her on account of deficiency in service. Briefly, the facts available on record are that the respondent visited the beauty salon in the appellant's ITC Maurya Hotel at New Delhi on 12.04.2018 for her haircut. Being dissatisfied with the service rendered, the respondent filed a complaint before the Commission in July 2018. Vide order dated 21.09.2021, the Commission found the appellant guilty of the deficiency in service and medical negligence. A sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the respondent. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred appeal4 before this Court. Vide judgement dated 07.02.2023, the aforesaid appeal was disposed of by this Court, while not interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the Commission regarding deficiency in service. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20010 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20010 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 11868 of 2024]. Leave granted. The appeal is at the instance of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in O.S No. 197 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kozhikode. The 1st Respondent filed OS No. 197 of 2013 for declaration, perpetual injunction, and damages for use and occupation. The Plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the Plaint ASchedule consisting of three items of immovable property. A few household items are mentioned in Plaint B-Schedule. The Plaintiff is the 1st Defendant’s sister. The Plaintiff resides in Mumbai, and the 1st Defendant resides in Kozhikode. The 1st defendant is the brother-in-law of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Stated chronologically, on 31.07.1998, the Plaintiff is said to have executed a Power of Attorney ("PoA") in favour of the 1st defendant. The PoA is exhibited by the Plaintiff as Exhibit A-4 and by the Defendants as Exhibit B-2, a notarised photocopy. On 15.03.2007, the 1st Defendant, in the purported authority given to him through the PoA/Exh. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20009 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20009 [Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011]. The Appeal arises from the judgment dated 24.07.2010 in RSA No. 221 of 1998 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. Sham Sunder (Since Deceased) filed Case No. 496 of 1990 before the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Una. The Civil Appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiff's LRs. CS No. 496 of 1990 was at the first instance filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in any manner from agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals - 05 Marlas in Khewat No. 194, Khatuni No. 1029, Khasra Nos. 4647, 4701, 4702 4742 situated in Village Lohara, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The plaintiff amended the plaint to include the prayer for recovery of possession from the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner, and the co-owner is in exclusive Hisadari possession of the plaintiff. The defendants are strangers and have no right, title, or interest in the suit schedule. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20008 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20008 [Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2012]. The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants"), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2012, passed in WPLRT No. 43 of 2010 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the writ petition preferred by Jai Hind Private Limited, the respondent-company herein, and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short), thereby allowing the respondent-company to retain 211.21 acres of land. By the said judgment, the High Court also upheld the review order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (hereinafter referred to as "B.L. & L.R.O."), Bharatpur-II, Murshidabad, West Bengal, as well as the Government Order dated 26.02.2008 issued by the Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20007 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20007 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C.) No. 23880 of 2022]. Leave granted. The present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 31.01.20201 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras2 in C.M.A. No. 2806 of 2013, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimants (heirs of the deceased) and modified the award dated 08.11.20123, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai4 while deciding a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19885. It is at the instance of the claimants/appellants before the High Court6. Facts, in brief, are that on 09.06.2011, D. Velu7, aged about 37 years8 as noted by the High Court, was riding a two-wheeler. A tanker lorry9 insured with the respondent-insurance company10, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the twowheeler and as a result thereof the victim died instantly. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20006 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20006 [Interlocutory Application No. 25652 of 2026]. Heard Ms. Aparna Bhat, the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. By this application the following has been prayed for:- "a) Direct the appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for comprehensive and scientific analysis of the survey data; b) Direct the Ministry of Education, Union of India, to extend all necessary administrative support, infrastructure, data access, and to provide appropriate remuneration /honorarium to Dr. Anant, as per prevalent norms or as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." We direct that:- (i) Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India be appointed as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for the purpose of comprehensive and scientific analysis of the survey data. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20005 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20005 [Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2026]. By this Miscellaneous Application, Ms. Jayna Kothari, the learned Amicus Curiae has prayed for the following:- "Kindly allow the present application filed by the Amicus Curiae and pass appropriate directions to include Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Senior Associate, Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member to the Advisory Committee formed by the order dated 17.10.2025.". Vide our judgment and order dated 17.10.2025, we had constituted the Advisory Committee with Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar as a member to represent the Centre for Law and Policy Research ("Centre"). We take note of the fact that Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar is no longer an Associate with the Centre. However, taking into consideration the extensive work undertaken by Ms. Nithya Rajshekhar with regard to the transgender rights, we clarify that she would continue as one of the members of the Advisory Committee. Fri, 06 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20004 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20004 [Civil Appeal Nos. 13749-13755 of 2024]. The producer and distributor of groundnut seeds, namely, M/s. Shyam Beej Bhandar and Shree Ram Agro Bio-Tech ("appellants", for short) respectively have filed these appeals assailing the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ("NCDRC", for short) in Revision Petition Nos.1275 to 1281 of 2019. By the impugned order, the NCDRC has set aside the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan ("State Commission", for short) which was in favour of the appellants and thereby sustained the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan ("District Forum", for short) in all the complaints filed by the respondents-farmers. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondentsfarmers approached the appellant for the purchase of ground nut seeds on 15.06.2013. Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20031 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20031 [Interlocutory Application No. 25652 of 2026]. Heard Ms. Aparna Bhat, the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. By this application the following has been prayed for:- a) Direct the appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for comprehensive and scientific analysis of the survey data; b) Direct the Ministry of Education, Union of India, to extend all necessary administrative support, infrastructure, data access, and to provide appropriate remuneration /honorarium to Dr. Anant, as per prevalent norms or as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." We direct that:- (i) Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India be appointed as Technical Consultant to the National Task Force for the purpose of comprehensive and scientific analysis of the survey data. (ii) The Ministry of Education, Union of India shall pass an order of appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant at the earliest. Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20003 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20003 [Civil Appeal No(s).__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 36106 of 2025]. Heard. Leave granted. At the outset, it is apposite to note that Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, Uday Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina Pritish Nandy, and Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel representing respondent No.7-Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society Limited1, entered appearance before this Court on caveat and were accordingly heard. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel representing the contesting respondent Nos. 1-3 (writ petitioners before the High Court), emphatically submitted that the said respondents are not desirous of filing any reply/counter affidavit and that the matter may be heard as it stands. Accordingly, we have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the contesting respondents on merits. These two appeals by special leave call into question the judgment dated 19th November, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay2 in Writ Petition No.9470 of 2025. Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20002 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20002 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2129-2130 of 2012]. The present Civil Appeals arise out of a long-drawn family dispute concerning partition, and alienation of agricultural properties situated primarily in and around Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The dispute pertain to 79 items of immovable properties, all of which are set out with survey numbers, extents, and boundaries in the plaint schedule consisting mainly of agricultural lands. At each stage of adjudication, the concerns have primarily pertained to the nature and character of the suit properties; the extent to which certain alienations are binding on the coparcenary; and the legal effect of an alleged testamentary disposition purported to have been executed shortly before the demise of the family patriarch. The litigation has resulted in concurrent findings of fact, subject to limited and item-specific modifications at the appellate stages. The genealogy of the parties is admitted and forms the foundational backdrop of the lis. Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20001 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20001 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the High Court for the State of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPCR No.117/2025 dismissing the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India preferred by the accused-appellant herein and thereby refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered at Sarkanda Police Station, District Bilaspur under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") that was registered by the complainant-respondent No.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.3, an Advocate by profession, solemnized marriage with one Mitendra Kumar Dhirde on 02.06.2011 and subsequently gave birth to a boy named Ojash on 12.04.2012. Thereafter, owing to matrimonial discord between the couple, the husband sought divorce by filing the divorce petition Civil Case No.F/232A/2018 against the complainant-respondent No.3 on 10.12.2018 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20000 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20000 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22628-22630 of 2022]. The idea of a welfare state casts a positive duty upon the State to ensure the social and economic well-being of its citizens. The role of the State is as such not limited to maintaining law and order or facilitating markets, but extends to creating or easing the way for conditions in which individuals can live with security, dignity, and a reasonable standard of living. One of the most persistent threats to this objective that has become a permanent 'bad penny', is inflation, which steadily erodes purchasing power, thereby placing a disproportionate burden on salaried and lower-income groups. In this context, Dearness Allowance emerges as a practical instrument of protection in the hands of the welfare state, which protects its employees from the adverse effects of rising prices. Dearness Allowance is designed to neutralise the impact of inflation. When the cost of essential goods increases, salaries that do not account for the same and remain in a bygone era, often fail to meet the basic needs, leading to a decline in living standards. Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19999 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19999 [Civil Appeal No. 779/2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11667/2024]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 12.04.2024 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30650/2023 by which the petition filed by the appellants herein before the High Court under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act, 1996") came to be disposed of by substituting the earlier Arbitrator appointed by the High Court, however, with a rider that the arbitral proceedings that took place on seven particular dates, i.e., from 17.03.2022 to 25.08.2022 could be said to be a nullity as those proceedings were undertaken at the time when the respondent company was under a moratorium as envisaged under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20011 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20011 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 9459 of 2023]. Leave granted. Education, that too good education at least up to the primary level based upon values and morals, is fundamental to the progress of the nation. Accepting the above fundamental principle, the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment Act), 2002 vide Section 2, inserted Article 21A in the Constitution of India with effect from 01.04.2010 recognizing Right to Education to all children between the age of 6-14 years. Article 21A reads as under:- "21A. Right to education.- The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine". In furtherance of the above objective, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091 was enacted on 26.08.2009 to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6-14 years. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19998 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19998 Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 350 of 2024]. Leave Granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging the Judgment dated 20.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment") passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4000 of 2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"). The writ petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the High Court, wherein it refused to quash the Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4, respectively. The sole question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "CrPC") (also refer to Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")), the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC (also refer to Section 193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/ Court concerned? Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19997 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19997 [Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023]. This Appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.74/2017, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 at New Delhi whereby, the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint preferred by the appellants. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts stand thus: the appellants filed a complaint before the NCDRC for seeking a direction to the respondents to pay (i) Rs. 1,59,89,994/- being 18% interest; (ii) Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation due to the change in location of Tower- C; (iv) Rs.35,61,494/- as excess amount realized towards fixtures and fitting; (v) Rs.2,50,000/- as the litigation costs; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper. The backdrop of the above complaint is that the respondents launched a group housing project in the name of 'The Villas' at Village Sahraul, Sector-25, Gurgaon, in the year 2005. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19996 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19996 [Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 8299 of 2021]. Leave granted. The issues that arise in both the appeals are common and they revolve around the interpretation of Clause 23 of the Contract Agreement and, more particularly, the question as to whether a dispute with regard to the existence and validity of the said clause could have been raised before the arbitrator? The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 did not apply to the arbitral proceedings concerned in these matters. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail hereinbelow. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2020 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2435 of 2019. On 08.07.2009, the appellant, a sole proprietorship concern, engaged in the supply and construction business was awarded the construction work for the structure of 40 HIG-1 houses (High-Income Group) and 10 HIG-2 Flats (Stilt + 10 Storey) at Sector-29, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan by the respondent. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19995 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19995 [Civil Appeal No.___________ of 2026 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 28934 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal is in relation to an unfortunate dispute regarding the custody of two minor sons namely Malik Karim Billah born on 17.10.2017 and Malik Rahim Billah born on 04.11.2019 to the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. Both the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are Indian citizens and are well educated. They were married on 28.07.2015 in Srinagar in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law. As the appellant-husband was serving as an electrical engineer in Qatar since 2013, both of them started residing at Qatar immediately after the marriage where the aforesaid two sons were born to them out of the wedlock. Sometime later, on account of matrimonial discord, both of them preferred separate divorce petitions, namely, Case No.882/20211 and Case No.1300/20212 before the Family Court at Qatar. Both the petitions were decided by a common judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 and a decree of judicial divorce based on mutual abuse was granted. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19994 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19994 [Civil Appeal Nos. 11302-11303 of 2016]. The appellant is an IPS Officer of Tamil Nadu Cadre. He was selected against a vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. He filed the present appeals challenging the orders1 passed by the High Court2. Vide the order dated 26.08.2011, the High Court upheld the order3 passed by the Tribunal,4 by which the application5 filed by the appellant was dismissed. Subsequently, review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one Rishikesh Meena appeared in Civil Services Examination held in the year 2003. As per the merit list, he was selected in the Indian Police Service (IPS) and was allocated West Bengal cadre. He again appeared in 2004 Civil Services Examination and qualified against the vacancy of an IPS Officer. As he was already serving as an IPS Officer, he never chose to join the 2004 batch, as he was to lose one year seniority. In this batch, he was even offered 'insider' vacancy of IPS cadre in the State of Rajasthan, however, he did not accept the same as well. Wed, 04 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19993 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19993 [Civil Appeal Nos.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 21419-21420 of 2023]. Leave granted. The appellants herein were the writ petitioners in W.P. No.3872/2022 filed before Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, assailing the cancellation of the auction of Plot No.P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 square meters situated at Chikhalthana Industrial Area at Aurangabad which auction was conducted by the respondent - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited ("MIDC", for the sake of convenience). The said writ petition was heard along with W.P. No.1324/2023 filed by the respondent-Pratik Group. By the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court observed as under: "14. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that Writ Petition No.3872 of 2022 lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. We further direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to start fresh bidding process in relation to the property being plot No.P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 square meters situated in Chikhalthana Industrial Area at Aurangabad. Tue, 03 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20040 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=20040 [Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 20423 of 2025]. Leave granted. Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') relating to the subject matter - issue is the focal point arising to be addressed in the present appeal. What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant - original plaintiff, is the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 03.06.2025 in CRP No. 3197 of 2024 and CMP No. 17106 of 2024, which were the proceedings of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution, whereby, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition and struck off the plaint in Original Suit No. 93 of 2020 before the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram. Outlining the facts would be relevant to notice the case pleaded in the plaint. Tue, 03 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19992 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19992 [Civil Appeal No(s)._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 6551 of 2025]. The following question of law has arisen for our consideration. Whether a Court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator(s) for making the award even after an 'award' is rendered, though after the expiry of the statutory limit of eighteen-month period?. We have considered the text as well as the context in which Parliament introduced Section 29A to the Act, empowering the Court to extend the mandate of the arbitrator. The power and the jurisdiction of the Court are not impaired by the indiscretion of the arbitrator in rendering an 'award' without a mandate, particularly when such an award does not partake the character of a decree and is unenforceable under Section 36. We have also explained the important role that the Court plays while balancing the twin interests - of securing the remedy of resolution of disputes through arbitration and ensuring integrity in its conduct. Tue, 03 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19986 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19986 [Original Suit No. 1 of 2018]. The present suit has been instituted by the State of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff-State") invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, read with Part III of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, against the State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant-State") and the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as "defendant no. 2"), praying, inter alia, the grant of the following reliefs.:- Declare that the unilateral action of the defendant-State, in proceeding to construct/ having proceeded to construct new Check Dams/ Dams and diversion structures across the Pennaiyar river its tributaries, Streams etc. to divert the water by gravity or pumping, and pumping from tanks surplusing into the Pennaiyar river or its tributaries without obtaining the prior consent of the plaintiff-State is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of the plaintiff-State; Mon, 02 Feb 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19991 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19991 [Civil Appeal No. 13628 of 2025]. By order dated 04.12.2023 passed in Company Petition IB (IBC) No. 646/PB/2021, the National Company Law Tribunal, Court - V, New Delhi Bench1, initiated corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20162, against M/s. Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited3 and M/s. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited4. Assailing the said order, Company Appeal (AT)(INS) Nos.1593 and 1594 of 2023 came to be filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi5. Ashok Kumar, the appellant in Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No.1593 of 2023, is an erstwhile Director of Grand Venezia Ltd., while Satinder Singh Bhasin, the appellant in Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No.1594 of 2023, is an erstwhile Director of Bhasin Ltd. On 07.12.2023, the NCLAT took note of the appellants' claim that the constructions were complete and the units were ready to occupy and directed that no further steps should be taken pursuant to the order admitting the company petition. Mon, 02 Feb 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19980 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19980 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 6013 of 2021]. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a partnership dispute in which appellant claims entry into the firm by virtue of a document whose execution is stoutly denied and is alleged to be forged. The High Court on the same factual foundation involving the same alleged arbitration agreement, has in one proceeding directed the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration and whereas in another proceeding, declined to appoint an arbitrator on the ground, that the existence of an arbitration agreement is itself in serious doubt. A common issue namely, whether the disputes can be referred to arbitration or an arbitrator can be appointed when the very existence of arbitration agreement itself is seriously disputed on the allegations of forgery and fabrication, arises for consideration in these appeals. Mon, 02 Feb 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19978 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19978 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20241 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal is directed against the interim order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital1 in Special Appeal No. 192 of 2025, whereby the High Court stayed the operation of the judgment dated 11th July, 2025, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2083 of 2025 and further directed the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) and permit him to participate in the election to the office of Zila Panchayat Member. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows: The Uttarakhand State Election Commission issued a revised notification dated 28th June, 2026, thereby resuming the Panchayat elections in twelve districts of the State. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1 submitted his nomination for election to the post of Zila Panchayat Member from Constituency No. 11- Bharhgaon, District Pithoragarh. Mon, 02 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19977 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19977 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1205 of 2026]. Leave granted. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2025 by which the earlier order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1125/2022 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained, the appellant is before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent. We have perused the material on record. All that the appellant is seeking in this appeal is for restoration of Complaint Case No.1125/2022 as the said case was dismissed for default by the Trial Court and the High Court declined to restore the same. Having regard to the submissions advanced at the bar and also bearing in mind the interest of justice, we find that the High court was not right in declining to interfere in the matter. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:20:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19985 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19985 [Civil Appeal No(s). 54-55 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C.) No. 4593-4594 of 2024]. Heard. The appellant, Dr. S. Mohan1, has approached this Court by way of the instant appeals with special leave, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 19502, for assailing the common judgment and order dated 19th December, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras3 in Writ Petition Nos. 28147 of 2022 and 4174 of 2023, whereby the High Court allowed the two separate writ petitions filed by the Petitioners therein, i.e., respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2025 and respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2025, and set aside the appointment of the appellant as the Vice-Chancellor of the Puducherry Technological University4. However, the High Court, in order to avoid a vacuum, permitted the appellant to continue in office until a duly selected incumbent assumes charge in accordance with law or until 30th June, 2024, whichever was earlier. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:18:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19961 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19961 [Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022]. The present civil appeals arise out of disposal of two separate original applications by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune1, involving similar facts and circumstances. The orders of disposal are of varying dates. We propose to decide these appeals by this common judgment and order. The lead appeal has been filed by the project proponent, i.e., M/s. Rhythm County2, challenging the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the NGT in Original Application No. 14 of 2021 (WZ). Vide the impugned order, the NGT held that RHYTHM had violated the environmental norms and carried out construction without obtaining Environmental Clearance3, for which it was liable in a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- as compensation. Appellant was, accordingly, directed to pay such compensation within two months to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board4. The connected appeal is filed by another project proponent, i.e., M/s. Key Stone Properties5. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19960 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19960 [Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 1180 of 2025]. Heard. The present case discloses a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution that has compelled the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner before us is a former member of the Armed Forces who was released from service on account of physical disability suffered during the course of the Army operations. Pursuant to his release, the petitioner appeared and succeeded in the Civil Services Examination. He was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service against an unreserved category post way back in the year 1990. Having earned an unblemished service record, including promotion to the high position of Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 2012, the petitioner applied for the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT, and was interviewed by an SCSC headed by an Hon'ble sitting Judge of this Court. The Committee evaluated the petitioner and ranked him first on the all-India merit list. