Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 24, 2025 To November 30, 2025

JudgmentsAnyone Can Lodge Complaint Under Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act : Supreme CourtCase Details: Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1134The Supreme Court held that a complaint for offences punishable under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (“1984 Act”) can be initiated by any person, as the Act imposes no restrictions on who may set the criminal law in motion.“it is a well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.”, observed a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while setting aside the Allahabad High Court's order that had quashed the magistrate's summoning of the accused after taking cognizance of the Gram Pradhan's complaint under various IPC provisions read with the 1984 Act.IBC | Section 7 Application Can't Be Rejected For Curable Defects In Affidavit : Supreme CourtCase Details: Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited v. HDFC Bank LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1135The Supreme Court (November 24) observed that procedural defects in a Section 7 insolvency application under IBC, such as a defective affidavit, are curable and cannot be used as a basis for summary dismissal.“Mere filing of a 'defective' affidavit in support of an application would, however, not render the very application non est and liable to be rejected on that ground as it is neither an incurable nor a fundamental defect.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe while restoring the secured creditor's Section 7 IBC application, which the NCLT had rejected solely on the ground of a mismatch between the verification date and the date of swearing of the supporting affidavit.Supreme Court Directs Registry To Not Clear Petitions Filed With Black & White Photographs; AoRs Must Produce Colour PhotosCase Details: Dinamati Gomes v. State of Goa, SLP(C) No. 7944/2024Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1136By way of a judicial order, the Supreme Court has directed its Registry to not accept any paperbook for listing if it contains photographs in black-and-white.Until properly coloured photographs are filed, duly appended with dimensions and conceptual plan, the matter will remain in the category of "defects not cured", the Court has said. Moreover, if the photographs have been filed electronically, Advocates-on-Record must also file hard copies of the same.To Convert Every Sour Relationship Into Rape Trivialises Seriousness Of Offence : Supreme CourtCase Details: Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1137The Supreme Court (November 24) quashed a rape case against an advocate who was accused of committing repeated rape on a woman on a false pretext of marriage. Noting that the sexual intercourse was consensual, not influenced by any false promise of marriage, the Court found the woman's allegations to be untrue and a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious.“The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while setting aside the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) order which refused to quash the case against the Petitioner.The Court observed that in a society where marriage carries deep social and cultural importance, it is common for a woman to consent to a sexual relationship based on the belief that it will lead to a lawful and socially accepted marriage. In such situations, her consent is conditional and rooted in the promise of marriage. The Court held that if it is proved that the promise was false, made in bad faith, and with no real intention to marry but only to exploit the woman, such consent may be considered vitiated, attracting the protection of Section 376 IPC. At the same time, the Court cautioned that this principle can be applied only when supported by credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on mere allegations or assumptions.Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court : Supreme CourtCase Details: Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel & Ors. v. Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1138The Supreme Court observed that an interim relief can be granted by an Appellate Court even when the original suit has been dismissed.“Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 24, 2025 To November 30, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags