Supreme court
Marriage Should Not Be Taken As Broken Down Just Because Spouses Live Separately; Courts Must Identify Who Broke Ties : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently cautioned High Courts and Trial Courts against dissolving marriages solely on the basis of couples living apart and labelling it an irretrievable breakdown. The Court emphasised that judges must undertake a thorough examination of the reasons behind the separation and determine the real cause of the spouses living separately. “we may hasten to add that Courts,...
Letter Of Intent A 'Promise In Embryo'; Doesn't Create Vested Rights Until Preconditions Are Met : Supreme Court
Holding that a Letter of Interest (LoI) does not confer any enforceable or vested rights until all stipulated pre-conditions are fulfilled, the Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh government's decision to cancel an LoI issued to a private company for the supply of electronic Point-of-Sale (ePoS) devices for its Public Distribution System (PDS). “an LoI (Letter of Interest) creates...
Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Auction Sale Can't Be Challenged On Grounds Which Could Have Been Raised Before Proclamation : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 25) held that a judgment-debtor cannot, at a belated stage, assail an auction sale in execution proceedings, particularly once the sale has been completed. The Court observed that such a challenge is impermissible under Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure when the judgment-debtor had a prior opportunity to raise objections before...
Bombay HC Appellate Side Rules | 7-Day Notice To Client Not Required When Advocate Files 'No Instructions' Pursis: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the requirement of giving a seven-day advance notice to the client before withdrawing a vakalatnama, as mandated under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and the Civil Manual, does not apply when an advocate merely files a pursis stating that he has 'no instructions' from the client.Holding so, the Supreme Court set aside the...
Sandesara–Sterling Group Loan Fraud | Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Cases After Accused Agree To Pay Rs 5,100 Crore To Banks
The Supreme Court recently quashed all criminal and civil proceedings against Hemant S. Hathi and Chetan Jayantilal, accused in the Sandesara–Sterling Group bank fraud case, after they agreed to deposit Rs 5,100 crore as full and final settlement with lender banks.A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, however, clarified that the directions were issued in the peculiar...
Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently 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 appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief as prayed for.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan while setting...
Supreme Court Daily Round-Up : November 24, 2025
Links to today's reports : Justice Surya Kant Takes Oath As 53rd Chief Justice Of India'How Can Drunken-Driving Accused Go Scot-Free?' Supreme Court Questions UP Law Abating Trials Pending For MV Act Violations Till 2021'Seems Tax Department Has Not Trusted Even Its Lawyers' : Supreme Court Flags Procedural Delays In IT Dept's Petition FilingsPresident Nominates Justice Vikram Nath As...
IBC | Section 7 Application Can't Be Rejected For Curable Defects In Affidavit : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (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...
Anyone Can Lodge Complaint Under Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act : Supreme Court
The 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...