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19959 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19959 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30762 of 2024]. Leave granted. The appellants in the above-captioned appeals are the employees of the respondent-State. The relevant particulars pertaining to the appellants, necessary for adjudication of the issues arising for consideration herein, may be summarized as follows: The present appeals are directed against the judgments dated 17th September, 2024, 15th October, 2024 and 2nd December, 2024, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi1 in Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 390 of 2024, 356 of 2024 and 368 of 2024, respectively, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the intra-Court appeals preferred by the appellantemployees and, in consequence, affirmed the common judgment dated 14th May, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the three writ petitions (supra table) filed by the appellants. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19958 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19958 [Civil Appeal Nos. 12892-12893 of 2024]. These cross appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 18.01.2018 in proceedings filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act of 1996"). Broadly, the dispute between the parties relates to the claim for liquidated damages raised by the employer against the Solar Power Developer on account of delay caused in commissioning a power plant. A three-member Arbitral Tribunal while holding that there was a delay in commissioning the power plant, by majority, awarded an amount of ₹1.2 crores towards the claim made by the employer. Both parties raised objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court proceeded to grant an amount of ₹ 27.06 crores to the employer on account of delay on the part of the Solar Power Developer in commissioning the power plant. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19957 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19957 [Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4713 of 2025]. Leave granted. This Appeal calls in question the order dated 22.1.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directing release of respondent No.2/Rinku Bhardwaj @ Prakash Rajbhar on bail who is an accused in First Information Report/Case Crime No.238 of 2018 registered at Police Station - Chopan, District - Sonbhadra under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. Vide order dated 19.05.2025, this Court has appointed Shri Abhishek Mohan Goel, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae (Pro Bono) to assist the Court. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Amicus Curiae. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that respondent No.2 is a dreaded criminal with huge local influence and is involved in the murder of a panchayat Chairman in a broad daylight using prohibited automatic weapons which was carried out at the behest of respondent No.2. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19956 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19956 [Writ Petition (C) No. 1000 of 2022]. We are tempted to preface our judgment with the words of Melissa Berton, an American educator, social activist, and producer. The statement articulated above resonate with an undiminishing force in the present petition as well. The issues that have unfolded before us echo the very same judicial disquiet. Even with the passage of time, the challenges that beset a girl child's education persist in much the same form. The petitioner, who is a social worker, has filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest seeking appropriate directions to the respondents - the Union of India, the States and Union Territories respectively to ensure providing of (i) free sanitary pads to every female child studying between classes 6 & 12; and (ii) a separate toilet for females in all government aided and residential schools. Apart from this, certain other consequential reliefs have also been sought for in public interest including the maintenance of toilets and the spread of awareness programmes. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19955 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19955 [Writ Petition (C) No. 369 of 2022]. By this writ petition in public interest, the petitioners have raised certain concerns relating to the rampant promotion, prescription and administration of stem cell "therapy" for the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder (hereinafter, "ASD") by several clinics across the country. At the core of the present petition is the issue of legal permissibility of the administration of stem cells for palliative and/or curative treatment of ASD by clinics. The present petition alleges that although the stem cell "therapy" could be said to be still at an experimental stage, yet the same is being touted as a 'treatment' and/or 'cure' for ASD by various clinics/hospitals/institutions in flagrant violation of the existing legal framework and guidelines. The petition claims that the individuals diagnosed with ASD and their parents/guardians/caregivers who are unaware of the scientific and legal intricacies, unsuspectingly place their implicit faith in such clinics/hospitals/institutions in the hope of there being a miraculous cure and consequently, fall victim to cost-intensive procedures such as the present one. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19954 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19954 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025]. Leave granted. A search conducted on the Indo-Nepal Boarder led to recovery and seizure of 1.900 kg of charas from a Russian national, who was arrested and later put on trial. The Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused to ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 and a fine of Rs.1 lakh with a default sentence of six months. The prosecution alleged that after entering the territory of India, 15 meters from the Border Pillar No.517/2 (Sub Pillar), the appellant herein was accosted and searched by a team of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). On detection of the contraband in his bag, a police team which was also engaged, along with the SSB team, in the combing operation at the border was summoned after which the recovery was made and the criminal law put into motion. Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19953 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19953 [Civil Appeal No(s). 11183 of 2018]. This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.11.2018 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Election Petition No.11 of 2016. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was the successful candidate in the elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the (10) Azheekode Assembly Constituency, held on 16.05.2016. Respondent No.1 herein challenged the election before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam through Election Petition No.11 of 2016, alleging commission of corrupt practices under Sections 123(2)(a)(ii), 123(3) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, "RP Act, 1951"). By the impugned order dated 09.11.2018, the High Court partly allowed the Election Petition, declaring the election of the appellant void, and setting it aside under Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(ii) of the RP Act, 1951, for the commission of corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(4) of the RP Act, 1951. Thu, 29 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19984 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19984 [Civil Appeal No. 8357 of 2016]. This civil appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Election Petition No.2 of 2012. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was declared elected as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh from the 249 Patti Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh in 2012. However, this was challenged by respondent No.1 herein through Election Petition No.2 of 2012 before the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, on the ground that there was an improper refusal/rejection of 955 postal ballot papers. By impugned order dated 09.08.2016, the High Court allowed the Election Petition, thereby declaring the election of the appellant herein as void. In paragraphs 53 to 56 of the impugned order, the High Court observed as follows: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19983 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19983 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2920 of 2018]. Heard. The instant appeals with special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 21st & 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta1 in Writ Petition No. 8341(W) of 2012, whereby the said writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation preferred by respondent Nos. 1-72 came to be accepted and the High Court directed the demolition of the building constructed by the appellant-M/s. Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.3 on the subject plot4 and also directed Aarsuday Projects to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was to be used for the purpose of restoration and preservation of the area in question. The High Court also saddled Aarsuday Projects with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the writ petitioners therein. Thu, 29 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19947 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19947 [Civil Appeal No(s). 77 of 2026]. Heard. The appellant1 herein has approached this Court by way of a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for assailing the final judgment dated 4th April, 2025 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India2 in BCI Transferred Case No. 455 of 2023 whereby, the appellant-advocate was held guilty of professional misconduct for alleged failure to act with reasonable diligence and absence from Court hearing which led to dismissal of the respondent's quashing petition. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:- The respondent3 came to be arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 150/2018 registered at police station Samrala, Ludhiana, for offences under section 451, 323, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon a compromise being arrived at between the accused and the complainant in the aforesaid FIR on 28th July, 2018, the appellant-advocate was engaged by the respondent- complainant to move a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court4 for quashing the FIR based on the compromise. Thu, 29 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19946 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19946 [Civil Appeal No(s)._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 10944-10945 of 2025]. Leave granted. The following two questions were referred by the Single Judge of High Court of Bombay at Goa1 to the Division Bench of the High Court for authoritative determination. "(i) In the event an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6) fails to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, where would an application under Section 29A(4) lie in the High Court or the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in case of a domestic arbitration? ii) In the event an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators is constituted as per Section 11(2) i.e. with agreement and consent of the parties, fail to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, where would an application under Section 29A(4) lie in before the High Court or the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in the case of domestic arbitration?" The Division Bench2 answered the reference in the following manner. Thu, 29 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19945 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19945 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 2937 of 2022]. Leave granted. The neat question arising in the above appeal as to the reach and sweep of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 19951, though short, has been rendered complex by divergent opinions expressed by coordinate benches of this Court. On facts, for the present suffice it to notice that the 1st appellant herein was the owner of a land which was developed by constructing an apartment complex through a builder on the strength of a development agreement. The respondent herein contended that on the ground floor of the building, meant for residential purpose, an area was enclosed as a Mosque with the active participation of the owner, constructed by the builder. The respondent claimed that himself and other members of the public have been offering prayers in the premises, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, which is now being obstructed by the petitioners. The cause of action according to the respondent arose when the ingress to the Mosque, established in the year 2008, was obstructed in the year 2021. Wed, 28 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19943 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19943 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 9970 of 2023]. Leave granted. On 28.01.2020, the Deputy Labour Commissioner/the appropriate Government, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 10 and Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short, "the ID Act"), referred an industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Court, Aurangabad. The operative portion of the reference order reads as follows: "And whereas, considering the said report of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, it is satisfied that there is a prima-facie case for referring the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has now been conferred by the said Notification, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad sending it to the Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad established under Hon'ble President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai for adjudicating the said dispute. Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19937 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19937 [Criminal Appeal No. 4629 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5175 of 2025]. This appeal, by special leave, calls in question an order of reversal of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1, whereby a writ appeal2 of the fifth respondent3 stood allowed and the judgment and order under challenge of a Single Judge was set aside. Important questions relating to interpretation of certain provisions of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20234 are involved in the appeal. Although the facts of the appeal are not too complicated and, hence, the same could have been decided by a short order, we thought it appropriate to consider the rival arguments in some depth since, by the time we reserved judgment and even thereafter, there has been no authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the interplay between subsections (3) and (4) of Section 175, BNSS, which creates a nuanced framework for determining the overall scope thereof. Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19936 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19936 [Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023]. Leave granted. An enquiry, commenced with a missing person complaint, led, to the arrest of the appellants, discovery of the body; exhumed from a graveyard, recovery of a rope; allegedly used to strangulate the victim, allegation of ransom calls received and recovery of material possessions of the victim from the house of one of the accused and a mobile phone from a witness. These coupled with the last seen theory; as purportedly stated by the witnesses, resulted in the prosecution being lodged before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after examining the evidence found it to be not sufficient to enter a finding of guilt, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The High Court on an appeal by the State found that the five golden principles as enunciated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1 adequately satisfied, bringing forth a conclusion only of a hypothesis of guilt excluding all possible hypothesis of innocence. Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19935 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19935 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 7061 of 2025]. Leave granted. Whether the setting aside of an award of compensation for land acquisition, on grounds of it being excessive and resulting in unjust enrichment of some land owners, acting in collusion with the competent authority and the revenue officials, who acted in colourable exercise of powers would ipso facto result in the entire award with respect to the acquisition being set aside is the question arising in this appeal. Two sets of litigation arose with respect to the acquisition of land in the State of Chhattisgarh for a Special Rail Project, notified on 31.08.2017 from Rowghat-Jagdalpur (140 km) between Dallirajhara- Jagdalpur (235 km). After the award was passed, certain persons also approached the Arbitrator constituted under the Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 20161 for the purpose of sub-section (6) of Section 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989 in which an enhancement was granted. Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19934 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19934 [Civil Appeal Nos.__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16393-16394 of 2025]. Leave granted. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent-State and learned ASG for Union of India. The appellant herein had filed WP No.11883/2024 before the High Court for the State of Telangana seeking the following reliefs: "to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the inaction of the respondents in initiating the land acquisition proceedings in lieu of the delivery of possession of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.16-19 guntas in Dakhla No.449 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancha Imarath, Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per orders in E.A. No.21 of 2023 in E.P. No.103 2007 in O.S. No.333 of 1986, on the file the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300A Constitution of India and direct the respondents to forthwith initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land and pay the compensation amount to the petitioner without delay whatsoever in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 together with interest at 18% per annum." Fri, 23 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19982 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19982 [Civil Appeal No. 929 of 2020]. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority1 and the State of Bihar are in appeal, by special leave, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st October 20142 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna3 on an intra-court appeal4 presented by the first respondent5. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's judgment and order dated 24th January 2014 of dismissal of M/s. Scope's writ petition6 and consequently, allowed the writ petition of M/s. Scope. A brief factual conspectus of the appeal is as follows: a. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 6th June, 2007 issued by BIADA inviting offers for auction of plots, M/s. Scope applied for allotment of a plot. Upon its emergence as the highest bidder, M/s. Scope was allotted Plot No. C-347, Patna Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna, on 9th June, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,32,20,000/- (subsequently for a sum of Rs. 3,38,98,000/- due to increase in area). Fri, 23 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19942 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19942 [Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16817 of 2025]. Leave granted. In the instant Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No.22396 of 2025 whereby the High Court has rejected his regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR/Crime No.105/2025 registered at Police Station - Shahpura, District - Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS'). However, subsequently, a charge-sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 80 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant, a dentist, was running a clinic at M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, where he came in contact with the deceased-Dr. Richa Pandey. After one and a half years of relationship, they got married on 04.12.2024 and started their matrimonial life while residing at House No.16, Sky Dream Colony, Bhopal. Fri, 23 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19933 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19933 [Civil Appeal No(s). 1920 of 2011]. n perusal of the Office Report dated 12.01.2026, it is noted that despite service of notice on respondents there is no representation made on their behalf. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants only. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.1888/2007 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by which the Writ Petition filed assailing an order dated 24.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anandpur in CMA No.40/2006 arising out of Execution Proceeding No.8/2000 rejecting the appellant's preliminary objections to the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") was sustained. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a civil suit bearing T.S. No.16 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Anandpur and the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.01.1994. Thu, 22 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19944 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19944 [Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024]. These two appeals arise from the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [for short "NCLAT"], Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 25.01.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1343 of 2019. While Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024 is filed by Gloster Limited - the Successful Resolution Applicant (hereinafter called the "SRA"), Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024 is filed by Respondent No.1-Gloster Cables Limited (hereinafter called "GCL"), challenging the findings in the impugned judgment insofar as it held that the Adjudicating Authority had the jurisdiction to declare on the aspect of title to the trademark "Gloster". It must be pointed out that the National Company Law Tribunal [for short "NCLT"], Kolkata Bench, Kolkata while dealing with C.A. (IB) No. 713/KB/2019, incidentally filed by GCL, recorded the conclusion that though the application filed by GCL is liable to be dismissed, the trademark "Gloster" was the asset of the Corporate Debtor. Thu, 22 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19932 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19932 [Civil Appeal No. 6640 of 2010]. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 04th February 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in R.S.A. No. 163 of 2000, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent-Plaintiff Tukaram (now deceased) and set aside the judgment dated 13th December 1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Bidar in R.A. No. 12 of 1986. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the suit filed by Respondent-Plaintiff seeking relief of injunction and declaration to declare the Sale Deed and Rental Agreement dated 12th November 1971 as sham and not to be acted upon, has been decreed. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the Respondent-Plaintiff Tukaram (now deceased) mortgaged his house bearing House No. 2-5-9, Pansal Taleem, near Fathedarwaza Darwaza, M. Bidar (hereinafter referred to as "suit house") in favor of one Mr. Sadanand Garje vide registered Mortgage Deed dated 7th September 1966 for a sum of ₹ 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only). Thu, 22 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19931 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19931 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 1979 of 2019]. Leave granted. These appeals arise from Common Order and Judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi, in a batch of writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. By the aforesaid order and judgment, the High Court dismissed the challenge laid by the appellants to a Notification issued by the Central Government imposing a Minimum Import Price on certain steel products. The controversy lies in narrow compass and turns primarily on the interpretation of the expression 'date of this Notification' occurring in para 2 of Notification No.38/2015-2020 (Notification), issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (Act). The appellants are private limited companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are engaged in the import and trading of mild steel items such as Hot Rolled Coils, Cold Rolled Coils, Hot Rolled Steel Plates and Pre Painted Steel Coils etc. Wed, 21 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19930 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19930 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No._________ of 2026 arising out of Diary No. 37381 of 2024]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appellant herein was arrayed as respondent No.6 in W.P. No.9715/2023. The prayers that were sought by the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) before the High Court, read as under: therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other writ or direction, writ petition praying for an issue of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other writ or direction, in the nature of WRIT, directing the respondents 2 to 5 to demolish the unauthorized constructions made by the 6th respondent for an extent of 5.33 cents constructed without building plan approval at Doo No.12, Ariyalur-Thanjavur main Road, Thiumanur, Ariyalur 621 715 in Old Survey No.33/14 D, New Survey No.33 16DIC (as per patta dated 17.09.2020), Thirumaur Village, Ariyalur Thaluk and Ariyalur District, within a time frame as may be filed by this Hon'ble Court and for consequential orders within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court as such further or other orders and thereby render justice." Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19981 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19981 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19815 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.9295 of 2025. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was commissioned in the Indian Navy on 01.01.2006, subsequently promoted to the rank of Commander and later joined INS Shakti as Commander (Engineering) in April 2022. On 02.03.2024, the Complainant who was working as a Principal Medical Officer wrote a letter to Capt. J. Sachdeva, Commanding Officer, INS Shakti alleging that the appellant, during the course of his deployment, committed acts of sexual harassment against her on different occasions and in pursuance to the said complaint, the Internal Complaints Committee (for short, "ICC") was constituted on 08.03.2024 under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short "POSH Act"). Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19979 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19979 [Civil Appeal No(s)._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 11480 of 2020]. Heard. Leave granted. At the outset, it would be apposite to clarify that Civil Appeal Nos. 872-874 of 2021, though tagged together, emanate from the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application No. 238 of 2015. The said appeals pertain exclusively to allegations of environmental violations and issues falling within the specialised jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal. In view thereof, and having regard to the distinct factual matrix and legal considerations involved, the said appeals have been examined independently and are being dealt with separately from the present batch of matters. The above captioned appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 10th July, 2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015 and involve overlapping questions of facts and law and hence, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19929 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19929 [Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025]. These civil appeals, sourced in arbitral awards passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, seek to raise questions about the interpretation and implementation of two enactments - 'The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996'2, and 'The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996'3. Prakash Atlanta (JV) filed the first of these appeals, viz., Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025, while National Highways Authority of India4 is the appellant in the other five appeals, viz., Civil Appeal Nos. 5301, 5302, 5304, 5412 and 5416 of 2025. Insofar as the appeals filed by NHAI are concerned, a common issue arises therein. The issue is as to whether the BOCW Act and the Cess Act can be treated as 'subsequent legislation' for the purposes of the contracts entered into by NHAI with its contractors, the respondents in NHAI's five appeals. By way of their awards passed in favour of the said respondents, the arbitral tribunals held that these Acts did qualify as 'subsequent legislation'. Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19927 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19927 [Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 338 of 2025]. The present petition was filed by the petitioner-wife praying for transfer of an application filed by respondent-husband under Section 340 CrPC bearing Misc. Crl. No.7 of 2019 in MT No.853 of 2018, seeking initiation of proceedings against petitioner for offence of perjury, from Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The transfer is sought on the grounds that the petitioner is suffering on account of number of cases pending between the parties; for the case in question, the petitioner will have to travel from Lucknow to Delhi; she is not getting any maintenance and has no place to stay at Delhi and that the proceedings initiated by the respondent, in most of the cases, are frivolous. The respondent has filed his counter affidavit denying the allegations. He has his own version of the matrimonial dispute, which has reached a stage where both the parties are into multiple litigation. Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19926 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19926 [Civil Appeal Nos. 5185-5192 of 2016]. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court1 dated 30.11.2011, the present appeals have been filed by the Union of India. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal2 dated 24.12.2010 passed in a bunch of applications filed by the respondents, was set aside. Briefly, the issue is as to whether compensatory allowances, such as House Rent Allowance3, Transport Allowance4, Clothing and Washing Allowance5 and Small Family Allowance6, would fall within the term "ordinary rate of wages" for calculation of overtime wages in terms of Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 19487. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, taking us through the historical background, has drawn our attention to various letters issued by different Ministries, in terms of which the respondents will not be entitled to add various components of compensatory allowances for the purpose of calculation of overtime wages. Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19925 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19925 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026@ SLP (C) No. 27710 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal filed by Gujarat State Public Service Commission (Commission), assails an order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench has set aside the order dated 25.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 (candidate) seeking appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) was dismissed. The undisputed facts are that an advertisement was issued on 23.09.2015 by the Commission for recruitment to seven posts of Professors in various disciplines including one post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) in Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Gujarat. The candidate applied for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering). The recruitment was conducted under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 (hereinafter, referred to as the "State Rules"), framed by the State Government and in accordance with general guidelines for the advertisement. Mon, 19 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19917 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19917 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1233 of 2025]. This writ petition tasks us to decide an important question relating to proper interpretation of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 19681, which hitherto has never emerged. Petitioner, a High Court Judge, contends that the procedure prescribed for the constitution of a Committee under Section 3 of the Inquiry Act has not been followed, thereby infringing his Fundamental Rights. Facts in brief, relevant for deciding this writ petition, are these. While serving as a Judge of the Delhi High Court, a fire occurred at the petitioner's residence on 14th March, 2025. During the course of dousing the fire, burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered at his house. Following this incident, allegations of misbehaviour were levelled against the petitioner. In accordance with the "In-House Procedure" adopted by the Supreme Court in its Full Court meeting of 15th December, 1999, the Chief Justice of India2 constituted a threemember committee on 22nd March, 2025 to examine the allegations. Fri, 16 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19923 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19923 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12236 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from the judgement and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 10.04.2025 (hereinafter "Impugned Order"), wherein the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024) (hereinafter "Cadre Rules"), holding that that the fixation of minimum qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist and the "note" in the Cadre Rules providing that holders of Bachelor's/ Master's degree in Pharmacy could apply but subject to their having obtained the minimum qualification of diploma, is neither arbitrary or exclusionary per se. The Appellants are holders of Bachelor's/ Master's degree in Pharmacy (hereinafter "B.Pharma and M.Pharma") and are registered with the Bihar State Pharmacy Registration Council. They claim eligibility for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) under the State of Bihar. Fri, 16 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19922 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19922 [Civil Appeal Nos. 23525 - 23526 of 2017]. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the same, the challenge is also to the self-same judgment passed by the Tribunal and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the "CESTAT") dated 31.08.2017 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 52881 & 52888 of 2014 respectively, by which the appeals filed by the appellant herein came to be disposed by the Tribunal holding that the appellants herein are liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "event management service" for the period covered within the normal limitation. At the same time, the Tribunal also held that the demand of Service Tax in respect of management consultancy service and business support service, and interest liability for entries with reference to associated enterprise were not sustainable in law. Fri, 16 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19921 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19921 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10686 of 2020]. Leave granted. The present appeals arising out of the final judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 1581 of 2018 (hereinafter "the Impugned Judgment"). SLP(C) No. 10686 of 2020 has been preferred by the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter "the Appellant Authority"), and SLP(C) No. 12937 of 2021 is filed by Krishna Chandran and another who had been impleaded as an additional Respondent in W.A. No. 1581 of 2018. The Impugned Judgment directed, inter alia, that Sham Krishna (hereinafter "the first Respondent"), who is the Writ Petitioner, be appointed to a vacancy left vacant pursuant to the Learned Single Judge's orders in Writ Petition No. 35998 of 2016. The Division Bench further directed the Appellant Authority to publish rank lists immediately after selection and to ensure that roster points are filled in accordance with the model roster in the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 02.07.1997 (hereinafter "1997 DoPT Office Memorandum"). Fri, 16 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19916 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19916 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024]. The appellants have preferred the present appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the concerned Trial Court and thereby convicted the present appellants for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'IPC'), and sentenced them to: (a) undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, each for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, in default, shall undergo for further six months imprisonment. (b) undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, for an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, in default, shall undergo for further six months imprisonment. Fri, 16 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19915 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19915 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 1255/1999]. We take on record the laborious exercise undertaken by the learned Senior counsel Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who has been appointed as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The Police Manual for Media Briefing has been prepared by the learned Amicus, considering the views of the Union of India and the practices prevalent at the international level. Notwithstanding the time granted by this Court on earlier occasions, the States have not shown adequate interest in taking note of the Manual and doing the needful. We do not want to keep these matter(s) pending any longer. We deem it appropriate to direct the States to evolve an appropriate policy for Media Briefing by taking into consideration the Police Manual for Media Briefing furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae. The needful will have to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19928 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19928 [Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2640 of 2025]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a final judgment and common order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 in W.P. (C) Nos. 6764, 6765 and 6766 of 2020 and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of clarity and systematic analysis, this judgment is divided into the following heads: The power of an independent Republic to levy and collect tax forms part of its inherent sovereign functions, and such power is circumscribed only by the requirement of being within the authority of law. Article 265 of the Constitution of India envisages the same. In a world where nations must necessarily engage with each other for mutual economic growth through trade, commerce and business, and for reasons of economic policy, international cooperation, and diplomatic balance, the power of each nation is often exercised in tune with such bilateral or multilateral agreements, which do not take away such inherent power but which now stand shaped by the legal framework agreed to between the parties. Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19920 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19920 [Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20366/2024]. Leave granted. The three appeals under consideration, presented by the common appellant1, arise out of separate but similar judgments rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court for Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur2; hence we propose to decide the same by this common judgment and order. The lead appeal, arising out of SLP (C) No. 20366/2024, questions the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2024 whereby the appellant's writ appeal3 was dismissed and the order of a Single Judge dated 23rd August, 2023 allowing the writ petition4 of the respondent (Yati Jain) was affirmed. The other two appeals, arising out of SLP (C) No. 20367/2024 and SLP (C) No. 22025/2024, also take exception to the judgments and orders dated 2nd May, 2024 of the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the appellant's writ appeals5 carried from the judgments and orders dated 2nd May, 2023 and dated 20th October, 2023 allowing the writ petitions6 of the respondent (Aakriti Saxena) and the respondent (Vivek Kumar Meena), respectively, and thereby upheld the same. Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19919 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19919 [Civil Appeal No. 10261 of 2025]. The present appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2261 of 2024. By the impugned judgment, the NCLAT set aside the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal2, Ahmedabad Bench, in CP (IB) No. 140 (AHM) / 2024, and directed admission of the application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20163, thereby initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process4 against the appellant in C.A. No. 10012 of 2025 - Takshashila Heights India Private Limited. The NCLAT further rejected the intervention application filed by the appellant in C.A. No. 10261 of 2025 - Elegna Co-operative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd.5 on the ground that it lacked locus standi to intervene in the aforesaid company appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeals are arrayed as under: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19918 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19918 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21976-21977 of 2023]. Leave granted. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent in the suit is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property admeasuring 955.11 square yards and bearing Door No.4-473, situated at Dowlaiswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant has been a tenant of the respondent for a long period and the suit schedule property has been in the appellant's possession as a tenant for over fifty years. On 14.10.2009, the appellant and respondent herein entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property, with the appellant agreeing to purchase the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only). An advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) is said to have been paid by the appellant to the respondent on 14.10.2009 i.e. the date of the agreement to sell. Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19914 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19914 [Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 13324 of 2024]. By our judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, we had clarified the law as regards the mandatory registration of an F.I.R. in the event of disclosure of a cognizable offence and simultaneously, reminded the administration of every educational institution that, it is their unequivocal moral and legal obligation to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities, if an incident of suicide occurs on campus. While holding so, we had taken note of the disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various educational institutions across the country and deemed it necessary to understand what could be the underlying causes contributing to distress amongst students. This was done with a view to propel some affirmative action through the formulation of comprehensive and effective guidelines/strategies that would address the core of the problem and build a robust institutionalized response for ensuring the mental well-being of students studying in Higher Educational Institutions (hereinafter, the "HEIs"). Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19913 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19913 [Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2018]. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh assailing the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla1 in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2010, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2010 and the consequential order of sentence dated 03.08.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh2 in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2010, thereby acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2009, the respondent-husband Chaman Lal allegedly poured kerosene on his wife Saro Devi (deceased) at their residence situated in Village Rampur, Pargana Dhundi, Tehsil and District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh and set her on fire by lighting a matchstick. On seeing her engulfed in flames, some villagers rushed to her rescue and the respondent also attempted to extinguish the fire. Despite these efforts, the deceased sustained severe burn injuries. Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19912 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19912 [Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016]. The Appellants before this Court are the unsuccessful Plaintiffs in a suit1 for Mandatory Injunction, and the Respondent is the Defendant in the suit. (The parties hereinafter are referred to by their respective ranks in the suit). The Trial Court2 decreed the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs and the First Appellate Court3 confirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal4 filed by the Defendant. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Defendant filed a Second Appeal5 before the High Court6, which came to be allowed by judgment and decree dated: 07.08.2012 and dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs. Hence the Plaintiffs have filed this Appeal. The case of the Plaintiffs is as follows: The plaintiffs, partners in Vaishali Builders, had purchased a parcel of land measuring 15 Biswa, Khewat No. 8/4, Khatauni No. 36, Khasra No. 436, situated in Ahmedpur Karachh, Jwalapur, District Haridwar7, through a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1992 from the previous owners, Laxminarayan Jha (zamindar/landholder) and Bashir Khan (cultivating tenant of Shreni-3). Thu, 15 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19911 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19911 [Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023]. Leave granted. The present batch of appeals concerns the challenge to the power of the State Government to prescribe the essential qualifications different from the qualification prescribed by the Central Government under Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, 19451 (in short, 'Drug Rules') framed in exercise of the power under Sections 6(2), 12, 33 and 33N2 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, 'D&C Act') for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector (in short, 'DI'), or Drug Control Officer (in short, 'DCO'). These appeals arise from the proceedings in the State of Haryana and Karnataka respectively. Since there is a commonality of the facts and legal issues, they are being dealt with by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, we are first dealing with the facts of the appeals from the State of Haryana, followed by those from the State of Karnataka. Tue, 13 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19910 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19910 [Writ Petition (c) No. 1373 of 2018]. Independent India's first Home Minister Shri Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel referred to civil servants as the 'Steel Frame of India'. In a similar vein, noted economist Joseph Schumpeter said - 'Bureaucracy is not an obstacle to democracy but an inevitable complement to it'. This case brings into sharp focus the enduring profundity and the everlasting significance of these words of wisdom. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short "the Act"]. The said section was introduced by virtue of Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short 'the Amendment Act'). It should be recorded that yet another prayer challenging the validity of Section 7 of the Amendment Act on the assumed premise that the ingredients of the erstwhile Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act were not engrafted, had been given up during the course of the arguments by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Tue, 13 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19909 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19909 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10105 of 2017]. The obligation of a "neighbourhood school" to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of our society, to the extent of twentyfive percent of the class strength, under Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society. Earnest implementation can truly be transformative. It is not only a step towards educating young India, but also a substantive measure in securing the preambular objective of 'equality of status'. The constitutional declaration of the right under Article 21A, followed by the statutory mandate under Section 3 of the Act for free and compulsory elementary education can be realised only with effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. We have held that ensuring admission of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate government and the local authority. Tue, 13 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19908 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19908 [Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026]. An advertisement was published by Coal India Limited (CIL) for recruitment of Management Trainees in 2019. The appellant applied for the post under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category. appellant was selected for the interview. By a communication of 1st July 2021 appellant was called for document verification (DV) and Initial Medical Examination (IME). The appellant appeared for the IME in September 2021, however, she was declared unfit on the ground that she was not only suffering from visual disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis. Aggrieved the appellant filed WPA No. 970 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. A learned Single Judge (Lapita Banerjee J.) after a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (for short 'RPwD Act') and the relevant notifications found that CIL being a Public Sector Corporation could not refuse appointment in the multiple disabilities category and that it was incumbent upon CIL to suitably modify the recruitment notifications. Tue, 13 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19907 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19907 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1544-1545 of 2026]. Leave granted. Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shri V. Giri, senior counsel appearing for the respective appellants in the two appeals and Shri Vikas Singh, senior counsel for the contesting respondents, in both the appeals. The controversy is inter se the heirs/family members of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad who died on 27.12.2021. He had three sons, namely, Ranjit Sharma, who passed away on 02.03.2023, Devinder Rai, husband of the appellant- Kanchana Rai and Rajeev Sharma. It is alleged that late Dr. Mahendra Prasad executed a registered Will on 18.07.2011, appointing the appellant, the wife of his pre-deceased son Devinder Rai, as the executor while bequeathing his properties in favour of her two sons, completely ignoring his own two sons namely Ranjit Sharma and Rajeev Sharma. Smt. Geeta Sharma, Respondent No. 1, wife of one of the sons, Ranjit Sharma, who died after the death of Dr. Mahendra Prasad, applied for maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, before the Family Court under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 19561. Tue, 13 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19906 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19906 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27660 of 2025]. Leave granted. These two civil appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (briefly 'the High Court' hereinafter) in Second Appeal No. 396 of 2022 (Alka Shrirang Chavan and Anr. Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.) and Second Appeal (ST) No. 22336 of 2022 (Jaymala Shriram Date Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale and Ors.). Be it stated that by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2024, the High Court has dismissed both the second appeals preferred by the appellants holding that there is no merit in any of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants. However, the High Court granted stay for a period of three months. Relevant facts may be briefly noted. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff (decree holder). He had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant Rajaram Bajirao Pokale on 26.04.1973. Mon, 12 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19905 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19905 [Civil Appeal Nos. 8465-8466 of 2024]. The lead appeals call in question the judgment and order dated 20th June, 20241 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 dismissing Execution Application Nos. 27/2023 and 28/2023 filed by the appellant against the respondents 2 to 9 (directors/promoters of M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.3). Such applications arose from two final orders rendered by the NCDRC while deciding complaints lodged by the appellant bearing nos. CC/2600/2018 and CC/86/2018 respectively. Appellant is an association of flat buyers which entered into Flat Buyer Agreements with ACIPL for units in Ansal Crown Heights. Vide individual builder buyer agreements, ACIPL promised to handover possession of the apartments within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the agreements, which expired for all the buyers in the time period from December, 2013 - December, 2015. Mon, 12 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19904 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19904 [Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20292 of 2025]. Leave Granted. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 69 of 2025 passed by the Division Bench on 22nd May 2025, affirming the order of learned Single Judge in Writ A. No.817 of 2024 which had been preferred by the respondent when the appellant(s) herein cancelled his appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The learned Single Judge had allowed the application vide judgment dated 5th November 2024. In short, the facts are that the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 5th March 2021 notifying the examination for recruitment of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The respondent was selected therein and pursuant to such a selection he was asked to furnish an attestation form and subsequently a verification form also. Mon, 12 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19903 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19903 [Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2026 @ SLP (C) No(s). 36787 of 2017]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from Original Suit No. 5A of 1992 which was instituted by Gopal (first respondent) against Kishorilal (i.e., first appellant (since deceased), who is now represented through his LRs1), inter alia, for declaration and injunction and, later, by way of amendment, for specific performance of agreement to purchase the suit scheduled property. During pendency of the suit, Brajmohan and Manoj (i.e., the appellants in the connected appeal), purchased the suit property from Kishorilal, vide sale-deed dated 20.04.1992. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 18.10.2000. Aggrieved therewith, Kishorilal and the transferees lis pendens, namely, Brajmohan and Manoj, jointly filed appeal (i.e., F. A. No. 213 of 2000) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior2. During pendency of the appeal, Kishorilal died on 17.12.2005. Therefore, vide order dated 10.07.2006, his LRs, namely, (i) Suresh, (ii) Murarilal, (iii) Prakash and (iv) Sitabai were substituted as appellants No. 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4), respectively. Mon, 12 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19902 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19902 [Criminal Appeal No(s)._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No(s). 16536 of 2025]. Heard. Leave granted. The instant appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 13th October, 2025 passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad1 in Criminal Petition No.13071 of 2025. 4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. An FIR bearing No. 527 of 2025 was registered on 10th March, 2025 at Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad against unknown persons under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 352 and 353(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 504 and 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860] on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. S. Kailash. The appellants2 herein, namely, Pogadadabnda Revathi and Bandi Sandhya were arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR and were presented before the learned XII Addl. Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19924 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19924 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10656 of 2025]. Leave Granted. The State of Uttar Pradesh, in this appeal by special leave, challenges the correctness of final judgment and order dated 29th May 2024 in CRMBA No. 4880 of 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the learned Single Judge granted bail to Respondent No.1 in connection with the First Information Report1 No.622 of 2022, PS Kotwali, Orai, District Jalaun, dated 24th November 2022 and issued a number of directions. The question presented in this appeal, however, is not one of relative ease as an appeal against grant of bail and instead hinges on the scope of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. In the High Court's own words- "The question of law which arises for consideration in this bail application is the nature of the legal duty cast on the police to draw up a medical report determining the age of a victim while investigating POCSO Act offences. Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19901 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19901 [Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2028 of 2021]. Leave granted. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment and final order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi1 in ITA Nos. 935, 822, 853, and 961 of 2005, pertaining to the Assessment Year 1997-98. By the impugned judgment, the High Court remanded the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 for fresh adjudication on the question of whether the shares held in the amalgamating company constituted stock-in-trade or capital assets, upon observing that, if the shares were, in fact, held as stock-in-trade, the transaction would fall outside the purview of Section 47(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 19613, and its taxability would consequently be governed by Section 28 under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". The facts, which are common to all these appeals, may be briefly stated as under: The appellants are investment companies of the Jindal Group. The shares of the operating companies, namely Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited (JFAL) and Jindal Strips Limited (JSL), were held as part of the promoter holding, representing controlling interest. Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19900 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19900 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11530 of 2024]. Leave granted. The present appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Single Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court") whereby the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") of the Appellants - accused was dismissed. The prayer in the said petition was to quash the criminal proceedings in complaint case bearing C.C. No. 58 of 2022 filed by Respondent No. 2 - Complainant against the Appellants where the Special Court for Economic Offences at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "Special Court") has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 448 & 451 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Companies Act") and Sections 420, 406, 426, 468, 470, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The genesis of the dispute lies in the affairs of a private limited company, namely M/s Shreemukh Namitha Homes Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company"), which was incorporated on 19.08.2015 under the provisions of the Companies Act by the Complainant and his wife, Namitha. Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19899 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19899 [Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 - accused in connection with FIR No. 426/2024 registered with Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123. The case of the appellant as projected in this appeal is as follows: Respondent No. 2 by name Arjun - accused was known to the minor victim for about six months prior to the incident. As per the statement of the minor victim, Respondent No. 2 repeatedly established physical relations with her by threatening her and pointing a locally made firearm (katta) at her. Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19894 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19894 [Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of 2011]. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basoda, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1993, by judgment and order dated 9th December, 1997, convicted the appellant - Shrikrishna - original accused no.4, along with other accused persons for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant came to be sentenced for life imprisonment with hard labour for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. He was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for three years, one year, and two years for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 147, IPC respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence as above by preferring an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19893 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19893 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3352-3353 of 2017]. Heard Shri P. Chidambaram, senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Ultratech Cement Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.3352-3353/2017 and Shri Nakul Dewan, senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.3357 and 3358/2017. Shri K. Parameshwar, senior counsel has been heard in opposition on behalf of respondent-State of Gujarat. All the aforesaid four civil appeals are based on similar facts and raises a common question of law, namely; whether Heavy Earth Moving Machinery or special services vehicles or any construction equipment vehicles such as Dumpers, Loaders, Excavators, Surface Miners, Dozers, Drills, Rock Breakers etc. are "motor vehicles" within the ambit of Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 and are liable to be taxed under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 19582. The Civil Appeal Nos.3352-3353/2017 are the leading appeals and, therefore, the necessary facts in respect of those appeals only are being narrated for the sake of convenience. Thu, 08 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19898 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19898 [Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10770 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present batch of Appeals arises out of two separate judgments dated 17.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi1 in the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 seeking quashing of a set of four complaints instituted under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18813. The complainant in all the four complaints is one Shri Sumit Bansal, who is appellant in the lead Appeal and respondent in the connected Appeals, whereas the accused are M/s. MGI Developers and Promoters, a proprietorship concern, and its proprietor Shri Manoj Goyal, who are the respondents in the lead Appeal and the appellants in the connected Appeals. For our convenience in adjudicating all the Appeals, Shri Sumit Bansal will be referred to as 'the complainant', whereas M/s. MGI Developers and Promoters and Shri Manoj Goyal will be referred to as 'Respondent No. 1' and 'Respondent No. 2' respectively. Thu, 08 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19897 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19897 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026@ SLP (Crl.) No.18223 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appellant who is the daughter of the detenu- Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai is aggrieved by the order of detention dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot- Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986 (for short, the Act of 1986). She approached the High Court of Telangana by preferring Writ Petition No.12443 of 2025 for challenging the aforesaid order. The Division Bench of the High Court however refused to interfere with the order of detention and dismissed the said writ petition on 28.10.2025. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Thu, 08 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19892 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19892 [Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 397 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras1 in Crl.O.P. No. 10961 of 2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, whereby the High Court had proceeded to quash the proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021 registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai. The appellant herein is Dr. C.S. Prasad, the de-facto complainant, whereas the accused persons are Dr. C. Satyakumar, Dr. Swarnakumari (wife of Dr. C. Satyakumar) and Shri S. Ravi Chitturi (their son), who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in this Appeal. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori, who is respondent No. 5 herein, is the nephew of respondent No. 1 and the appellant. Thu, 08 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19891 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19891 [Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19707 of 2025]. This order will dispose of three appeals involving common questions of law and facts. The State is before this Court impugning the judgment dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court1 in Special Appeals2 filed by the State. The same were filed against 3 different orders passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petitions3 filed by the respondents. For the purpose of consideration of the issues involved, we are noticing facts from Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19707 of 2025). Taking us through the long history of facts of the case, learned counsel for the State submitted that vide Government Order dated 12.11.1986, procedure for selection of candidates for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in the State was circulated. The selection procedure was specified which provided for written examination followed by an interview and the marks assigned for the same. Thu, 08 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19887 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19887 [Criminal Appeal Nos.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (Criminal) Nos. 14321-14333 of 2025]. Leave granted. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and learned Counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and respondent(s). We have perused the documents placed before us, along with the written submissions made. A helping hand, extended by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh through a hyper-technical approach, in nullifying the First Information Reports (hereinafter referred to as "FIRs") registered in a batch of cases, pertaining to offences committed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act"), which left the investigation(s) being nipped in the bud in some cases, while, in the others, criminal proceedings stood terminated, led to the present appeals being filed before us. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC, 1973") was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the "BNSS, 2023"). Thu, 08 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19886 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19886 [Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3906 of 2017]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the High Court at Calcutta in A.P.O. No. 222/2016 (hereinafter, the "impugned decision"), by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby, affirmed the order passed by the Company Law Board, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter, the "CLB") in C.A. No. 81 of 2014, condoning the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter, "the Act, 2013")by the respondent herein. The Property Company (P) Ltd. (hereinafter, the "appellant company") is a private limited company having a total of 631 fully paid-up equity shares. Ms. Mehroo Mazda, the mother of Mr. Rohinten Daddy Mazda, (hereinafter, the "respondent"), is said to have been a shareholder, holding 20 shares of the appellant company (hereinafter, the "subject shares"). Ms. Mehroo Mazda had passed away on 22.07.1989, however, two years prior to her demise, she is said to have bequeathed the subject shares to the respondent through her last will and testament dated 19.06.1987. Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19896 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19896 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022]. Heard. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 16th October, 2020, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1 in R.F.A. No. 267 of 2016, whereby the first appeal preferred by Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji2 came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2015, rendered by the Sub- Judge, Chavakkad3 in Original Suit No.862 of 2013, by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. The plaint schedule property admeasuring approximately three acres thirty-five cents fell to the share of Shri Buquarayil Valappilakkayil Seethi Thangal (hereinafter 'Seethi Thangal'), father of the respondent-Sakeena Beevi4, by virtue of a registered partition deed bearing No. 1274 of 1985, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mullassery. Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19880 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19880 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ /2026 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 12110/2025]. Leave granted. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. So far as the Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 12110/2025 is concerned, the same has been filed by one MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu. The appeal filed by Imran @ D.C. Guddu arises from the order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 08.04.2025 in BA No.2758/2025 by which the bail application filed by the appellant in connection with Daily Market Police Station Case No. 46 of 2018, arising out of S.T. No. 100239 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") respectively and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act respectively came to be rejected. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein viz. MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu was one of the accused persons named in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19879 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19879 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8803 of 2021]. Leave granted. The appellant-Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with an expertise in executing complex dredging operations. The respondent-Tuticorin Port Trust2 is a statutory authority constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. It undertook a major dredging project titled "Deepening of the Channel and Basin to Cater to 12.80 meter Draught Vessels at Tuticorin Port". In context with the above project to enhance the navigational depth of the port to accommodate larger sea vessels, the Port Trust on 15.07.2009 issued Notice Inviting Tender3. The appellant-Dredging India was one of the bidders. After the evaluation of the bids, the contract was awarded to it. A formal work order was issued to it on 28.10.2010. Consequently, a License Agreement incorporating the tender conditions was formally executed between the parties on 27.12.2010 which involved the monetary value of Rs.465,47,56,517/- (Rupees Four Hundred Sixty Five Crore Forty Seven Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen only). Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19876 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19876 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30212 of 2024]. Leave granted. The instant Civil Appeal assails the Judgment dated 14.11.2024 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru ("High Court"), whereby it dismissed the Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7168 of 2024 (AA) filed by the Appellant herein against the Order dated 01.10.2024 of the IXth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ("Trial Court") in I.A. Nos. 5 to 7 in AA No. 4 of 2024 which has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC 1908") and Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") read with Rule 9 of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 ("2001 Rules"). The Trial Court vide Order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the application seeking temporary injunction restraining Respondent No.2. The Appellant herein is Regenta Hotels Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in carrying business, inter alia, of operating hotels and providing hospitality services in India and abroad. Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19875 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19875 [Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7013 of 2019]. Leave Granted. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa in the W.P. (C) No. 17398 of 2008 by which the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant company and thereby, denied the sanctioned incentives of capital investment subsidy and DG Set subsidy under industrial policy of 1989 in favour of industrial setup namely, Magneco Metrel Plant ("MM Plant Unit") as claimed by the appellant company on the ground that the incentive of subsidy under industrial policy of 1989 could have been granted only once. The appellant is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Sector A, Shed Nos. 7 and 8, Kalunga Industrial Estate, Sundergarh (Orissa) and is engaged in the manufacturing, processing, trading, and selling of specialized refractory products and equipment for the iron and steel industry, such as magnesia carbon and high-alumina bricks, castables, and moulding systems, etc. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:34:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19895 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19895 [Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025]. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Final Order No. 55604/2024 dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"), in Customs Appeal No. 50542 of 2021, wherein the tribunal allowed the appeal and thereby held that the aluminium shelves imported by the respondent should be classified under Customs Tariff Item 84369900, as 'parts' of agricultural machinery, as opposed to Customs Tariff Item 76109010, as aluminium structures. Customs Tariff Item (hereinafter "CTI") 84369900 carries a nil rate of duty, whereas CTI 76109010 attracts a basic customs duty of 10%, a countervailing duty of 12.5%, a customs cess of 3%, and an additional customs duty of 4% respectively. M/s Welkin Foods, the respondent, imported aluminium shelving along with a floor drain and an automatic watering system and filed a Bill of Entry No. 7399702 dated 09.11.2016 under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1962"). Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:32:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19890 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19890 [Civil Appeal No. 6130 of 2016]. This civil appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No.2024/2010 in Special Civil Application No.533/2009 wherein the appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the land in question is admeasuring 9303 square metres and bearing Survey No. 339 of Town Planning Scheme No.4, Final Plot Nos.9A and 9B of Village Katargam, Surat, Gujarat (for short, "Survey 339"). According to the appellants, the said land belonged to one Nathubhai Ranchhodbhai, upon whose death in the year 1933, his heir Kuberbhai Nathubhai became its true owner and occupier. On 17.02.1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("ULC Act", for the sake of convenience) came into force. Section 6(1) of the said Act directed every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit to file a statement specifying the location, extent, value and such other particulars of all vacant lands held by him. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:30:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19889 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19889 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4743 of 2020]. Leave granted. Assailing the final judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'High Court'), the appellants have filed these appeals. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to the parties as per their status in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4743 of 2020. The dispute in the present appeals is regarding the claim of a reserved category candidate i.e., Respondent No. 1, who availed relaxation in the Preliminary Examination but was placed higher in merit than the unreserved candidate i.e., Respondent No. 3 in the final merit list based on total marks awarded in Main Examination (Written) and Personality Test, to be treated as a General merit candidate for the purpose of cadre allocation against a General Insider vacancy for State of Karnataka in the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IFS'). Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:28:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19888 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19888 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22323 of 2023]. Leave granted. Assailing the final judgment and order dated 05.07.2023 passed in CWJC No. 18302 of 2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as "High Court"), dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, the present appeal has been preferred. The dispute in the present case is with respect to the retrospective application of an amendment to the Bihar Engineering Services Class - II Recruitment Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "2019 Rules"), specifically the introduction of Rule 8(5), whereby weightage for prior contractual work experience was introduced after the selection process comprising the written examination had initiated and the provisional merit list had already been published. The appellants had preferred the Writ Petition challenging the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 vide Notification No. Sec. 02/Estt.-Appointment-01-01/2019-5565(S) (hereinafter referred to as "2022 Amendment Rules") dated 09.11.2022, issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, which amended the 2019 Rules with retrospective date i.e., 06.03.2019. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:26:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19885 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19885 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 23112 of 2024]. Leave granted. These appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The first of the appeals pertains to Divjot Sekhon. Her writ petition in CWP-21051-2024 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 11.09.2024. Her prayer therein was to quash the email dated 16.08.2024 sent by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot1, whereby candidates applying for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota in session-2024 were asked to submit their certificates/achievements of any class/year instead of just Classes XI and XII. She also challenged the merit list dated 23.08.2024 of candidates admitted to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota, that placed Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, at high positions therein on the strength of their sports achievements in Classes IX and X. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:24:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19884 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19884 [Civil Appeal Nos.________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.18095-18096 of 2024]. Leave granted. The present appeals have been filed against the following impugned final orders passed by the Allahabad High Court: a) Final order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Writ C No.17883/2024 (for short, "Impugned Order No.1"); and b) Final order dated 15.07.2024 passed in Writ C No.20059/2024 (for short, "Impugned Order No.2"), whereby the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Ghaziabad Development Authority ("GDA") - respondent No.2 herein had advertised the allotment of various plots through an auction dated 25.08.2023, including an industrial plot bearing Plot No.26, Madhuban Bapudham Yojana, Ghaziabad, measuring an area of 3150 square metres ("the plot", in question). The auction was conducted through a two-bid system - a 'technical bid' and a 'financial bid'. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:22:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19883 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19883 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10869 of 2021]. Leave granted. Assailing the final judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court") in Writ Petition No. 10858 of 2018, disposing-of the writ petition with directions to the appellant (retired employee) to prefer appeal against the order of disciplinary authority directing recovery, the instant appeal has been preferred. The issue in the present lis revolves around the institution of the departmental enquiry by the respondent - Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (for brevity, 'Corporation') against the appellant after his superannuation in absence of any provision in the governing service rules and regulations, i.e., 'Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (in short '1982 Pension Rules')' and 'Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 (in short '1992 Regulations')'. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:20:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19882 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19882 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 13057 of 2025]. Leave granted. Despite this Court having consistently held that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, even on an identical allegation, are parallel proceedings, the relevance of the conclusion in one is often contended to be binding on the other. Trite is the principle that in a disciplinary proceeding, the proof is of preponderance of probabilities while in a criminal proceeding, it has the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Often it is argued that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings should inure to the benefit of the accused/delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding too. In the present case, we have a contrary contention of the disciplinary proceedings having exonerated the delinquent employee, who seeks absolution from the criminal prosecution. The contention is that when the allegations could not be proved in a disciplinary proceeding where the requirement is only of preponderance of probabilities, surely it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:18:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19874 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19874 [Civil Appeal No. 9701 of 2024]. This appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Code') calls in question the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 24.01.2024 by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), whereby, the NCLAT affirmed the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Code. The central issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the interpretation of Clause 2.2 of Deed of Undertaking dated 27.07.2011 executed between SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited (SREI), the original creditor, which subsequently assigned all its rights and interests in favour of UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the appellant; Electrosteel Steels Limited (ESL), the borrower; and Electrosteel Castings Limited (ECL), the erstwhile promoter of ESL and obligor in the Deed of Undertaking. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19873 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19873 [Contempt Petition (Civil) No(s)._________ of 2026 Diary No(s). 18826 of 2025]. Heard. The present batch of four contempt petitions has been instituted by the contempt petitioners1 alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 2024, passed in SLP (C) No. 14355 of 2021 and SLP (C) No. 2809 of 2021, titled as The State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Anirban Ghosh and Ors., preferred by the State of West Bengal assailing the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2020, rendered by the High Court at Calcutta2 in MAT No. 1221 of 2019. In support of the allegations so raised, the petitioners primarily relied upon the following observations made by this Court in the order dated 16th July, 2024:- Having regard to the fact that the impugned judgment was passed on 03rd September, 2020 and the same has remained stayed in terms of the order passed by this Court on 20th September, 2021 in SLP (Civil) No. 14355/2021 and on 29th October, 2021 in SLP (Civil) No. 2809/2021, it is deemed appropriate to direct the State Government of West Bengal to make compliances of the impugned judgment within a period of three months from today. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19870 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19870 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 7038 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appellant, the wife, is aggrieved with the impugned judgment by which, on the request of the husband, the second respondent herein, the proceedings in C.C. No.136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the appellant, pending in the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy was transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The wife, impleaded as respondent there, had not appeared in the matter. The impugned order directed transmission of the case within one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order with intimation to the other side. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of the travails of a woman left alone with two children to prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19869 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19869 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11375 of 2025]. The Petitioners, accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra were before the High Court seeking to quash the same, declined by the impugned judgment. The contention of the petitioners that there was a mala fide intention to cause purposeful harassment in registering the FIR, was rejected by the High Court. It was also directed that the petitioners appear before the Trial Court within 60 days, in which circumstance liberty was also granted to apply for regular/anticipatory bail, directed to be considered as per the existing precedents of this Court. Before us, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that the dispute if at all is civil in nature and there is no cause for initiating a criminal complaint. It is also argued that there are three different cases filed before various courts on the very same set of facts. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19868 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19868 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 7347 of 2024]. Leave granted. The appeal is by the claimant who suffered a disability in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the award amounts. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees two lakhs, twelve thousand and eight hundred) which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty three thousand) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant was employed as a salesman and was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) per month. However, the Tribunal only took an amount of Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand and three hundred) as his monthly income, adopted from the Schedule applicable to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 and it was left untouched by the High Court. It is argued that at least the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident ought to have been taken. It is also argued that the reduction of the disability quotient to 40% as assessed by the medical expert was without any valid cause. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19867 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19867 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 9198 of 2019]. Leave granted. The State (NCT) of Delhi is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2019, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi answered Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014. By the said reference, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge - II, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi1, had referred three questions of law to the High Court of Delhi for its decision, under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. The questions read as under: -'a. Whether in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction or all such transactions can be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as complainant and others as witnesses?. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19866 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19866 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 18127 of 2024]. Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 9119 of 2018. This petition was filed by S. Nagesh, the appellant before us, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, which was converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore1. The learned Judge rejected the petition, holding that the delay of two days in the filing of the complaint was bonafide and cognizance had rightly been taken. In her complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, Shobha S. Aradhya, the respondent, averred as follows: The appellant had approached her husband and her, seeking financial assistance to purchase a house and to meet legal necessities. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19865 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19865 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) ________ of 2026 @ Diary No. 46882 of 2024]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State were ad idem that the impugned judgment is slightly incomprehendable; a remand would have been ideal. But, once the conviction by the Trial Court was reversed and the accused acquitted by the High Court, then a remand was made in which the impugned judgment affirming the conviction was passed, which has persuaded us to go into the merits. The offense is of the year 1999, a double murder having occurred on 14.10.1999 at about 06:00 pm and an FIR having been registered at 10:15 am on the very next day. Only one of the accused is in appeal before us, who was alleged to be the driver of the vehicle in which the assailants came and whose role in the crime proper, as we will presently see, was not fully established considering the entire circumstances. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19864 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19864 [Criminal Appeal No.________ of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2025, passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by which the application preferred by the appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') seeking grant of regular bail, came to be rejected. The appellant is a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL), and is also nonexecutive Director of M/s. ACIL Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. The group of companies including subsidiaries and associate concerns is collectively referred to as the "Amtek Group". During the period 2017-2018, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against entities belonging to Amtek Group. FIRs were registered on 21.12.2022 at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging commission of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the appellant was arrayed as an accused along with twenty seven other individuals. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19861 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19861 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15180 of 2025]. Leave granted. The Appellant has preferred this appeal seeking release of her marksheets of the 5th to 10th semester and degree in law having graduated from Manav Bharti University (hereinafter "MB University") on completion of the BA.LLB programme batch of 2017-2022. The Appellant took admission in MB University under the Admission no. R17BALLB0033 and Registration No.MBU-2017-0536 for the session batch of 2017-2022 and was issued a Bonafide Certificate dated 30.08.2017 in this regard. On registration of a First Information Report, an investigation ensued against MB University on the allegation of sale of fake degrees. A Special Investigation Team was set up which seized the complete records of MB University in the year 2019. Since the matter was pending adjudication before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Solan, the students of the University, including the Appellant, were suffering, as they were unable to procure their academic documents. Tue, 06 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19860 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19860 [Criminal Appeal No. _______of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13988/2025]. Heard. Leave Granted. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2022 and connected matters, by which the High Court affirmed the rejection of bail applications filed by the appellants. The appellants stand arraigned as accused in FIR No. 59 of 2020 registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi, arising out of the incidents that occurred in several parts of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Delhi Riots") in February 2020. At the inception, the appellants were booked under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed alleging offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:20:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19881 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19881 [Civil Appeal Nos. 37-38 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16107-16108 of 2025]. Leave granted. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are same, and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO(OS) (COMM) Nos. 23 and 24 of 2025 respectively (hereinafter, the "Impugned Judgment"), by which the appeals filed by the appellants herein under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the "Act, 1996") came to be dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 19.02.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in OMP (COMM) Nos. 414 and 415 of 2018 respectively under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 (hereinafter, the "Single Judge") dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the appellants as regards unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by the respondent. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:18:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19878 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19878 [Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 7338 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Arbitration Appeal No. 56/2012. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 22.06.2010 in O.P. (Arb.) No.238 of 2006, al beit, on different grounds. The District Judge had set aside the award of the Arbitrator as being beyond the scope of reference and against the terms and conditions of the contract and restored the decision of the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator had, by his order of 14.08.2004, decided four disputes and held in favour of the appellant insofar as dispute Nos. 1 and 3 were concerned and against the appellant in relation to dispute Nos. 2 and 4. