Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 8, 2025 to September 14, 2025

Reports/Judgments'Judicial Impropriety' : Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Modifying Bail Condition When Bail Order Was Under Challenge In SCCause Title: Sreeja D G & Ors. v. Anitha R. Nair & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 874The Supreme Court criticized the Kerala High Court for 'judicial impropriety' in modifying bail conditions while its anticipatory bail order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court.“we are constrained to observe that where the order granting anticipatory bail by the High Court was impugned in the instant special leave petition and this Court was seized of the matter, an order modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail set out therein, runs contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and comity. The proper administration of justice demands that when an order passed by the High Court is under challenge and notice has been issued by this Court, thereafter, if any application is filed for modification of the said order, the High Court must exercise restraint, as far as practicable, in passing any orders which can possibly have the effect of circumventing, prejudicing, or rendering infructuous the proceedings pending before this Court.”, the Court said.The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the accused-respondent no.1, after being granted an anticipatory bail and the challenge to the bail order being pending before the Supreme Court, had filed an application before the High Court seeking modification in the bail conditions, seeking permission to travel abroad (to Dubai for "immigration requirements").Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Quash Chargesheet If Cognizance Has Been Taken; Remedy Available Under S.528 BNSS : Supreme CourtCause Title: Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded.“So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”, the Court observed.The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Bombay High Court's order, which had dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 BNSS for quashing an FIR, treating it as infructuous merely because a charge-sheet was filed during its pendency. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had misunderstood the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Neeta Singh v. State of UP (2024).Supreme Court Sums Up Principles For Review Jurisdiction, Sets Aside HC Order Denying Daughter Her Coparcenary RightCause Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876Upholding a daughter's statutory right to a coparcenary share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Supreme Court (Sep. 8) set aside a Madras High Court review order which had reappreciated facts and questioned her entitlement. The Court held that such an exercise was beyond the scope of the High Court under its review jurisdiction.A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti heard the case where the dispute began with a partition suit (2000), where one Subramani secured a 2003 decree excluding his sister, i.e., Appellant-Malleeswari. She later sought to amend the decree, claiming a coparcenary share under the HSA 2005 and additional rights via her father's Will. The Trial Court rejected her plea in 2019, but the High Court in 2022, relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), upheld her claim. In 2024, however, the High Court on review reversed course, questioning the property's ancestral character and remanding the matter.Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti clarified that review jurisdiction under Order 47 CPC is confined to correcting “errors apparent on the face of the record” and cannot be used as a disguised appeal.Electricity Act | Supreme Court Dismisses Discom Appeals, Affirms All Purchasers Must Share Coal Shortage Costs EquallyCause Title: Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 877The Supreme Court (Sep.8) dismissed the batch of appeals filed by the discoms, upholding the APTEL's order, which held that coal shortages and associated costs must be shared fairly by all electricity...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 8, 2025 to September 14, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 8, 2025 to September 14, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers