This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 2 of Volume 8, embodies a curated selection of landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing a wide range of issues such as arbitrability of a trade mark suit, classification of imported goods, scope of powers under Article 142, and more.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8 and 11 — Arbitrability — Suit regarding trade mark seeking relief of infringement and passing off: Law clarified on arbitrability of trademark disputes arising from contractual assignment agreements, [K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan, (2025) 8 SCC 299]
Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Scope and ambit of powers under: The exercise of power under Art. 142(1) being curative in nature, the Supreme Court would not ordinarily pass an order ignoring or disregarding statutory provisions governing the subject, except to balance the equities between conflicting claims of the litigating parties by ironing out creases in a “cause or matter” before it. Further, Art. 142 cannot be used to achieve something indirectly what cannot be achieved directly, [National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) 8 SCC 393]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 374 r/w Ss. 386(b) and 401 — Appeal challenging conviction: Right to prefer an appeal, held, not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused. Further, an accused, held, empowered to question procedural flaws, impropriety and lapses committed by the trial court in recording conviction and imposing sentence in an appeal filed against the same. Therefore, the appellate court, held, required to consider appeal against conviction from the perspective of the appellant-accused, [Nagarajan v. State of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 331]
Customs — Classification of Goods — Classification of goods imported as “Base Oil SN 50” i.e. as claimed by importer, or, as high speed diesel (HSD) as sought by the Customs Authorities — Determination of: Goods to be classified as High-Speed Diesel, must meet all technical specifications under Indian Standard (IS) 1460:2005. Applicability of test of “most akin” as contemplated under R. 4, General Rules for Interpretation, as opposed to preponderance of probability test, [Gastrade International v. Commr. of Customs, (2025) 8 SCC 342]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 201 r/w S. 34 — Motive — When relevant — Absence of proof of — Effect: A complete absence of motive, although not conclusive, held, a relevant factor which weighs in favour of the accused. However, the final effect of such absence on the outcome of the case, held, shall depend upon the quality and weight of surrounding evidence, [Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 8 SCC 315]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 376(2)(g), 366 and 342 — Rape — Abduction and gang rape — Testimony of prosecutrix — Sufficiency of, in absence of corroboration: Notwithstanding minor contradictions, evidence of the prosecutrix found inspiring confidence and she had clearly spoken about the accused abducting her and also committing rape on her. Resultantly, charges under Ss. 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, held, clearly made out against the accused, [Raju v. State of M.P., (2025) 8 SCC 281]