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:18:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19877 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19877 [Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 24570 of 2024]. Leave granted. This case highlights the unfortunate plight of a judicial officer (appellant herein) who, after 27 years of unblemished service, was removed from service. The sole and exclusive basis on which the appellant has been removed are four judicial orders by which he enlarged certain parties thereon on bail. Those four orders were contrasted with fourteen other orders of bail and after finding that in the four orders Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (for short the "Excise Act") was not referred to, action has been taken. According to the High Court, in the fourteen other orders the appellant referred to the said Section implying thereby that he was conscious of the existence of the said Section on the statute. Section 59-A prescribes what has now famously come to be known as "twin conditions" for grant of bail. The question before us is whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant from service? Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19872 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19872 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24729/2019]. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28 June 2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 2233 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought by the appellant, Adani Power Limited, which had inter alia prayed for a declaration that no customs duty was leviable on electrical energy generated in its power plant located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), and for consequential refund of amounts deposited towards such duty. The High Court took the view that its earlier judgment delivered in 2015 in favour of the appellant was confined to a particular notification and period, and could not be extended to the later period or to subsequent notifications issued by the Union. Aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19871 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19871 [Civil Appeal No._________ 36 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 5834 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Application No.9 of 2024. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Section 11 Application filed by the respondent under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the A&C Act") and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The only objection taken by the appellant herein was that the dispute is non-arbitrable in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short "the 1882 Act"). The learned Single Judge made a short shrift of the said objection by holding that the place where the property in question, which was the subject matter of the dispute, was situated, i.e. Malad, was outside the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19863 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19863 [Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020]. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8133 of 2007. Three persons, namely, Anjani Singh (Appellant No. 1), Ravindra Singh (Appellant No. 2) and Rishabh Dev Singh were tried in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 18602. All three were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia (in short the Trial Court). Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC, whereas Rishabh Dev Singh was convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC. On appeal to the High Court, Rishabh Dev Singh (for short Rishab) was acquitted whereas conviction of Anjani Singh (for short Anjani) and Ravindra Singh (for short Ravindra) was affirmed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by affirmation of their conviction, this appeal has been filed. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19862 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19862 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6024-6025 of 2022]. Leave granted. We have heard Shri Chander Uday Singh, senior counsel assisted by Shri Amarjit Singh Bedi, Advocate-on-Record for the appellant-NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.1 and Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel assisted by Shri Surjendu Sankar Das, Advocate-on-Record for the respondent No.1- Tarun Keshrichand Shah2. Respondent No.2- Priyalata Keshrichand Shah3 is reported to be dead and her interest is represented by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3- M/s Kishore Engineering Company4 has not appeared. It had not even appeared in the Trial Court or the High Court. It has not even filed any written statement, despite service of notice. In a Suit No.6117 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 against respondent No.3, a Notice of Motion No.1346 of 2018 was moved to add the appellant as the party defendant to participate and contest the aforesaid suit. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19859 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19859 [Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 703-704 of 2025]. Heard Shri Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The present contempt petitions have been instituted by the appellant in the civil appeals already disposed of, alleging, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 has willfully failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 6th September, 2024, rendered in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 422. The relevant portion of the judgment germane to the controversy at hand is reproduced hereinbelow: In light of the aforementioned observations and taking into account the shortcomings on the part of both the appellant and ADA, this Court deems it appropriate to provide a compensation of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) apart from what was awarded by NCDRC. Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount deposited by the appellant @ 9% interest per annum from 11-7-2020 till the date of refund, ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) to the appellant. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19858 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19858 [Civil Appeal No(s).__________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30936 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appellant is aggrieved by the final order passed by the Delhi High Court in RFA (OS) No. 12/2021 dated 03.09.2025 whereby the Court has set aside the decree of specific performance granted in favour of the appellant by the Single Judge. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondents were defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before this Court. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant had instituted a suit for specific performance for execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 22.01.2008 for purchase of 300 square yards property bearing no. C-20, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi, 110052. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 6.11 Crores, a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs was paid as earnest money on the date of agreement and Rs. 30 lakhs was further advanced as part payment on 24.03.2008. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19857 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19857 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 15218 of 2024]. Leave granted. The appellant is aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CMA No. 98 of 2010 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and set aside the award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad in WC No. 1 of 2005 awarding compensation to the appellant. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The deceased, Panganti Suresh, was employed by the fifth respondent as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. On 10.09.2004 at 5:30 a.m., while driving the car bearing No. AP-15L-4000 back from Hyderabad, Suresh met with a fatal accident when a lorry coming from the opposite direction rammed into the vehicle. Out of the four people in the car, two of them including Suresh, succumbed to the injuries. Mon, 05 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19856 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19856 [Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024]. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, allowed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564 of 2023 and connected matters vide judgment and order dated 18th September, 20231. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the administration of the High Court and its Registrar2 have preferred these civil appeals by special leave. The basic facts triggering the appellate proceedings before us are undisputed. The Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 were framed to regulate appointments and conditions of service in the ministerial establishments of the District Courts. Thereafter, the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 were notified on 5th December, 2002, providing for recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II by way of a competitive examination comprising two stages, viz. a written test and a computer-based typewriting test. In pursuance thereof, on 5th August, 2022, the High Court issued an advertisement. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:38:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19855 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19855 [Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2014]. Delay in filing SLP(C) Diary No. 22308/2022 is condoned. I.A. No. 114870/2022 is allowed. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 16277/2014, SLP(C) No. 24756/2014, SLP(C) No. 719/2020 and SLP(C) No.__/2025 (arising out of Diary No. 22308/2022). Civil Appeal No. 4072/2014 is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi (briefly 'the Delhi High Court' hereinafter) dismissing Income Tax Appeal No. 492/2012 (Sharp Business System Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - III) filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. SLP(C) No. 16277/2014 takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (briefly 'the Madras High Court' hereinafter) in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1134 of 2008 (M/s. Pentasoft Technology Limited Vs. DCIT) for the assessment year 2001-02 allowing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment and order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Madras High Court allowing Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1195 of 2008 (M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Limited Vs. DCIT) of the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 is under impugnment in SLP(C) No. 24756/2014. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:36:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19840 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19840 [Writ Petition (C) No. 838 of 2019]. Godawan, The Great Indian Bustard: We may not find more apt lines to describe the present state and nature of one of the most wonderful avian species of our ecosystem, the conservation of which this Court has grappled with in the recent past: "Luckily for one giant bird, they have such eyes. For millions of years, way before primates evolved into humans, they used this lateral vision to thrive in desert lands. This is the Great Indian Bustard, the State bird of Rajasthan. It's over three foot tall and weighs forty pounds, about as big as a bird can be and still be able to take wing. A bird that big should be easy to find. Then people came and built wind turbines, and cables between tall pylons to ferry to the city electricity garnered from desert winds. Now the species is almost extinct."1. In Rajasthan, it is affectionately alluded by its cultural name as "Godawan". It is inextricably connected to the culture and living of desert communities. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:34:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19839 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19839 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025]. Leave granted. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in APOT No. 215 of 2024, affirming the judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPO No. 352 of 2024 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:32:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19838 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19838 [Criminal Appeal Nos.__________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6647 - 6650 of 2025]. Leave granted. The instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred by the appellant / defacto complainant, aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court1 in Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos. 359, 346, 360 and 326 of 2025. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the said criminal appeals, thereby enlarging the respondents / accused persons on bail subject to certain conditions, and directed the Principal District Judge, Madurai, to conduct joint trial of the cases viz., Crime No. 39 of 2020 (Special S.C. No.25 of 2021) and Crime No. 202 of 2022 (P.R.C. No. 17 of 2023), after completing the required committal formalities. Briefly, the facts are that on 24.02.2020, the appellant, Lakshmanan, along with his friend Suresh (deceased), was brutally assaulted by A1 (Gopalakrishnan) and other accused persons using deadly weapons, while they were surveying and fencing agricultural land situated at Sambiranipatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:30:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19837 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19837 [Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439/2024]. Leave granted. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore1 dated 14.08.2024 passed in Misc. Petition No. 7284 of 20232 whereby the Misc. Petition of the first respondent was allowed and orders dated 27.09.2023, 17.12.2020 and 09.11.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain3, Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa4 and Tehsildar, Manasa, respectively, were set aside and a direction was issued to mutate the name of legal heirs of Roda alias Rodilal, as per Hindu Succession Act, 19565, and if they are not available, to enter the name of the State Government in the records. Roda alias Rodilal was recorded as tenure holder of Survey Nos. 148, 195, 218, 225, 229/Min-1, 230/Min- 1, 231, 234 located at Mouza Bhopali measuring 5.580 hectares. He died on 06.11.2019. The appellant claiming to be legatee under a registered will of Rodilal dated 01.05.2017 applied for mutation under Section 1106 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 19597. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:28:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19836 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19836 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1715-1716/2025]. Leave granted. These two appeals arise from a common proceeding and are directed against the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 dated 21.02.2024 and 31.08.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 and Misc. Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 36327 of 2024 respectively. The father of the appellant, Shamshad Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 for registering a first information report3 against respondents 2 to 5. The said application was allowed, an FIR was registered and investigated. After investigation, police report was submitted indicting respondents 2 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18604. However, vide order dated 07.03.2020, the Court of XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, M.P. discharged the accused respondents from offences punishable under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC and directed the trial to proceed under Section 420 IPC only. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:26:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19835 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19835 [Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2022]. These appeals, by special leave, take exception to the common appellate judgment and order dated 7th December, 2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. While allowing the appeal under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the widow of Patchaiperumal1 , vi.. PW-8, and reversing the finding of acquittal recorded by the relevant Sessions Court vide its judgment dated 1st September, 2009, the High Court sentenced the appellants Murugesan - A-1, Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti - A-2, Palavesaraj @ Palavesamuthu - A-3, Kulasekarapandian - A-4 and Biledy Ganesan @ Selvaganesan - A- 10 to life imprisonment for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 148, and 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860 2. However, acquittal of the co-accused (A-5 to A-9 and A-11) was not disturbed by the High Court. The prosecution case was that at a gathering in the house of A-9 on 10th July, 2007, all the accused had planned the murder of the victim (disbelieved by both the courts). Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:24:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19834 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19834 [Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022]. These appeals call into question the correctness of the judgments dated 14.10.20151 and 30.10.20152 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.20153 and setting aside judgment dated 31.10.20144, respectively. The controversy arises because of non-regularization or non-confirmation of the employees (hereinafter referred to as "Appellants") on the post of Operator-cum- Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks by the Respondent i.e., The High Court of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court"), despite serval similarly situated employees having been regularized from time to time. The appointments in the High Court are governed by the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Rules') framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:22:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19833 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19833 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.__________ of 2025 arising out of Diary No. 47072 of 2023]. Delay Condoned. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.4364 of 2023 dismissing the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CrPC") preferred by the accused-appellant herein, and thereby refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 registered with Saroornagar Women Police Station, District Rachakonda under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "DP Act") and Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:20:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19832 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19832 [Criminal Appeal No. 5610__ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17272 of 2025]. Leave Granted. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in petitions for quashing preferred by accused persons in connection with common FIR dated 24th May 2025 in Case Crime No. 33 of 2025 registered at Police Station, Nai Ki Mandi, District Agra under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Sections 3/25/30 of the Arms Act 1959. Before us in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.17272 of 2025, is Mohd. Arshad Khan2, in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17579 of 2025 is Sanjay @Sanjay Kapoor3 and in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.18150 of 2025 is Muhammad Zaid Khan4. They shall be collectively referred to as the accused-respondents. The case arises from an investigation directed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, STF Headquarters, Lucknow, pursuant to an anonymous petition which, during inquiry, culminated in a statutory complaint dated 31st July 2024. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:18:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19831 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19831 [Criminal Appeal No._________ /2025 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 11287/2025]. Leave granted. The instant case lays bare the deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India, an offence that strikes at the very foundations of dignity, bodily integrity and the State's constitutional promise of protection to every child against exploitation leading to moral and material abandonment. The facts before us are not isolated aberrations but form part of a wider and entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards. On the fateful day of 22.11.2010, the complainant, H.Sidappa (PW-1) received information from NGO workers, Tojo and Dominic (PW-11) that minor girls were being kept for prostitution at a rented house in Peenya, T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore. After obtaining the requisite verbal permission from senior officers, he, along with the raiding party, proceeded to the spot. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19830 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19830 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20091/2022]. Leave Granted. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th August 2022 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR.No.979 of 2018 (O&M), titled Kamlesh Kumari v. Dr. Amit Arya. The dispute pertains to the execution of an 'agreement to sell' between the parties regarding a property located in the District of Panchkula. A certain sum of money was deposited as 'earnest money', but the matter did not proceed further. A suit for specific performance1 was decreed by the Trial Court2, which was eventually affirmed on second appeal3 by the High Court. Seeking execution, the plaintiff/decree holder, the appellant herein, filed the said application4, in which the respondent's objections were dismissed.5 The appeal against the dismissal of such objections gave rise to the impugned judgment, which accepted the objections and dismissed the execution petition. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19829 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19829 [Civil Appeal No. 15068 of 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 18702 of 2023]. Leave Granted. The Respondent- Pranab Kumar Nath was employed with the Central Industrial Security Force1 and had been dismissed from service in terms of order dated 1st July 2017 passed by the Senior Commandant, CISF2 consequent to disciplinary proceedings drawn against him, for marrying once more in the subsistence of his first marriage. Such dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate3 and Revisional4 Authorities. The Learned Single Judge5 and the Division Bench6 were of the view that dismissal from service is much too harsh a penalty, and as such, for their own reasons, each directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass orders imposing a lesser penalty on him. The Appellant- the Union of India, is aggrieved thereby. The facts, as laid out by the Courts/Authorities below are that the Respondent began serving as a member of the CISF as a Constable on 22nd July 2006. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19828 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19828 [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8365/2024 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-12-2023 in MAT No. 1595/2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta]. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol pronounced the judgment (reportable) of the Bench comprising of his Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment (reportable), which is placed on the file. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19827 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19827 [Criminal Appeal No. 5588 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8703/2019]. Leave granted. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 dated 20.06.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3744 of 2015 whereby, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1563(C) of 2013. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18813 against the first respondent by alleging, inter alia, that the first respondent took delivery of goods from the complainant and in lieu thereof issued cheque, dated 04.03.2013, of Rs. 20,00,000. On 04.03.2013 itself, the complainant presented the said cheque with its banker for collection. However, the same was returned unpaid on 11.03.2013 with a remark of insufficient funds in the drawer's account. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19826 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19826 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 27965 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan by which appeal preferred by respondent nos. 6 to 9 was allowed and order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside. For a proper appreciation of controversy, the relevant facts, in brief, may be noted. The appellants and respondent Nos. 6 to 9, are residents of village Sohda, District Barmer in the State of Rajasthan. Pursuant to a proposal submitted by the Gram Panchayat Sohda, for the creation of new Revenue Villages, the Tehsildar Gida (Land Records), District Barmer, issued certificates dated 24.12.2020 stating that he had personally and thoroughly verified all the relevant aspects, concerning formation of four new Revenue Villages, namely (i) Nainoni Darziyon Ki Dhani, (ii) Sagatsar, (iii) Amargarh and (iv) Hemnagar carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Revenue Village Sohda, Patwar Mandal Sohda, District Barmer. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19823 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19823 [Criminal Appeal Nos.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1167-1168/2025]. Leave granted. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 5648 of 2024 and Special Criminal Application No. 10715 of 2024. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order dated 30th March, 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2018 and allowed the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, permitting the prosecution to examine the minor child, Aashvi, as a witness. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals are as follows: The Appellant No.1 and the deceased were married in the year 2010. A daughter, Aashvi, was born from the wedlock in 2013. Respondent No. 2, the father of the deceased, is the complainant who lodged a complaint on 1st December, 2017, registered as FIR No. 224 of 2017, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Fri, 19 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19822 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19822 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6653 of 2025]. Leave granted. The above appeal is filed against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, wherein the prayer was to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. IX of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.177 of 2023 instituted in the Mahila Thana, District Mathura and pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.(C.A.W)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. When the matter came up before this Court for hearing on 09.09.2025, the original two appellants and the additional 3rd appellant, impleaded by order of even date and the 2nd respondent, husband and wife, submitted before us that the matter has been settled, and certain issues have to be thrashed out, before full compliance is reported by filing a joint application. Today when the matter came up, the husband and wife were present before us. We were told that the matter has been settled and together with the terms of settlement, a joint application has been filed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of the marriage. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:32:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19846 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19846 [Civil Appeal No. 9996 of 2025]. An extent of 102 Acres in Survey No. 201/1 Gurramguda Forest Block, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, State of Telangana, is the Subject Matter of the Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal examines the legality of the order dated 15.10.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer ("FSO") made under Sections 4 and 6, read with Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act, 19671 ("Telangana Forest Act"). The consideration of the issues would require examination of the scheme of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F2 ("the Abolition Regulation"), Telangana Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 ("Atiyat Enquiry Act"), Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 ("Abolition of Inams Act"). On 30.11.2005, Mir Jaffar Ali/Respondent no. 1 ("Claimant") filed a claim petition before the FSO claiming a succession right through Salar Jung- III to the Subject Matter of the Civil Appeal. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:30:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19821 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19821 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12327 of 2025]. Leave granted. The important question that arises before this Court in the present case is: "When a director of an accused company is convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act'), without the company itself being convicted due to some existing 'legal snag' - such as winding up, liquidation, or any similar scenario -can the appellate court, while hearing the appeal filed by the director challenging his conviction and sentence, impose a condition of depositing 20% of the amount as prescribed under Section 148 of the Act?" This question assumes significance in the present context, given the large number of litigations arising under Section 138 of the NI Act. To properly address the complexity of this issue and appreciate the existing legal position that guides us in determining the mandate in such cases, it is necessary to first examine the facts of the present case, which falls within this category. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:28:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19820 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19820 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 10079-10080/2025]. Leave granted. These two Appeals preferred by the appellant-original petitioner, arise out of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 in Writ Appeal No.534 of 2023 and order dated 13.09.2025 in Review Petition No.1202 of 2023 respectively, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala, whereby the High Court dismissed both the writ appeal and review petition, confirming the dismissal of the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the appellant-petitioner prayed to direct respondent No.1-Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kalamassery and its Registrar-respondent No. 2, to appoint the appellant as Associate Professor, Inorganic Chemistry (Scheduled Caste) in the Department of Applied Chemistry. It was next prayed to declare as illegal communication dated 16.09.2022 of the University rejecting the case of the petitioner for being appointed against the vacancy, which had arisen upon resignation of appointee candidate- one Dr. Anitha C. Kumar. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:26:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19819 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19819 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 14529 of 2023]. Heard. Leave Granted. We have been called upon to examine the correctness of the Judgement and order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in ARBA No. 05 of 2017 whereby the arbitral award dated 15.07.2012 passed by the sole Arbitrator awarding a sum of Rs. 3,71,80,584 (Three crores seventyone lacs eighty thousand five hundred eighty-four only) along with the statutory interest to the appellant, affirmed by the Commercial Court by judgement and order dated 02.01.2017 in MJC No. 33/16 while exercising jurisdiction under section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "A&C Act") has been set aside by the High Court in exercise of its limited appellate jurisdiction under section 37 of the A&C Act. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are set forth herein under: The respondent-Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (in short "BALCO") invited a tender for the purpose of mining and transporting 3,70,000 Metric Tons (MTs) of Bauxite from Mainpat mines to respondent's Korba Alumina plant. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:24:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19818 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19818 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 914 of 2025]. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution assails an administrative notification issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay appointing Kolhapur as a place at which the Judges and Division Courts of the said High Court may sit. The impugned notification, bearing No. P.0108/2025 dated 01.08.2025, has been issued on the administrative side of the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, with the approval of the Governor of the State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the respondents, as borne out from the material placed on record, that the said arrangement was made operational with effect from 18.08.2025. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, established in 1862, has historically exercised jurisdiction over an extensive and geographically diverse region. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:22:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19817 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19817 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 8736 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appellant-original complainant has questioned judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of 2024, whereby the High Court suspended the sentence imposed on respondent No.2 and released him on bail during the pendency of the Appeal. Respondent No.2-Sheo Narayan Mahto came to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with imposition of fine of ₹20,000/-, by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 19th Rohtas in Sessions Trial No.101 of 2022. The respondent No.2 was further convicted for the offence under Sections 342/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of ₹500/-. In respect of conviction under Sections 147 and 504/149, IPC, sentence of one year for each offence and fine of ₹500 and ₹1,000/- respectively was imposed. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:20:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19816 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19816 [Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013]. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.306/2008, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amounts, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and 03 months respectively. According to the prosecution, on 07.06.2004, the appellant, along with five co-accused, committed dacoity and, during its commission, caused the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle. The accused were, therefore, charged under Sections 302, 302/34, 396, 201 and 120-B of the IPC for murder, dacoity with murder, criminal conspiracy, and causing disappearance of evidence. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:18:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19815 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19815 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3661 of 2011]. Heard. The State of Karnataka is in appeal before us for assailing the final judgment and order dated 6th January, 2009 in Writ Appeal No. 1079 of 2008, whereby, the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru1 affirmed the order dated 27th February, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2007 whereby the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the respondent2 herein (writ petitioner therein) to file a suitable representation to the Deputy Conservator of Forests under the relevant rules within eight weeks and the appellant-State was directed to forward the said representation to the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Union of India to pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. The State Government vide orders dated 17th March, 1973 and 30th June, 1976, granted an area of 134 acres 6 guntas of land located at Benachi and Tumarikoppa village in Kalaghatagi Taluk, Dharwad District to the respondent-Cooperative Society on 10 years lease starting from 30th June, 1976 for agricultural purpose. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19814 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19814 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 35588 of 2025 @ D. 17190 of 2024]. Leave granted. Heard. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 28th February 2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. M-246 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant-husband's appeal and affirmed the dismissal of his petition seeking dissolution of marriage. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as follows: The parties were married on 22nd June 2003 at Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Both parties are teachers by profession. Prior to the marriage, the respondent-wife was working as a teacher in Government Elementary School, Hansron, Tehsil Nawanshahr, Punjab. The appellant-husband contends that the marriage was strained. In October 2004, the parties shifted to Ropar, Punjab, when the appellant-husband was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Kariha. In February 2005, the appellant-husband met with an accident and remained under medical treatment for about a week. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19813 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19813 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25584 of 2024]. Leave Granted. The Present Appeal Arises Out Of The Impugned Order Dated 8th August 2024 Passed By The High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack In Mata No.279 Of 2023, Whereby The High Court Affirmed The Decree Of Divorce Granted By The Family Court. The Facts Giving Rise To The Present Appeal, In Brief, Are As Follows: The Appellant-Wife And The Respondent-Husband Were Married On 14th December 2014 At Sambalpur, Odisha. At The Time Of Marriage, The Appellant-Wife Was Employed With Infosys And Was Residing In The United States Of America. In February 2017, She Returned To India And Thereafter Commenced Cohabitation With The Respondent2 Husband In Bangalore, India. Differences Subsequently Arose Between The Parties. In The Year 2021, The Appellant-Wife Was Deputed By Her Employer To The United States And Accordingly She Travelled Abroad. On 9th May 2022, The Respondent-Husband Instituted C.P. Case No.65 Of 2022 Before The Family Court, Sambalpur Under Section 13 Of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Seeking Dissolution Of Marriage On The Ground Of Desertion. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19812 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19812 [Civil Appeal No(s)._________ of 2025 rising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 14014-14019 of 2023]. Leave granted. The present batch of appeals concerns the legality of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (hereinafter referred to as "BDS") course admissions granted in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year 2016-17 after lowering of the minimum percentile as prescribed for the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "NEET") UG examinations. The appeals have been preferred against the final Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment") passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 911/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 957/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 958/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 959/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 963/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 964/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1155/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1184/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1272/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1273/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1287/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1288/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1289/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1304/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1310/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1311/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1316/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1317/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1340/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1349/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1749/2018 and D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 387/2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the writ appeals") by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as "the High Court"). Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19811 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19811 [Civil Appeals No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 8684-8688 of 2024]. Delay condoned in Diary No.12553/2024. I.A. No.74279/2024 seeking permission to file Special Leave Petitions is allowed in Diary No.12553/2024. Leave granted in all petitions. By way of the instant appeals, challenge is laid to the common Final Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2023 in WA No.877/2023 (against WP No.8571/2023), WA No.972/2023 (against WP No.8927/2023), WA No.973/2023 (against WP No.2365 of 2023), WA No.974/2023 (against WP No.6914/2023) and WA(SR) No.38269/2023 (against WP No.8988/2023) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Judgment') passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), whereby the Writ Appeals filed by the Appellant have been dismissed, affirming the Common Order dated 30.06.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petitions No.8571, 8927, 2365, 6914 and 8988 of 2023. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19810 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19810 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 15786 of 2024]. Leave granted. A widow, with five children was torched to death, for not having responded to the lustful advances of the accused, a relative by marriage. This Court had issued notice on 08.11.2024, limited to the question as to whether the trial court was correct in imposing life imprisonment meaning that it will be till the end of his natural life and directing the accused to be not granted the benefit of remission under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731. Despite the limited notice, we have gone through the evidence to convince ourselves on the conviction, especially since the witnesses, including the daughter of the deceased, an eyewitness turned hostile. The crime was committed on 01.01.2014 at 11:30 pm when the accused was alleged to have entered the shanty in which the deceased was living with her daughters. The woman having not succumbed to the sexual advances made, which had been continuing for some time earlier, the accused poured kerosene over her and set her ablaze. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19809 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19809 [Civil Appeal No. 14858 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12442 of 2024]. Leave granted. This civil appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (briefly 'the High Court' hereinafter) in C.M.A. No. 1284 of 2017 (M/s. Carborandum Universal Limited Vs. ESI Corporation). Be it stated that appellant had filed the related appeal before the High Court assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai in E.I.O.P. No. 262 of 2001. By the aforesaid order dated 06.07.2015, the Employees Insurance Court upheld the order dated 17.04.2000 passed by the Regional Office (Tamil Nadu), Employees State Insurance Corporation holding that a sum of Rs. 5,42,575.53 is statutorily due as arrears of contribution and payable by the employer i.e. the appellant for the period from 01.08.1988 to 31.03.1992. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19808 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19808 [Civil Appeal No. 14859 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10039 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (briefly, 'the High Court' hereinafter) in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1745 of 2025 (M/s. Surguja Bricks Industries Company Vs. State of Chhattisgarh). Be it stated that respondent No. 3 had issued a notice inviting tender dated 08.01.2025 for construction of a road pursuant to which the appellant had submitted its tender. After exchanging correspondences, respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 19.03.2025 disqualified the appellant at the stage of technical evaluation on the ground that one experience certificate of the appellant was of lesser value than 50 percent of the contract value while the other experience certificate was that of joint venture of which appellant was a partner; thus appellant failed to meet the eligibility criterion. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19807 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19807 [Criminal Appeal No. 3647 of 2025]. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.02.2021 rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2012. The present Criminal Appeal No. 3647 of 2025 has been filed by original accused no. 2 and accused no. 3, whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 3648 of 2025 has been filed by original accused no. 6, accused no. 7 and accused no. 5. In both these appeals, the appellants-accused persons have challenged the judgment and order rendered by the High Court by which the appeals preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed. The High Court has thereby affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 01.09.2012 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Factual Matrix of the present case is as under: It is a case of the prosecution that on 14.07.2010, the informant, i.e. Parasbai, was cooking the food inside her house. Her son, Goreylal, had gone to take bath in the pond. Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19806 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19806 [Civil Appeal No.________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 444 of 2024]. Leave granted. The State is aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the order of the Labour Court, in a reference regarding the validity of termination of the respondent workman affirming the award, which found the termination to be illegal and directed the employer to pay back wages to the workman for the period from 31.05.2006 to 01.04.2015; the date of commencement being the date of reference, since there was a 15 years delay occasioned. The question raised by the State is only on the delay occasioned, having disentitled the workman from challenging the order of termination. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel for the State submits that there is gross delay, which disentitles the order of back wages, but the State is not averse to a compensation, as declared by this Court in a series of decisions, which the learned Senior Counsel submits, the Advocate-on-Record has instructions to concede to a payment of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand). Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19850 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19850 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 21573-21574 of 2025]. Leave granted. A civil revision, in which there were three respondents, was dismissed as abated, since the application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent was found to be filed grossly belated. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that true, a mistake occurred on the part of the counsel for the appellant, insofar as not having taken steps to implead the legal heirs at the proper time. The intimation of the death of the second respondent and the details of the legal heirs were brought on record by the counsel for the deceased respondent as early as in 2022, evident from Annexure P-3, indicating the death having occurred on 26.10.2017. The application to implead the legal heirs along with the application to set aside the abatement and condonation of delay occasioned was filed only on 27.02.2024. Even if the revision petition is abated as against the second respondent, there is no cause to dismiss the petition as such, since the contesting party was the first respondent, against whom the revision survives. Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19845 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19845 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3682 of 2025]. Leave granted. Interlocutory Application No.266331 of 2025 is allowed granting permission to produce the additional documents. Whether or not the appellant herein is a 'workman' within the meaning and concept of definition under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is the singular question that arises in this appeal, which would in its answer, guide the outcome of the appeal. The aggrieved appellant has addressed challenge to judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition (Civil) No.24351 of 2022, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and award dated 16.04.2022 of the Labour Court, Jeypore, District Koraput, Orissa in Industrial Case No.02 of 2019. The Labour Court had allowed the reference of the appellant setting aside the termination order dated 22.04.2018 as illegal, further directing the respondent-management to reappoint the appellant with full back wages. Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19825 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19825 [Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 11057-11058 of 2025]. Leave granted. Concurrent findings; disbelieving a will, excluding one out of nine children, who married out of the community, holding the estate of the testator partible, is challenged in the two appeals filed by two defendants. The parties are referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, the first respondent, common in both the appeals, is the plaintiff. The relevant facts to be noticed are that one N.S. Sreedharan, executed Exhibit B2 will dated 26.03.1988 and registered it on the very next day, a Sunday, the Sub-Registrar having come to his house on commission. The will provided for allocation of the properties to the eight (the defendant Nos. 1 to 8) out of the nine children of the testator; the plaintiff having been left out. An injunction suit was filed by the defendant in the year 1990, against the plaintiff, who was the sole defendant therein, to restrain her from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19805 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19805 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8998 of 2023]. Leave granted. These two civil appeals arise from an order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962 constituting an Arbitral Tribunal (AT) for resolution of dispute as per the arbitration clause 22.2 in General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The contest by the two appellants is on the ground that first respondent, being one of the members of the Consortium, could not have invoked arbitration in its individual capacity. This is based on the simple plea that the arbitration agreement is only between the appellant APGENCO, the purchaser and the "Consortium". While considering an application under Section 11, we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in constituting the AT on the basis of a prima facie test of arbitrability. We have further held that it is for the AT to examine the preliminary issue in detail by considering the contractual provisions and the surrounding evidence. We have thus upheld the order passed by the High Court constituting the AT. Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19804 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19804 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024]. Leave granted. In the Special Leave Petition, notice was issued limited to the quantum of sentence. Despite that we perused the judgment to satisfy ourselves regarding the conviction. We have very serious reservation about the conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 19891 and also on certain circumstances found by the Division Bench of the High Court to convict the accused, which we are dutybound to notice since while confirming the conviction for rape and murder we may not be understood as having approved the said reasoning of the High Court, whose order merges with our order. Briefly stated, on 24.11.2019, the deceased, wife of PW-1 who had been dropped at Yellapatar Village, by PW1, to pursue their vocation of hawking utensils, was found missing and the calls to her mobile were not answered. A complaint was lodged with the police who along with PW1 and his relatives, searched for the missing person Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19803 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19803 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 14966 of 2025]. Leave granted. A suit for permanent injunction, by the respondents herein; the plaintiffs, from interference to the suit scheduled properties was dismissed, which was reversed by the High Court and decreed in First Appeal, against which the appellants/defendants in the suit have filed the above appeal. Mr.Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the property of the appellants in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12, situated in Kempapura Agrahara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru, North Taluq was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority1. Though possession was not taken an agreement was executed, allotting the property to the father of the respondents/plaintiffs. Later, a sale deed was executed despite the conditions of the agreement having not been complied with. Subsequently, on a writ petition filed by the appellants, the acquisition itself was set aside. Wed, 17 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19802 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19802 [Criminal Appeal No.___________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7597/2025]. Leave granted. Although respondent No.2 was served on 10.06.2025, there is no appearance on her behalf. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.3995/2023, the appellants are before this Court. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein is the complainant and appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the accused mother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively. Marriage between respondent No.2 and the son of the appellant(s), namely, Maram Kalyan, was solemnised on 12.08.2012 at L.B Nagar, Hyderabad. Out of wedlock, a girl child, namely Thanugnya Sri, was born on 01.11.2013. On 04.03.2023, respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the SHO, Women P.S., Nalgonda alleging that at the time of the marriage, on the demand made by her husband and his family members, respondent No.2's family had given Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand in cash, 9 tolas (90 gms.) of gold ornaments and domestic utensils. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19843 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19843 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 6639 of2023]. Leave granted. The 2nd respondent in the appeal, the complainant, alleged that a series of transactions at the behest of persons arrayed as accused numbers 1 & 2 deprived him of the lands owned by him, the consideration of which was syphoned off. The allegation was not only against A-1 & A-2 but also against the so-called purchasers who were arrayed as accused nos. 5 to 95 and 124 to 139. Many accused jointly, and the present appellant and another separately filed applications to quash the complaint which was unsuccessful before the High Court. In the present appeal, the appellant alone, who was arrayed as A-22, impugns the order of the High Court on the facts particular to him. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19841 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19841 [Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2014]. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for short 'APTEL') in Appeal No.112 of 2012. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'TNERC') and the APTEL have concurrently found in favour of the respondent. It has been held that the power generated by the respondent by the open cycle gas turbine for the period from 29.10.2005 to 30.06.2006 (hereinafter called as 'Relevant Period') and supplied to the appellant could not be termed as "infirm power" and that it could only be treated as "firm power". The consequence of the said finding was that the Commercial Operation Date (for short the 'COD') for the Gas Turbine in Open Cyc006Ce was held to be 29.10.2005 (i.e. the synchronization date) and since power was delivered on a continuous basis, the appellant was ordered to pay fixed charges for the relevant period. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19801 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19801 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9070 of 2018]. Leave Granted. In these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the appellants namely R. Ashoka in SLP (Crl.)9070 of 2018 and C. Sandeep Sahu in SLP (Crl.) 9614 of 2018, pray that this Court quash and set aside judgment dated 25th September 2018 which are analogously titled, passed in W.P. No. 1775 of 2018 and Crl.P.No.912 of 2018 arising out of FIR in Crime No. 5/2018 dated 8th January 2018 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau1, State of Karnataka. The appellant was an elected member of the legislative assembly in the State of Karnataka. Between 1998 and 2007, he was Chairman of the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation. The members thereof were the Tahsildar as the Secretary and three other persons. It was alleged in terms of the complaint dated 05th September 20122 submitted to the Lokayukta that under the Chairmanship of the appellant, the land that was originally meant to be allotted to economically downtrodden persons and those below the poverty line as also the Scheduled Caste, was allotted to the members of his family/followers/members of the City Corporation etc. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19800 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19800 [Civil Appeal No. 2052 of 2016]. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 16.07.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment") passed in CASE NO.210/2009 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NCDRC"). The NCDRC, thereby dismissed the complaint preferred by the Appellant- Insured herein, thus denying the Appellant any reimbursement/claim from the Respondent-Insurance Company herein. The brief facts giving rise to the controversy are that the Appellant, a Government company, invited tender for insurance for its various Units/Dumps/Offices etc., in June 2005. Pursuant to the said tender, on 16.06.2005 the Respondent herein submitted its quote for centralized insurance policy and consequently, on being declared as the successful bidder, the Respondent was awarded the contract for Centralised Insurance coverage at the CO Unit and Zonal Units. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19799 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19799 [Civil Appeal No. 14046 of 2024]. Arising out of the judgement dated 30.03.2022 passed in LPA No. 269 of 2012 wherein the judgement dated 14.12.2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5743 of 2005 was set-aside by Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, the present appeal has been preferred by the Employee. The dispute between the parties herein relates to grant of higher pay scale to the Employee after removal of anomalies in pay scale, on parity with other similarly situated persons who have been already granted the said benefit by the Respondent - Employer. The learned Single Judge relying upon judgement of High Court of Patna in Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar1 and Alakh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar2, in the Writ Petition had directed the Respondent - Employer to revise the pay scale of the Employee with effect from the date of his appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 1600 - 2780 along with other consequential benefits, i.e., arrears of salary etc. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19798 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19798 [Civil Appeal No. 6492 of 2024]. On or about 13th December, 2000, the respondent-Company1 approached the appellant-Corporation2 for financial assistance to set up a cold storage unit in the District of Dimapur, Nagaland. The Corporation agreed to offer financial assistance. To secure the said loan, particularly in view of the provisions of law prevalent in the State of Nagaland, a couple of agreements were executed on 11th May, 2001. The first one was a loan agreement3 between the Corporation and the Company, the second was an agreement4 between the 5th Model Village Council5 and Sh. K. Doulo (Director of the Company), and the third was a deed of guarantee by which the Council stood as guarantor for the loan disbursed to the Company by the Corporation. The loan agreement executed by and between the Company and the Corporation contained several terms and conditions, which formed part of Articles (I) to (VI) and Schedules (I) to (IV) thereto. Relevant terms and conditions from such loan agreement read as follows: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19797 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19797 [Criminal Appeal No. 890-891 of 2017]. The appellant has filed the present appeals challenging the common Judgment and Final Order dated 28/29.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2003 (filed by the appellant-accused) and Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2003 (filed by the State). The High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused whereas the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-accused was allowed. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: It is a case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused was a doctor having medical practice at Himmatnagar, Gujarat. The informant, i.e. the victim, used to go to the appellant-accused for her treatment for pain in her stomach. On 08.05.2001, the victim, along with her husband, had gone to the appellant-accused at his dispensary in the morning hours. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19796 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19796 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 809 of 2014]. he appellant is the original complainant who by preferring this appeal, seeks to call in question judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.8119 of 2007, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial Case No.291 of 1997 against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment with imposition of fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two years. As the High Court acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the appellant-complainant is aggrieved. The appellant-complainant happens to be the father of one Praveen Kumar serving as a captain in the Indian Army, when Praveen was allegedly murdered by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19795 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19795 [Civil Appeal No. 14761 of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No. 14461 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 29.01.2019 (hereinafter, the "Impugned Judgment") passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA. No. 2518 of 2004 (O&M) (hereinafter, the "High Court"), by which the second appeal filed by the appellants herein came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 12.05.2004 passed by the Court of District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter, the "Appellate Court") holding the suit instituted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively herein to be maintainable. In the year 1970, Duli Chand had availed a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from New Bank of India, i.e., the respondent no. 6, to purchase a tractor, and in lieu thereof he had mortgaged his property admeasuring 116 Kanals 13 marlas (hereinafter, "the mortgaged property"), vide a registered Mortgage Deed dated 06.06.1970. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19794 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19794 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023]. Heard. A grave and distressing case of brutal sexual assault upon a four-year old girl1 stands before this Court, enveloped in layers of investigative apathy and procedural infirmities. The First Information Report, despite the informant's professed complete knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most rudimentary details, neither the name of the accused person (appellant herein) nor those of the purported witnesses of the last seen together circumstance find mention. What followed was an investigation hopelessly botched and a trial conducted with a pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled, the truth. The highly unnatural conduct of the witnesses, marked by gross insensitivity/rank apathy, contradictions and apparent concoctions raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. Yet, in face of this disturbing matrix, the accused-appellant stands convicted and has remained behind bars for nearly thirteen long years. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19793 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19793 [Civil Appeal No. 8291 of 2015]. Since the issues raised in the captioned appeals are the same, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The central issue involved in these appeals relates to the interpretation of Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1961"), more particularly whether it merely covers 'common expenditure' incurred by the head office attributable to an assessee's business in India or would also include 'exclusive expenditure' incurred by the head office for the Indian branches. M/s American Express Bank, the respondent-assessee, is a nonresident banking company engaged in the business of providing banking-related services. The respondent filed its income tax return on 01.12.1997 for AY 1997-1998, declaring an income of INR 79,45,07,110. In the said return, the respondent claimed deductions for the following expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1961: (i) INR 6,39,13,217 incurred for solicitation of deposits from Non-Resident Indians; and (ii) INR 13,50,87,275 incurred at the head office directly in relation to the Indian branches. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19792 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19792 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017]. These appeals are at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh, laying challenge to a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC. Nos. 5109 of 2003 and 5110 of 2003, entering a finding of acquittal of the respondents herein, setting aside the judgment and order dated 7th October 2003, of conviction returned by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor1 in Sessions Trial 573 and 574 of 2001 arising out of the First Information Report2 bearing No. 94/2001 registered at P.S Kiratpur, under Sections 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19614. In this case, a young girl, barely of twenty, when she was sent away from the world of the living by way of a most heinous and painful death, met this unfortunate end simply because her parents did not have the material means and resources to satisfy the wants or the greed of her family by matrimony. A coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000/- is all she was apparently worth of. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19791 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19791 [Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012]. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 13th April 2011 passed by the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench), whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent-wife was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 9th March 2010 dissolving the marriage on the ground of desertion by the Respondent-wife passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong was set aside. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the marriage between Appellant and Respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 04th August 2000 at Shillong. The parties knew each other prior to their marriage as they had been working together since 1992 as Development Officers under Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. According to the Respondent-wife, though the Appellant-husband knew the nature of Respondent's duty and responsibility in their office even before their marriage, yet the Appellant and his family members demanded the Respondent give up her job ignoring the fact that she had to financially look after her old and ailing mother, her brother and other dependents. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19790 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19790 [Civil Appeal No(s). 7050-7051 of 2010]. The present appeals assail the common judgment dated 26th September, 2008, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 61489 of 2007 and 18556 of 2008. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and held that the cooperative societies in question could not be treated as State cooperative societies so as to attract the legislation enacted by the State, and that consequent to the reorganisation of the erstwhile undivided State, they had attained the character of multi-State cooperative societies. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present case, are narrated hereinbelow:- A cooperative sugar factory, namely Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, having its registered office at Majhola, District Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the cooperative society"), was originally registered under the provisions of the erstwhile Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19789 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19789 [Civil Appeal No(s). 5405 of 2023]. Heard. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11th March, 2022, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1 in RFA No.563 of 2014, arising out of Original Suit No.34 of 2010, whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 27th November, 2013, passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri2. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court held the appellant3 to be in breach of the agreement (Exh. A- 1); allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent4, and remanded the matter to the trial Court for the limited purpose of examining whether the defendant-respondent had suffered any compensable loss and whether such loss could be set-off against the plaintiff-appellant's claim. The facts relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal, for the sake of convenience, are mentioned herein. The defendant-respondent entered into an agreement for sale (Exh. A-1) on 10th September, 2008, undertaking to convey the land5 admeasuring Seventy-Seven Acres and Twenty-Six Cents to the plaintiff-appellant for a total consideration of Rs.4,45,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Forty-Five Lakhs only). Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19788 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19788 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 19462 of 2025]. Leave granted. The Insurance Company has in the above case raised only the question of the exorbitant award made on an unconscionable computation of the income of the deceased. The undisputed facts are that the deceased, whose legal representatives were the claimants, wife and three children, died in a motor accident on 29.08.2017. The deceased was driving a vehicle which was hit by another vehicle driven by the fifth respondent at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal framed two issues; whether, the death was caused by the fatal injuries caused in the road traffic accident and the quantum of compensation entitled to the legal representatives. On the issue of death caused in the road traffic accident, there is no dispute raised and the dispute is only on the computation of monthly income. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would point out that the computation of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety-five Thousand only) as monthly income of the claimant is without any basis. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19787 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19787 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 2195 of 2024]. Leave granted. A 14-year-old boy, proceeding to school with two of his classmates, met with an accident when a truck driven rashly and negligently took their lives. The son of the appellants No.1 and 2 herein died a day after, in the hospital while the two school mates died on the spot. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the claim petition of the parents granted a meagre amount of Rs.1,29,500/- (Rupees one lakh, twenty-nine thousand and five hundred) with 6% interest per annum. On a claim for enhancement being made before the High Court, the High Court enhanced it to Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and seventy thousand) again with 6% interest. Before us, Mr. John Mathew, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there was sufficient evidence produced before Court with respect to the earning of persons, who studied along with the deceased, his contemporaries, who went on to take up different gainful employments. The criteria adopted by the High Court is grossly inadequate, is the contention raised. Mon, 15 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19786 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19786 [Civil Appeal Nos. 12640-12643 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8776-8779 of 2023]. This order will dispose of eight appeals which arise out of a common judgment1 of the High Court2 and order3 passed in the subsequent review applications. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the present appeals have been filed. The High Court vide impugned judgment has directed that the respondents herein be given appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. They were initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis. The impugned judgment upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, who vide judgment dated 07.10.2016 passed in W.P Nos. 16758-16759 of 2015, directed the appellants to issue suitable orders for their appointment as Junior Assistants. They were also held entitled to receive salary for the post of a Junior Assistant from the date of the order. The respondents herein, on account of death of their fathers, who were working as sweepers, were initially granted appointment on compassionate basis as sweepers. Fri, 12 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19785 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19785 [Civil Appeal Nos. 14718-14719 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 281-282/2019]. Leave granted. These Appeals call in question the common impugned judgment dated 07.06.2018 in MFA Nos.5891/2015 and 5892/2015 (MV) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the present appellants, who are the legal representatives of both the deceased, affirming the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, at Shimoga, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions filed by the present appellants. On 14.08.2013, Sunil Singh and his friend, Shivu, were returning from Honnali on their motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-14-ED-9828. At around 11.30 p.m., when they were proximate to Sugur village, respondent No.11 allegedly drove a canter lorry, bearing Registration No. KA- 20-AA-6786, in a rash and negligent manner dashing against their motorcycle. This led to the death of Shivu on the spot and Sunil subsequently succumbing to his injuries in the hospital. Fri, 12 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19784 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19784 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3256 of 2025]. The controversy raised in the above Special Leave Petition, by the State, is only as to whether the delay occasioned in revising and enhancing the punishment imposed, under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short the "Discipline and Appeal Rules"), vitiates the order itself. The High Court found that the communication of the proposal for revision and the order of enhancement of the punishment, to one of dismissal, was grossly delayed. The admitted facts are that the respondent while continuing as Supervisor was charge-sheeted and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the year 2012. Pursuant to the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, on 13.11.2017. It is pertinent to note that the report of the Enquiry Officer was in the year 2013, four years after which the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment in 2017. Be that as it may, the respondent did not challenge the order of punishment on any grounds and not at all on the aspect of delay. Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19824 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19824 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2638 of 2023]. In view of two conflicting judgments on the aspect of overriding applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19711 as against State Rent Control Legislations, a two-Judge Bench of this Court passed order dated 17.03.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35859 of 2014, [now Civil Appeal No.2638 of 2023] along with other Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos.6677 of 2015 and 4112 of 2015, referring the matters for adjudication by a three- Judge Bench. The referral order dated 17.03.2015, aforementioned, reads as under, "In these petitions, in fact, the ratio decided by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer2, is contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Another vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.3. Therefore, these matters need to be heard by a three-Judge Bench." It is accordingly that the present batch of cases came to be posted before this Court, which await answer to the issue referred to. Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19782 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19782 [Criminal Appeal Nos.__________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 12376-12377/2023]. Leave Granted. The present Appeals have been preferred by the investigating agency against the judgment(s) and order(s) dated 9th November 2022 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No. 9431/2019 and CRM No. 407 of 2021 whereby the Respondent(s), six in number came to be released on bail, in connection with CBI Case No. RC4/S/20101 - Kol registered at P.S. CBI/SCB/Kolkata on 9th June 2010. Similarly, relying upon the very same order, the High Court vide order dated 28th February 2023 released eleven accused on bail in CRM (DB) 382 of 2023 and CRM (DB) 441 of 2023. Thereafter, one more accused came to be released on bail by the High Court vide order dated 13th June 2023 in CRM (DB) 2229 of 2023. The backdrop in which the High Court granted bail to the accused respondents in the lead matter, which is the principal judgment under challenge before us, is narrated succinctly as follows:. Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19781 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19781 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 SLP (C) No. 16860 of 2021]. Leave granted. The onset of COVID-19 pandemic at the dawn of 2020 was unprecedented in its global sweep and consequence. Not since the 1918 influenza pandemic, an event coeval with the first world war, had a single infectious disease inflicted such widespread crisis on human civilisation. The global death toll rising to millions, as revealed in the World Health Organisation's data, presents a tragic picture of this disruption. While COVID-19 pandemic exposed an acute systemic fragility within the global healthcare sector, highlighted lack of preparedness and strained the capacity of health professionals, our doctors and health professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into courage. Indian Medical Association's COVID-19 registry records 748 doctors' deaths in the first wave and hundreds more in subsequent waves; one estimate noted around 798 doctors lost during the second wave alone. Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19780 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19780 [Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024]. This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as "the NDPS Act") were affirmed. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15 of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same. The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1 (Sub- Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and proceeded with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3. Thu, 11 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19779 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19779 [Civil Appeal No. 8232 of 2023]. This appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 20031 impugns the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity2 in Appeal No.341 of 2023 to the extent it disallows Carrying Cost to RattanIndia Power Limited3 (the appellant) on compounding interest basis. RPL is supplying power to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.4 (first respondent) under two long term Power Purchase Agreements5 (i.e., dated 22.04.2010 and 05.06.2010 for supply of 450 MW and 750 MW, respectively) with MSEDCL. In connection therewith, RPL filed a petition (i.e., Case No.84 of 2016) under Section 86 of the 2003 Act before the Maharashtra Electricity Regularity Commission6 seeking compensation on account of various Change in Law events affecting the project from the date of commencement of supply of power by RPL along with the Carrying Cost, and requested MERC to allow the compensation with effect from the date of commencement of supply. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:16:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19849 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=1849 [Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024]. Assailing the final judgment dated 30.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "High Court") in WP (C) 8624/2023 confirming the judgment dated 23.06.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") in OA No. 1838/2023, the instant appeal has been preferred. The jurisdictional challenge by the Appellant in the present case, inter alia relates to whether the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as "ICC") constituted at a certain Department of the Government of India can entertain a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "POSH Act") against the Appellant who was working at a different Department of the Government of India at the relevant time. The Appellant is a 2010 batch officer of the Indian Revenue Service (hereinafter referred to as "IRS") who, at the relevant point of time, was posted as OSD, Investigation, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19777 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19777 [Criminal Appeal No. 5373 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1003/2025]. Leave granted. The short but significant question that arises in this appeal is whether, when proceedings initiated against a person are only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 19881, would it be open for the investigating authorities (police) to freeze the accounts of the accused persons under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732. In other words, are the powers under Section 18A of the PC Act, which prescribes the application of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 19443 insofar as the proceedings of attachment are concerned, and the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C., i.e., the power of a police officer to seize certain property, co-existent or mutually exclusive. The facts in which the question framed above arises are that: Kalyan Mandal, Sub-Inspector of Police posted at the Directorate of Anti-Corruption Branch, West Bengal, conducted a preliminary enquiry against the Respondent's son, Mr. Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, and asked, vide complaint dated 30th July 2019 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Anti-Corruption Branch, West Bengal, that a case be registered under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the PC Act. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19776 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19776 [Civil Appeal No. 4612 of 2014]. The question for adjudication in this batch of appeals is whether the National Co-operative Development Corporation (NCDC), appellant-assessee, is entitled to deductions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of three specific heads of income, being, (i) Dividend income on investments in shares, (ii) Interest earned on short-term deposits with banks, and (iii) Service charges received for monitoring Sugar Development Fund loans. Answer to this question would depend on whether these receipts qualify as "profits derived from the business of providing long-term finance" for industrial or agricultural development, or whether they are merely attributable to business activities falling outside the strict scope of eligibility for the statutory deduction. For the reasons to follow, we found that the legislative transition from a broader deduction regime to the restrictive "derived from" formulation by the Finance Act, 1995, manifests a clear parliamentary intent to "ring-fence" the fiscal benefit. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19775 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19775 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3625-3628 of 2025]. Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 443 of 2022 was filed by M/s. Shri Karshni Alloys Private Limited before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench1, assailing the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench2, in I.A. No. (IBC)/512 (CHE)/2021 in TCP/95/2017. Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 438 of 2022 was also filed by it before the NCLAT against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the NCLT in l.A. No. 952/2022 in TCP/95/2017. Both the appeals were heard by a bench composed of two Members and they delivered separate judgments on 20.10.2023. However, the Member (Judicial) disagreed with the judgment authored by the Member (Technical). The Member (Technical) had partly allowed the appeals while the Member (Judicial) was inclined to dismiss them in their entirety. Owing to their difference in opinion, the Chairperson of the NCLAT referred the matter to another Member (Technical). Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19774 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19774 [Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025]. The power to punish necessarily carries within it the concomitant power to forgive, where the individual before the Court demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance for the act that has brought him to this position. Therefore, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts must remain conscious that this power is not a personal armour for Judges, nor a sword to silence criticism. After all, it requires fortitude to acknowledge contrition for one's lapse, and an even greater virtue to extend forgiveness to the erring. Mercy, therefore, must remain an integral part of the judicial conscience, to be extended where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges his lapse and seeks to atone for it. The present appeal is by appellant-contemnor under Section 19(1)(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 19711 preferred against judgment dated 23rd April, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay ("High Court") in Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2025, whereby the appellant-contemnor was held guilty of committing the offence of criminal contempt of court punishable under Section 12 of Contempt Act, sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19773 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19773 [Civil Appeal No. 12261 of 2024]. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process1 by an operational creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20162, is in issue. By order dated 06.12.2023, the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV3, admitted C.P.(IB)No. 398/NCLT/MB/C-IV/2023 filed by a registered partnership firm, viz., M/s. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries4, under Section 9 of the IBC and initiated the CIRP against Dhanlaxmi Electricals Private Limited, the corporate debtor5, by appointing an Interim Resolution Professional. Aggrieved thereby, Mohammad Moinuddin Khan, a suspended director of the CD, filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 22 of 2024 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench6, New Delhi, under Section 61 of the IBC. By judgment dated 13.03.2024, the NCLAT allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of admission passed by the NCLT on the ground that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties as to the firm's debt prior to institution of the application under Section 9 of the IBC. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19772 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19772 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 13759 of 2025]. Leave granted. These appeals are filed against an order dated 22.04.2025 by Delhi High Court by which it has declined substitution of a sole arbitrator but has extended his mandate under Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act') for a further period of four months. The appellants who are husband and wife, along with respondent nos. 2 to 4 executed a partnership deed dated 18.05.1992 which contained an arbitration clause. M/s. Bharat Textiles namely, respondent no.1, was registered on 05.01.2007 as a partnership firm. Upon disputes having arisen, the High Court by a common order dated 13.03.2020, passed in two arbitration petitions filed by the appellants, appointed Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate as a sole arbitrator. The High Court directed that a sole arbitrator shall be entitled to fee as per the Fourth Schedule to the Act. Wed, 10 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19771 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19771 [Criminal Appeal No._________ /2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 5532/2025]. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). The impugned order of the High Court affirms his conviction under Section 302 IPC. In this appeal a limited notice was issued on 24.03.2025 to consider whether the appellant could be convicted for an offence lesser than one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Autopsy report reflects that the deceased was inflicted with four knife blows on vital parts of his body. Common carotid and subclavian arteries were found cut. Thus, in our view, injuries found on the body of the deceased in ordinary course would have resulted in death. No defense evidence was led; and the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was one of denial. Tue, 09 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19770 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19770 [Civil Appeal No.________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4818 of 2023]. Leave granted. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order1 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2. The High Court has upheld the orders3 passed by the Tribunal4 by which the claim of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, for release of the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, was declined. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that the deceased appellant/Ashok Kumar Dabas was selected and appointed as conductor with the respondent/Corporation5 in the year 1985. Vide Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 a new pension scheme was introduced in the Corporation. The deceased employee opted for the same. He resigned from the job on 07.08.2014 citing family circumstances. The same was accepted by the competent authority on 19.09.2014. Later on, vide letter dated 13.04.2015 a request was made for withdrawal of the resignation. Tue, 09 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19769 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19769 [Civil Appeal No.________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C)No. 1681 of 2024]. Leave granted. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the impugned order1 dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High Court2. The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.53 and the order dated 15.01.2020 passed by respondent No.44. Vide impugned order, the High Court while setting aside the aforesaid orders had remanded the case to the respondent No.4 for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Briefly, the facts of the case, as available on record, are that an application was filed by the private respondents before the Collector seeking correction of map for Plot No.22. The same was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.1998. It was on the basis of a Commission's Report available in the file showing that the appellant was in possession of Plot No.22 just above Plot No.23. The appellant was in possession of Plot Nos.22/1 and 22/2 whereas the private respondents were in possession of Plot No.22/3. Tue, 09 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19768 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19768 [Civil Appeal No. 14647 of 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 25803 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Comm. Arbitration Application No.125/2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Section 11(4)-Application filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the "A&C Act) of the respondent-BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "BCL") and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties herein. Aggrieved, the appellant-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short 'Corporation') is in appeal. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellant-Corporation floated a tender for design, supply, installation, integration, testing, commissioning and post-commissioning warranty support services of Tank Truck Locking System (for short the "TTLS"). Tue, 09 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19765 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19765 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5913 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appellants arrayed as accused in FIR No.18 of 2022 in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi were before the High Court for quashing of the FIR registered. The High Court, by the impugned judgment refused to quash the FIR, finding that there is a direct and specific allegation against the appellants of having criminally conspired to interfere with the possession of the subject land owned by the informant, which they attempted by fabricating documents. The informant being a member of a scheduled caste was abused using the caste name and together these constitute offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(g) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891. The appellants' contention that there was only a civil dispute between the parties, pending in a civil court, was found to be not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings since it is trite that on the same set of facts there could be a civil dispute and criminal case lodged. Tue, 09 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19764 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19764 [Civil Appeal No. 14641 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 27861 of 2023]. Leave granted. Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant restricted his challenge in the appeal to the contributory negligence, as found by the High Court. It is argued that despite the testimony of an eyewitness being believed and also noticing the fact that there cannot be any other evidence to clearly bring out as to which of the vehicles were driven negligently, the High Court found contributory negligence of 50% on the deceased-driver of the car. Mr. Manu Luv Shalia, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the inspection report of the alleged offending vehicle, a truck, clearly indicates from the damage caused to the vehicle that in all probability, the car was driven rashly and negligently. The facts, except the negligence aspect, are not in dispute. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19783 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19783 [Civil Appeal No. 14630 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10389 of 2025]. Leave granted. "Arbitration is often a friend in conferences but a foe in practice. Its raison d'etre has always been to ease the burden on courts and to ensure the expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. Yet, this is not its only virtue. The true advantage of arbitration lies in its freedom and flexibility, with party autonomy as the cornerstone of the arbitral process. Parties enjoy the liberty to determine the strength and composition of the tribunal, to appoint domain experts as arbitrators, and to design procedures suited to the nature and complexity of their disputes. This freedom allows them to bring to the table expertise and insight that even a judge may not be able to contribute. However, parties often embrace arbitration in good times, only to resist or manipulate it when disputes actually arise - seeking either to wiggle out of arbitration altogether or to tilt the process unfairly in their favour. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19767 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19767 [Criminal Appeal No(s)._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).13533 of 2025]. Heard. Leave granted. The appellant-Govind Mandavi1, along with coaccused Narender Nag and Mansingh Nureti (both of whom stand acquitted by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur2), were put to trial before the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, North Bastar, Kanker3, in Special Penal Case No. 65 of 2021. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 2023, the accused-appellant and co-accused Mansingh Nureti were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604, and were sentenced in the following manner: Accused Narender Nag was held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19895, and was sentenced as follows:. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19762 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19762 [Civil Appeal No(s). 12488-12489 of 2024]. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The judgment dated 9th October, 2019 in Public Interest Litigation No. 42 of 2018 and order dated 24th January, 2020 in MCA (Review) No. 42 of 2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench1 are subject matter of challenge in these appeals filed by the Akola Municipal Corporation2. The aforesaid writ petition in public interest came to be filed by respondent No.1-Dr. Zishan Hussain3 with the following prayers. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby declare that the revision of property tax by the respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation for the year 2017-18 to 2021- 22 is illegal, contrary to law and the revision of property tax is made without following due process of law;. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19761 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19761 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 14100 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 8th July, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2025 filed by the Appellants was dismissed. The said appeal was instituted under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891, seeking to set aside the order dated 12th September, 2024 passed by the Trial Court summoning the Appellants to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code2 and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal may be summarized as follows: Respondent No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community and was employed as a sweeper in the village. According to Respondent No. 2, Appellant No. 1 allegedly compelled her on multiple occasions to remove garbage from his house and, upon her refusal, threatened to implicate her and her children in criminal proceedings. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19760 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19760 [Criminal Appeal No. 5313 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7275 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 2nd April 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-13103-2025 whereby Respondent No. 1, accused-Avinash Kumar1, came to be enlarged on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with the subject FIR No. 187 registered at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar under Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Appellant2 lodged an FIR dated 25th November 2024 against the accused and his family members for allegedly misappropriating more than Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. As per the FIR, the complainant was the registered Chartered Accountant for Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited, while the accused was working as a Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, GT Road. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19759 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19759 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10759/2024]. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the two appellants, Dadu @ Ankush (A-1) and Ankit (A-2). It is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2024 of a learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur of dismissal of an appeal1 under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the appellants. Appellants stood trial in a case2 registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no. 23 before the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19894. The Special Court convicted A-1 under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 18605 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months together with fine of Rs.1000/- with default term. A-2 was convicted under Sections 354 and 323, IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. For the offences under Section 354, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, A-2 was sentenced to a year's rigorous imprisonment each together with fine of Rs.1000/-. Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19758 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19758 [Criminal Appeal No. 5256 of 2025]. Leave granted. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2024 passed on IA No.9352 of 2024 in CRA No.4869 of 2024 by which the application filed by the appellant herein seeking suspension of sentence was rejected, this appeal has been preferred. This is one of those rare cases where on the intervention of this Court the appellant herein, who had applied to seek suspension of his sentence was ultimately benefitted by quashing of his conviction as well as the sentence. This is owing to the fact that when the matter came up before this Court by assailing the rejection of suspension of sentence by the High Court, on a consideration of the facts of the case, we had a sixth sense that the appellant and the respondent prosecutrix could be brought together once again if they decided to marry each other. Therefore, we suggested to the counsel for the respective parties to seek instructions. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19844 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19844 [Civil Appeal No. 5224 of 2024]. Seven Appellants - the original claimants have filed this Appeal against judgment and award of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from order no. 1493 of 2013, seeking enhancement in the compensation in respect of death of 33 years old Sobran Singh, who died in a vehicular accident. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased whereas Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the three minor daughters and minor son of the deceased respectively, appellant No. 6 is the father, and appellant No. 7 is the mother of the deceased. The High Court allowed the appeal of the claimants enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 7,28,500/- to Rs. 9,20,500/- with interest at 7%, which was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Contending that the amount of compensation is required to be further enhanced, it was pleaded before this Court that the High Court committed an error in awarding only Rs. 70,000/- towards non-pecuniary heads, further erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 17 and erred also in not awarding the due compensation in respect of other conventional heads. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19754 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19754 [Civil Appeal Nos.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 4845 of 2025]. Leave granted. The appeal arises from the order dated 20.06.2022 in CMA (MD) No. 3343 of 2014 on the file of the Madras High Court, filed by the Appellant/Claimant for enhancing the compensation of Rs.3,98,017/- (Rupees three lakh ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of III Small Causes, Chennai ("the Tribunal") to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh). The Appellant's case is that on 26.01.2012, he was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 22 AU 0784 from Selaiyur to Medavakkam towards the east. At Kamarajapuram junction, a jeep bearing Registration No. TN 22 BL 7032 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction without sounding a horn and hit the Appellant's motorcycle. The accident resulted in grievous injuries to the Appellant. The said jeep was owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent, Insurance Company. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19753 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19753 [Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8303 of 2025]. Leave Granted. The family members i.e. wife and mother of the deceased, one Bolla Mohan are at odds in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 11th February 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5756 of 2024, regarding the release of General Provident Fund1 amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India. When the deceased joined service on 29th February 2000, as per the applicable rules, he nominated the respondent no.1 herein (mother) as recipient of GPF, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme2 and the Death cum Retirement Gratuity3. On 20th June 2003, the deceased married the appellant herein and subsequently nominated her as recipient for CGEIS and DCRG only. The deceased died in service on 4th July 2021. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19752 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19752 [Civil Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No._________ of 2025 Diary No. 7678 of 2024]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Simplicity in public transactions is good governance. Constitutional courts uphold this virtue to strengthen the rule of law and ensure access to justice. In administrative law, simplicity means laws, regulations, and procedures should be clear, straightforward, and easy to understand, allowing for effortless compliance. Administrative procedures should avoid complexity, redundant requirements, and unnecessary burdens, which waste time, expense, and disturb peace of mind. While higher courts set aside executive decisions on the grounds of illegality if they are not founded on relevant considerations, or even when the decisions are based on irrelevant considerations, it is important to recognize the principle that executive actions that mandate certain unnecessary, excessive requirements, must equally be set aside as illegal. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19751 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19751 [Civil Appeal Nos. 8261-8262 of 2012]. In view of our opinion that Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors1 is not an authority for the proposition that an excepted clause or a prohibited claim in a contract applies only to the employer and not to the Arbitral Tribunal, for the reasons to follow, in order to obviate uncertainty and for clear declaration of law, we are referring Bharat Drilling (supra) to a larger bench for reconsideration and authoritative decision. The context in which we have referred the matter to a larger bench is as follows. State of Jharkhand is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand allowing Section 372 appeal under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963. The appeal was filed by the respondent-claimant against the judgment of the Civil Court4 setting aside the arbitral award allowing the objections filed by State under Section 34. By its award dated 19.04.2007, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed certain claims but the Civil Court set aside the claims 3, 4 and 6 on the ground that they were specifically prohibited under the contract between the parties. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19750 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19750 [Civil Appeal No(s). 14856 of 2024]. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 28th August 2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO-3803-2023 (O&M), whereby the High Court set aside the judgment dated 11th April 2023 of the Family Court, granted a decree of divorce, and awarded a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows: The marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnised on 6th December 2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time, the respondent-husband was undergoing training as a judicial officer at the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh, and the appellantwife was practising as an Additional Advocate General. Presently, the respondent-husband is posted as a Family Court Judge at Jamnagar, Haryana, and the appellant-wife is no longer practising as an advocate. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19749 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19749 [Civil Appeal No. 14559 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 22297 of 2024]. Leave granted.. The short controversy in the above appeals is as to whether the appellants, who retired on 31.03.2016 are entitled to the revision as brought in by the 'Assam State Electricity Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules, 2017'1. Both the appellants were superannuated in March 2016, they having reached the age of superannuation, 60 years, before the last day in March 2016. By virtue of Fundamental Rule 56(a), their date of retirement from service is extended to the afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee attains the age of 60 years; thus, both the appellants retired on 31.12.2016. The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ Petition was filed, looking at the Rules of 2017 and FR 56(a) held that the Rules of 2017 applies to an employee who was in service on 31.03.2016, thus entitling both the appellants to the pay revision benefits. The Division Bench in Writ appeal reversed the finding, against which the appellants have approached this Court. Fri, 05 Dec 2025 06:14:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19763 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19763 [Civil Appeal No.__________ of 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 18907 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1536 of 2024. Vide the impugned judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated 29.01.2024 of the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 4933 of 2021, whereby the appellant's challenge to the termination of his contractual services, as Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant, Water Support Organization (W.S.O.), State Water Mission (S.W.M.), Public Health & Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, was dismissed. The factual matrix of the present case as per the appellant is that the appellant had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D. The advertisement prescribed the minimum qualification as: "Postgraduate degree in Statistics from a Government recognised University with at least 60% marks or equivalent grade". Thu, 04 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19748 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19748 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 11151 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the final order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1022 of 2019, whereby the High Court partly allowed the application of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the CrPC") by quashing cognizance under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "the IPC"), while maintaining cognizance under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. The dispute arises from contractual and financial dealings between appellant (accused no. 2) and respondent no. 2 (complainant) relating to construction work undertaken between 2008-2010. A No Dues Certificate dated 10.06.2010 was issued by respondent no. 2 and acknowledged on 12.06.2010. Subsequent disputes arose, culminating in cross-allegations. FIR No. 240 of 2015 was lodged by respondent no. 2 against appellant under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. Thu, 04 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19747 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19747 [Civil Appeal No. 14565 - 14566 of 2025 @ SLP(C) 32849-32850 of 2025 @ Diary No. 56596 of 2024]. Leave granted. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also the same and the subject matter of challenge in one of the connected appeals is to the order of review passed by the High Court in the main matter those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 18.11.2024 in FAO(OS) (COM) No. 46 of 2019 by which the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the "Act, 1996") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, the "Act, 2015") seeking to assail the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in OMP (COMM) No. 176/2017 upholding the arbitral award came to be dismissed. Thu, 04 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19742 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19742 [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025]. Leave Granted. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd April 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 4729 of 2023, which affirmed the order dated 3rd August 2023 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar1 whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, praying for summoning additional accused (Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein)3 in Sessions Trial No.1151 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.187 of 2021, was dismissed. The facts in brief, shorn of unnecessary details, are as under: On 25th March 2021, the appellant Neeraj Kumar lodged FIR No. 187 of 2021 at PS Sikandrabad under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 alleging that his sister Smt. Nishi5 had been shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home. The said FIR was registered based on the information received by him from his niece Shristi, aged about nine years, who informed the appellant that 'Papa has shot Mummy at home'. Thu, 04 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19741 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19741 [Civil Appeal No. 7846 of 2023]. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Cout of Karnataka dated 07.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 14891 of 2020 by which the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) was allowed thereby setting aside the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (for short, "the AAAR"). The AAAR in its ruling had declared while affirming the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (for short, "the AAR") that the services provided by the respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) in the form of leasing of residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals does not fall within the ambit of Entry 13 of the Notification No. 9/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Thu, 04 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19739 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19739 [Civil Appeal No. 10346 of 2024]. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Contempt Petition No.315 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Contempt Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed by holding that the order of which non-compliance was alleged was capable of two interpretations and hence the Court was not inclined to initiate any action in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. Since the grievance of the appellants is that there has been non-compliance of the judgment passed in proceedings initiated by them, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the said proceedings. The predecessor of the appellants, Shri Bhaskar Govind Gavate had filed Writ Petition No.3412 of 1992 seeking a writ of mandamus for completion of acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Gat No.78 to the extent of 12 acres 24 gunthas of Village Chinchavali, Taluka and District Thane. Various other reliefs including the relief of seeking possession were sought. Thu, 04 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19738 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19738 [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15870/2025]. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Kavin Gulati and Mr. Shadan Farasat, for their respective parties, alongwith learned counsel assisting them. At the outset, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, raised the issue of non-maintainability of the instant Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution'). The parties have, thus, addressed us on the same. Mr. Gulati, learned senior counsel, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable for the reason that the original Judgment dated 15.05.2012 in CWP No.1679/2010 [2012:HHC:4682], as passed by the learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26.02.2024 in LPA No.316/2012 [2014:HHC:11898-DB], was further challenged before this Court by the petitioner in SLP (C) No.16819/2024. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19778 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19778 [Civil Appeal Nos. 14545-14546/2025 SLP (C) Nos. 35171-72/2025 @ Diary No. 68082/2025]. Permission, to file special leave petitions, is granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Appellant was allotted, by grant of a license, a fair price shop in place of the respondent no.1, upon revocation of the license of such respondent on the ground of breach of lawful terms and conditions thereof. Revocation of the license and an appellate order of its affirmance were the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition1 presented by the respondent no.1 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In such writ petition, the appellant was not impleaded as a party. The writ petition of the respondent no.1 came to be allowed by an order dated 10th June, 20252 of a Single Judge. The order revoking the license of the respondent no.1 and the appellate order of affirmation stood set aside. In pursuance of such order, the respondent no.1 was required to be reinstated as a fair price shop licensee by the official respondents. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19766 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19766 [Writ Petition (C) No(s). 206 of 2025]. The measure of a just and inclusive society lies not merely in the freedoms it proclaims, but in the opportunities, it ensures for all its citizens to realize their fullest potential. Equality, in its truest sense, demands not uniformity but the removal of barriers that prevent individuals from standing on equal footing. The Constitution of India envisions a Republic where every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, can participate with dignity in the nation's collective journey. The law, as an instrument of justice, must therefore move beyond formal equality to ensure substantive inclusion, transforming rights from written promises into lived realities. It is in this spirit that the present writ petition comes before this Court, seeking not privilege, but parity; not indulgence, but the rightful fulfilment of the constitutional vision of equal opportunity for all. The instant writ petition has been instituted by Mission Accessibility1, an organisation engaged in the advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities, for enforcing the rights of persons with disabilities to equal opportunity guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19735 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19735 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 5196 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6421 of 2025]. Leave Granted. The appellant seeks leave to appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to challenge the following judgments and orders whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731/528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 and quash the criminal proceeding against him, on the common ground that the permission as required under law, to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former Members of Parliament or Members of Legislative Assembly, has not been sought by the State from the High Court as mandated by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India3. Since the question involved in these appeals is a question of law, it may suffice to note by way of background facts that the appellant was the holder of an arms license issued by the competent authority of the State, but the common FIR from which all these proceedings arise came to be filed against him on 12th June 2007, with the allegation that in holding the arms license, he had acted against the provisions of the Arms Act 1959. Wed, 03 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19734 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19734 [Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11715/2024]. Leave granted. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal O.P. No. 24649 of 2023 by the Madras High Court, the appellants are before this Court. By the said order, their application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CrPC") has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution are that one Vasanthi, sister of respondent No.2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs only (Rs. 20,00,000/-) from appellant No.2/accused No.5. As security for the said loan, Vasanthi had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant No.2/accused No.5 in respect of the property bearing R.S. No. 153/1/1, Cad No. 356, Patta No. 1023 (Plot No. 12) to an extent of 1980 sq ft. situate at Villanur Revenue Village (No.32) ('suit property'). Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:12:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19842 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19842 [Criminal Appeal No. 5156 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19524 of 2025 arising out of Diary No. 52993 of 2024]. The prayer/application for impleadment of de facto complainant and his wife as respondents to this appeal is allowed in view of a compromise between the private parties. Cause title be amended accordingly. Delay condoned as the appellants are in custody. Leave granted. By judgment and order dated 03.11.2020 passed in S.C. No.460/2016 by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem the appellants herein were convicted in Crime No.103/2016 for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short "TNPPDL Act"). The appellants were sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment whereof, six more months' rigorous imprisonment each; and were sentenced under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment whereof, six more months' rigorous imprisonment each. Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:10:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19740 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19740 [Civil Appeal No. 14512 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3405 of 2025]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction) dated 18.12.2024 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking to challenge the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 herein dated 03.10.2022 and respondent No. 3 herein dated 07.10.2024 respectively came to be dismissed. Over and above the challenge to the two orders referred to above, the appellant also prayed before the High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein respectively to implement the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 herein i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO-SRA). This litigation has a chequered history. The facts are quite complicated. In such circumstances, we need to give a fair idea about this litigation which, according to the High Court, was a third round of litigation between the parties. Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:08:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19733 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19733 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3405-3407 of 2012]. This appeal under Section 35-L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act of 1944") as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 25 of 2014 takes exception to the Order dated 5.10.2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, "the CESTAT"). By the said order, the CESTAT has set aside the Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and has discharged the show cause notice dated 14.07.2003 that was issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. It is the case of the appellant that on the basis of information received by its intelligence agency, Bhagyalaxmi Processor Industry (hereinafter, Unit No.1) and Famous Textile Packers (hereinafter, Unit No.2) were processing cotton fabrics with the aid of power but without following any of the procedures laid down under the Act of 1944 as well as the Rules framed thereunder. The preventive staff carried out a search of both the Units on 21.01.2003 and executed a panchnama. Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:06:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19732 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19732 [Criminal Appeal No. 5146 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3002/2024]. Leave granted. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30th January 2024 passed by the Calcutta High Court, whereby the revision petition filed by the Appellant-accused against the order dismissing the discharge application filed by the Appellant in FIR No.50/2020 dated 19th March 2020 lodged with police station Bidhannagar North, was dismissed. On 19th March 2020, the complainant-Ms. Mamta Agarwal, an alleged tenant of Mr. Amalendu Biswas, one of the co-owners of the property at CF-231, Sector I, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700064 ("the property") filed a complaint/FIR under Sections 341, 354C, 506 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). The complainant alleged that on 18th March 2020, when the complainant along with her friend and workmen tried to enter the property, the Appellant-accused intimidated them and restrained them from entering the property. Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:04:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19731 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19731 [Criminal Appeal No(s)._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s)._________ of 2025 @ Diary No. 60854 of 2024]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24th November 2022 passed in CRR No. 489 of 2019 and Order dated 31st January 2024 passed in application for modification bearing No. CRAN 9 of 2023 by the High Court at Calcutta, at the instance of the Appellant herein, Rousanara Begum, who is the former wife of the Respondent No.1 - S.K Salahuddin1. The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals are whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be by application of law, returned to the daughter, appellant herein, given that their marriage had ended in divorce. The parties to the lis were married on 28th August 2005. Differences, however, arose shortly thereafter and the Appellant departed from her matrimonial home on 7th May 2009. Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19730 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19730 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 5137-5138 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3685-3686 of 2025]. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from the final judgments and orders dated 4th September, 2024 and 26th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 27th March 2017 and the order of sentence dated 29th March 2017 passed by the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar1 in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016, whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 18602, one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. Before us are three of the six convicts namely - Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi and Gidik Pasi. Here only it may be noted that there was a seventh accused person who was, by the process of law held to be a juvenile and thus dealt with in accordance with the applicable law. Mon, 01 Dec 2025 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19729 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=19729