Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 15, 2025 To December 21, 2025

JudgmentsS. 389 CrPC | Gravity Of Offence And Role Of Accused Must Guide Suspension Of Sentence: Supreme CourtCase Details: Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1127The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order suspending sentence of a murder convict, holding that the relief was wrongly granted in ignorance of the gravity of the offence and the accused's active role.“…having regard to the relevant considerations such as nature of accusation, events in the crime and even the attribution of role of the appellant, it has to be held that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence, and releases respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the High Court. The participation and role played by respondent No.2 in the entire commission of offence has to be viewed as grave and could not have been discounted for its seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.”, observed a bench of Justices Manmohan and NV Anjaria, while allowing the complainant's appeal.The Court reiterated that suspension of sentence after conviction for an offence punishable with life imprisonment requires careful and cautious consideration, particularly where the allegations disclose a direct and active role in the crime. The power cannot be exercised mechanically or merely on the ground that the appeal is pending.Art. 136 | Second SLP Barred After Dismissal Of Earlier SLP & Failed High Court Review, Unless Liberty Was Reserved: Supreme CourtCase Details: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1205The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is not maintainable once an earlier SLP has been dismissed and a subsequent review before the High Court has also failed, unless the Court has expressly granted liberty to approach it again.“there is no doubt that a party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking Order of this Court. However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, to our mind, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach this Court again, in the absence of specific liberty having been granted by this Court.”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while dismissing a second SLP filed against the High Court's order dismissing the review petition, filed after the first SLP was dismissed in a non-speaking order.The dispute dates back to 2010, when retired employees of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court claiming pensionary benefits. A Single Judge allowed their claims in 2012, but the judgment was overturned by a Division Bench in 2014 on the ground of maintainability.Income Tax | Foreign Companies' Head Office Expenses For Indian Business Subject To Deduction Limit Under S. 44C: Supreme CourtCase Details: Director of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai. v. M/S. American Express Bank Ltd. (And Connected Case Details)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1206In a set-back to foreign companies doing business operations in India, the Supreme Court (December 15) held that all head office expenditure incurred by them outside India, whether common or exclusively for their Indian business operations, must be subjected to the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby ruling out any claim for full deduction.A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the grant of full deduction for “head office expenditure” incurred by the respondent non-resident assessees outside India in relation to their business operations in India.The Respondents-non resident banks operating in India through branches, had claimed deductions under Section 37(1) for expenses incurred by their foreign head offices. These included travel, certification, and administrative costs stated to be exclusively incurred for Indian branch operations. The Assessing Officers applied the Section 44C cap, limiting deductions to the lower of 5% of adjusted total income or the amount attributable to Indian business.Buyer Not At Fault: Supreme Court Orders Seller to Refund Buyer for Hiding Bank EncumbranceCase Details: Moideenkutty v. Abraham GeorgeCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1207The Supreme Court (December 15) observed that the fraudulent suppression of encumbrances on the property in an agreement to sell constitutes a valid ground for refund of advance payment.Holding thus, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled in favour of the property purchaser, whom the seller had misled by suppressing the existence of a pending loan on the suit property at the time of entering into the agreement to sell, and such...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 15, 2025 To December 21, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags