Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: May 2025

Reports/JudgmentsMotor Accident Claims | Unemployed Husband Can Be Presumed To Be Partially Dependent On Deceased Wife's Income: Supreme CourtCase Details: Sri Malakappa & Ors. v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 511The Supreme Court held that in determining insurance compensation, the deceased's husband cannot be excluded as a dependent merely because he is an able-bodied man. The Court emphasized that in the absence of proof of the husband's employment status, his dependency on the deceased's income cannot be disregarded and would be treated as partially dependent on his wife's income. Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran treated the deceased's husband, whose employment status was unproven, along with her children, as dependents, thereby entitling them to claim insurance compensation. “we are of the opinion that since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased.”, the court said.Mere Use Of Insulting Remarks Like 'Impotent' Doesn't Constitute Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband's In-LawsCase Details: Shenbagavalli and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 512The Supreme Court quashed an abetment to suicide case under Section 306 of the IPC against the husband's in-laws, ruling that merely calling him "impotent" in offensive language while taking their daughter (the deceased's wife) to her parental home after a marital dispute did not amount to abetment. An FIR was registered against the husband's in-laws after a husband's suicide note was found alleging his in-laws for harassment, and calling him impotent, while taking his wife to her parental home. The Madras High Court refused to quash the FIR against the in-laws, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih observed that the suicide note did not indicate direct inducement or persistent cruelty. Hurtful remarks (e.g., "impotent") alone do not establish abetment, the Court said.GST | Bail Should Be Normally Granted For Offences Under S 132 CGST Act Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Exists: Supreme CourtCase Details: Vineet Jain v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 513The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the High Court and the Magistrate Court denying bail to a person accused of committing offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court observed that in cases like this, bail should normally be granted. The offences alleged against the appellant were under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. In this case, the chargesheet was filed and the accused was under custody for nearly seven months. He approached the Supreme Court after the Rajasthan High Court denied him bail. Saying that bail should be the normal in such cases, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed: "We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances."'Unauthorised Construction Has To Be Demolished; Judicial Regularisation Impermissible': Supreme CourtCase Details: Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 514Reaffirming its zero-tolerance stance on illegal and unauthorized construction, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the regularization of an unlawful building in Kolkata, emphasizing that no leniency should be shown towards such violations and that the structure must be demolished. The Court noted that illegal structures must face demolition without exception, closing all avenues for regularization after the fact. “The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society”, the Court observed. Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan affirmed the Calcutta High Court's ruling, which had refused to allow regularization of the unauthorized construction and ordered demolition.High Court Cannot Reject A Plaint While Exercising Article 227 Power: Supreme CourtCase Details: K. Valarmathi v. KumaresanCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 515The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: May 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags