Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 14, 2025 To April 20, 2025

Nominal Index [Citation 421 – 440]CitationsZulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 421M/S. Parsvnath Film City Ltd. v. Chandigarh Administration & Others, Civil Appeal No. 6162 of 2016 (and connected case) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 422Neha Enterprises v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 423Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. | Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 424Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 425Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426Mrs. Varshatai W/O. Sh. Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Etc. | Diary No. 24812 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 427Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 428The Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 429Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 430Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 431State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Combined Traders 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 432Shahed Kamal & Ors. v. M/S. A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 433Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh v. V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 435S.C. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 436N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police | Diary No. 55057-2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC 437Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 008592 - / 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No.9167/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440OrdersRaman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of DelhiJanshruti v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 2152-2025Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of EnforcementNational Highway Authority of India v. Sugandha Sawhney and Ors.Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024Union of India and Anr. v. Sulaiman CT and Ors.In Re Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State of Telangana v. | SMW(C) No. 3/2025Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of EnforcementS. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.Naushad K K v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000205 / 2025All India Association of Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand | W.P.(C) No. 941/2021State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 269/2025Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited and Ors.Manjusha K v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 5548/2025Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 13433/2024Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.Other DevelopmentsReports/Judgments'Shocks Our Conscience': Supreme Court Asks UP Authority To Pay Rs 60 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of HousesCase Details: Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 421The Supreme Court directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay Rs. 10 lakh each in compensation to six individuals whose houses were illegally demolished, calling the action “inhumane and illegal.”“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India…Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.” A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the demolition was carried out in violation of due process and the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.Supreme Court Holds Chandigarh Authorities Liable For Delay In Film City Project, Directs Refund Of 47.75 Crores To Successful BidderCase Details: M/S. Parsvnath Film City Ltd. v. Chandigarh Administration & Others, Civil Appeal No. 6162 of 2016 (and connected case)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 422The Supreme Court largely upheld an arbitral award passed in favor of a company engaged by the Chandigarh Administration to establish a Multimedia-cum-Film City in the Union Territory, holding the authorities liable to refund a forfeited bid amount of Rs.47.75 crores.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict, being of the view that the Punjab and Haryana High Court wrongly set aside the arbitral award. It opined that though time was of the essence to the project sought to be developed, there was a clear and unreasonable delay (of over 16 months) attributable to the authorities in handing over encumbrance-free land to ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: April 14, 2025 To April 20, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags