Supreme court
Agreement To Sell Not Conveyance, Can't Give Any Right In Property Without Suit For Specific Performance : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that in the absence of a suit for specific performance of a contract, an agreement to sell cannot be relied upon for claiming ownership or title over the property.“In the absence of a suit for specific performance, the agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim ownership or to assert any transferable interest in the property.”, the...
Mere Absconding Not Proof Of Guilt, But Relevant Conduct Under S.8 Evidence Act : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that while mere absconding after the commission of a crime does not by itself establish guilt, it is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as it reflects the conduct of the accused and may indicate a guilty mind. Holding thus, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the appellant's conviction for murder, noting that he...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: June 9, 2025 To June 15, 2025
Reports/Judgements♦ Supreme Court Refuses To Urgently List Tamil Nadu's Suit Against Centre For Education FundsCase Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India | Diary No. 28793/2025 The Supreme Court on June 9 refused to urgently list the suit filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for the release of over Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). A...
Res Judicata Principle Applies To Different Stages Of Same Proceedings As Well : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that the principle of res judicata not only applies to different sets of proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceedings. Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the Kerala High Court's finding which had dismissed the Appellant's Order I Rule 10 CPC application objecting impleadment of a legal heir...
Legal Heir Impleaded After Order 22 Rule 4 Enquiry Can't Be Deleted Later Invoking Order 1 Rule 10 CPC : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently clarified that while the power to add or remove parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, this does not entitle a party to raise objections to impleadment of a legal heir at a later stage if the parry had sufficient opportunity to raise objections at the stage of Order XXII Rule 4. The...
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...