Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 01, 2025 To December 07, 2025

JudgmentsProperty Transferred Prior To Filing Of Suit Cannot Be Attached Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC: Supreme CourtCase Details: L.K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu (Died) Through Lrs v. K.T. Mathew @ Thampan Thomas & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1154The Supreme Court held that a property transferred through a registered sale deed prior to the filing of a suit cannot be subjected to attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).“It is well settled that attachment before judgment cannot extend to properties which have already been alienated prior to the institution of the suit…the property sought to be attached must belong to the defendant on the date of institution of the suit; property already transferred prior to the suit cannot be attached under this provision (Order 38 Rule 5 CPC).”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while overturning the concurrent findings of the Kerala High Court and the Trial Court, which had entertained an application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC despite the fact that the property no longer belonged to the defendant on the date of the application, having already been sold to a bona fide purchaser through a registered sale deed.The case arose from a transaction between the Appellant-purchaser and the debtor, who executed an agreement for sale in 2002 and a registered sale deed in June 2004. The Appellant-purchaser took possession and began operating a guesthouse on the property. Months later, in December 2004, the Respondent-creditor filed a money suit against the debtor and obtained an attachment before judgment over the same property in February 2005. Contesting the attachment, the Appellant-purchaser filed a claim petition under Order 38 Rule 8 CPC read with Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the sale was a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA). The High Court substantially upheld the trial court's reasoning but remanded the matter on the limited question of consideration.Bail Cannot Be Granted Solely On Parity Without Assessing Accused's Specific Role : Supreme CourtCase Details: Sagar v. State of Up & Anr. (And Connected Case)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1155The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail on the ground of parity, holding that the High Court failed to consider the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offence.“while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while hearing the complainant's plea against the grant of bail to the accused on the ground of parity.The prosecution alleged that an altercation escalated into fatal violence when a group of accused persons blocked the complainant's family's way. During the confrontation, Respondent no.2-Rajveer, is said to have instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased. While Aditya's bail was rejected, the High Court had earlier granted bail to Suresh Pal (Aditya's father), a decision the Supreme Court subsequently overturned for lack of proper reasoning.Selection Criteria Cannot Be Changed After Interview : Supreme CourtCase Details: J and K Service Selection Board & Anr. v. Sudesh Kumar & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1156Reaffirming that selection criteria cannot be altered once the final stage of evaluation is complete, the Supreme Court dismissed the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board's appeal against the High Court's direction to create an additional post for candidates adversely affected by the post-interview change in criteria for the Forester recruitment.The Court held that modifying the evaluation scheme after the interviews had concluded unlawfully undermined the eligibility of certain candidates.“Therefore, a change in the selection criteria, after interviews were held, in our view, was rightly not countenanced by the Division Bench of the High Court.”, held a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale.'Statements Carbon Copies, Generic' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Sentence For Non-Compliance With S. 313 CrPC; Orders Re-TrialCase Details: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of BiharCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1157The Supreme Court (December 1) set aside the life sentences of three individuals in a murder case and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., noting that the accused had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to each allegation against them.“One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 01, 2025 To December 07, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags