Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: July 14, 2025 to July 20, 2025

Reports/JudgmentsNo Illegality In Awarding Interest On Future Prospects In Motor Accident Claims : Supreme CourtCase Details: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 693The Supreme Court (July 14) observed that there's no illegality in awarding interest on future prospects in motor accident compensation claim cases.The Court advised the insurance companies to settle the claim on a computation proactively, on receipt of intimation of the accident, at least provisionally, to avoid interest on future prospects and driving into protracted litigation."When the matter is pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them ever is nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest liability atleast to the extent of the disbursement made.", the court observed.Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation Of Spouse Admissible Evidence In Matrimonial Cases : Supreme CourtCase Details: Vibhor Garg v. NehaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment that held that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge amounts to a "clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy and cannot be admitted in evidence before a Family Court.A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings.Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act bars disclosure of marital communications without consent, except in legal proceedings between the spouses or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other.The Court stated that the spousal privilege under the first part of the section cannot be absolute and must be read in light of the exception provided in the same provision. “Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court said.'High Courts Can Suo Motu Confer Senior Designation' : Supreme Court Upholds Orissa HC's Sr Advocate DesignationsCase Details: Orissa High Court and Ors. v. Banshidhar Baug and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 11605-11606/2021Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 695The Supreme Court today(July 14) set aside the decision of the Orissa High Court, which struck down Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. RRule 6(9) gave suo moto powers to the full court of the High Court to designate an advocate as 'Senior Advocate'. The Court relied upon its recent decision in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2025) in the matter of senior advocates' designation to uphold the suo moto designation.In Jitendra Kalla, the Supreme Court, recognising the suo motu powers of the High Courts, had observed, "the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case."Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the suo moto designation of five advocates as Senior Advocates, which was under challenge in the present case. The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by the Orissa High Court (on its administrative side) against the 2021 decision delivered by the Orissa High Court itself.Aided School Teacher's Post Akin To Post Under State Govt; Gratuity Governed By State Rules : Supreme CourtCase Details: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School And Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 696Observing that a teacher working in a government-aided school is holding a post similar to a post under the State Government, the Supreme Court held that the gratuity of an aided-school teacher would not be governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“1972 Act”), but by the State service rules relating to pay and allowances.The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant's mother (now deceased) was a teacher in the Maharashtra government's aided school. Upon her death, being her nominee, the Appellant claimed gratuity under the 1972 Act, but his claim was rejected till the High Court. Following this, he moved to the Supreme Court.Company Which Suffered Loss Due To Offence Can File Appeal As 'Victim' Against Acquittal Under S.372 CrPC : Supreme CourtCase Details: Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: July 14, 2025 to July 20, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags