Supreme court
S. 66 Railways Act | Railways Can Impose Penalty For Misdeclared Goods Even After Delivery : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the penalty for misdeclared goods can be imposed by the Railways post-delivery of consignments/goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989 (“Act”). The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and PK Mishra set aside the Gauhati High Court's ruling which held that penal charges cannot be levied after delivery of goods. Instead, the Supreme Court...
S.387 IPC |Actual Property Delivery Not Required; Offence Committed When Person Put In Fear Of Death/Grievous Injury : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code doesn't require actual delivery of property; instead, putting a person in fear of death/grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion is sufficient. Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra set aside the Allahabad High Court's decision, which had quashed the summons...
Preventive Detention Can't Be A Substitute For Bail Cancellation : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently set aside the preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The Court emphasized that the extraordinary power of preventive detention must be exercised sparingly and strictly in line with constitutional safeguards, reaffirming the principle that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed lightly.The judgment...
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 679 | MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN vs M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
Click the below links for the report and the judgment :Unregistered Sale Agreement Doesn't Confer Title, Cannot Give Protection From Dispossession : Supreme CourtIf Original Sale Agreement Is Unregistered, Registration Of Subsequent Instrument Won't Confer Title : Supreme...
If Original Sale Agreement Is Unregistered, Registration Of Subsequent Instrument Won't Confer Title : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently ruled that when the original sale agreement remained unregistered, then it cannot result in a valid title merely on the ground that a subsequent transaction based on the said unregistered sale deed was registered. The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Respondent claimed ownership and protection from...
Unregistered Sale Agreement Doesn't Confer Title, Cannot Give Protection From Dispossession : Supreme Court
Observing that an unregistered sale agreement does not confer valid title upon the person, the Supreme Court recently refused to grant protection from dispossession to a person who sought title and possession based on an unregistered sale agreement. The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the respondents (purchasers) claimed ownership based on...
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 677 | Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) v. Anupam Garg & Ors
Click the links here to read the reports and the judgment:Developer Not Liable To Pay Homebuyer's Bank Loan Interest For Delay In Flat Delivery : Supreme CourtHomebuyer's Right To Compensation For Delayed Flat Delivery : Supreme Court Explains...
Homebuyer's Right To Compensation For Delayed Flat Delivery : Supreme Court Explains Principles
In a recent judgment in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) v. Anupam Garg & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that while developers must refund the principal amount with interest to aggrieved homebuyers in cases of delay or non-delivery, they cannot be held liable for paying interest on the personal loans taken by buyers to finance their homes.In the decision, the Court...
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 676 | Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Click the links below for the report and the judgment :Supreme Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Against Husband & In-Laws, Cautions Against Misuse Of LawFor Limitation Under S.468 CrPC, Date Of Filing Complaint Is Relevant & Not Date Of Taking Cognizance : Supreme...
For Limitation Under S.468 CrPC, Date Of Filing Complaint Is Relevant & Not Date Of Taking Cognizance : Supreme Court
In a recent judgment (Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr), the Supreme Court reiterated that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the date of filing of the complaint or the institution of prosecution, not the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance."It is a settled position of law that for...