Supreme Court Judgments

Motor Accident Compensation Must Reflect Realistic Income Assessment And Avoid Windfall Awards, Supreme Court Holds

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neeru Devi & Ors. (2025 INSC 1430)

Supreme Court rules that motor accident compensation must be based on realistic income assessment, setting aside speculative calculations and reaffirming that just compensation cannot amount to a windfall for claimants.

Compassionate appointment addresses immediate financial distress and cannot be reopened to claim a higher post after acceptance of employment

The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Ors. (2025 INSC 1423)

Supreme Court reiterates that compassionate appointment is a limited humanitarian concession to address immediate financial distress and cannot be reopened to claim a higher post after employment has been accepted.

Motor Accident Compensation Claims Fail When Involvement Of Alleged Vehicle Is Not Proved By Credible Evidence, Supreme Court Holds

Sithara N.S. & Ors. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited (2025 INSC 1425)

Supreme Court dismisses motor accident compensation claims where claimants fail to prove involvement of alleged offending vehicle, reaffirming evidentiary standards under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Supreme Court clarifies requisitioning of healthcare services during COVID-19

Pradeep Arora & Ors. vs. Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Supreme Court clarifies requisitioning of healthcare services during COVID-19, impacting insurance claims under PMGKY. Case: Pradeep Arora & Ors.

Bail in cases involving grave offences punishable with death cannot be granted mechanically on the basis of prolonged incarceration under Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato & Ors. (2025 INSC 1418)

Supreme Court clarifies that Section 436-A CrPC does not apply to offences punishable with death and holds that prolonged incarceration alone does not mandate bail in cases involving grave offences.

Delayed Enhancement of Punishment Under Service Rules Is Arbitrary and Vitiates Disciplinary Action

The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department v. P. Perumal (2025 INSC 1470)

LOREM IPSUM

Illusory or Unsupported Disputes Cannot Defeat Initiation of CIRP Under Section 9 of the IBC

M/s. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries v. Mohammad Moinuddin Khan and Others

In 2025 INSC 1410, the Supreme Court restores CIRP, holding that illusory pre-existing disputes cannot defeat an operational creditor’s Section 9 IBC application.

Courts Must Consider Genuine Apology and Remit Sentence in Contempt Proceedings Where Remorse Is Bona Fide

Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion

In Vineeta Srinandan (2025 INSC 1408), the Supreme Court holds that bona fide apology in criminal contempt may justify remission of sentence under Section 12.

Courts must substitute an arbitrator under Section 29A once the arbitral mandate has expired by operation of law

Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. M/s Bharat Textiles & Ors. (2025 INSC 1409)

Supreme Court holds that once an arbitrator’s mandate expires under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts must substitute the arbitrator and cannot revive or extend the expired mandate.

Forfeiture ordered by the NCLT for failure to comply with extended payment timelines in liquidation sales is valid and not governed by contractual penalty principles

M/s Shri Karshni Alloys Private Limited v. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan (2025 INSC 1411)

Supreme Court upholds forfeiture ordered by the NCLT for failure to comply with extended payment timelines in liquidation sales, holding that such forfeiture is not governed by contract law principles.

Section 36(1)(viii) Deductions Are Limited to Income Directly Derived from Long-Term Finance, Supreme Court Holds

National Cooperative Development Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Supreme Court rules that deductions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act are available only for income directly derived from long-term finance, excluding dividends, short-term deposit interest, and service charges earned as a nodal agency. Legal Judgment Explainer

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute Where SC/ST Act Ingredients Are Not Disclosed and Allegations Are Inherently Unbelievable

Amal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

In Amal Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2025 INSC 1402), the Supreme Court quashed an FIR under the SC/ST Act, finding no dispossession or public-view caste abuse.