This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 4 of Volume 5, embodies a curated selection of landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing a wide range of issues such as the cooperative banks/credit societies, demolition of unauthorised construction, rights of differently-abled/disabled persons, recovery of arrears of rent, and much more.
Constitution of India — Art. 342 — Scheduled Tribe in relation to a State or UT — Determination of — Public notification vide Presidential Order — Mandatory requirement of: Public notification of “tribes or tribal communities” by President of India, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, sine qua non for deeming such tribal communities to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or UT, [Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, (2025) 5 SCC 503]
Contract and Specific Relief — Remedies/Relief — Remedies for Breach of Contract — Damages — Stipulated Damages, Forfeiture/Penalty Clauses and Earnest money/Security deposits: Grantability of liquidated damages and not refund on account of non-performing machinery and equipment, determined when option of replacing faulty plant and machinery and seeking its cost from supplier/respondent not availed, [S.B.T. Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Thyssen Krupp Industries (India) (P) Ltd., (2025) 5 SCC 590]
Cooperative Societies — General Issues — Cooperative Banks/Credit Societies — Cooperative Bank — When entitled for deduction under S. 80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural Development Banks is a co-operative society, entitled to benefit under S. 80-P IT Act, 1961. Law clarified on when a cooperative society is cooperative bank and when entitled for deduction under S. 80-P IT Act, 1961, [Kerala State Coop. Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. CIT, (2025) 5 SCC 531]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 197, 200, 204 and 482 — Summoning order against Planning Authority officer carrying out demolition of unauthorised construction: For purpose of applying S. 197, a public servant, held, must be accused of any offence, committed by him in “discharge of his official duty”. Hence, S. 197, held, not applicable, when a public servant is accused of any offence which is dehors, or, in excess of, or not connected to the discharge of their official duty, [Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta, (2025) 5 SCC 481]
Human and Civil Rights — Rights of Differently-Abled/Disabled Persons and Mental Health — Rehabilitation/Compensation/Other Measures — Life insurance for benefit of dependent disabled or differently-abled persons: Amendment in S. 80-DD of Income Tax Act, 1961 in terms of S. 21 of the Finance Act, 2022, consequently, on attaining age of 60 yrs or more by an individual subscriber or a member of an HUF, payment or deposit to Jeevan Aadhar Policy of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) i.e. a policy intended for benefit of dependent disabled or differently-abled persons envisaged under S. 80-DD of 1961 Act can be discontinued and monetary benefit which would have accumulated can be made use of. Plea for retrospective operation of amendment, held, cannot be sustained as same is not in interest of disabled persons, [Ravi Agrawal v. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 518]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 173 r/w Or. 41 R. 33 CPC — Compensation: Reduction of compensation, in appeal filed by claimant for enhancement is not permissible. Invocation of power under Or. 41 R. 33 in such a case, not proper, [Satya Prakash Dwivedi v. Munna, (2025) 5 SCC 525]
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 — S. 7 — Recovery of arrears of rent — Applicability S. 18 of the Limitation Act: It cannot be contended that only S. 3 of the Limitation Act along with limitation provided under Art. 52 of the Limitation Act will apply and not S. 18 of same Act. Once the Limitation Act applies, held, all its provisions will be applicable to proceedings under the PP Act, [New Mangalore Port Trust v. Clifford D’Souza, (2025) 5 SCC 577]
Service Tax — Leviability of service tax — Service tax on sale of lottery tickets by stockists or distributors appointed by State of Sikkim i.e. as an agent of State — Non-leviability of: Leviability of service tax on sale of lottery tickets by distributors appointed by State, not permissible. Relationship between State Government and distributor or purchaser of lottery tickets, clarified, [Union of India v. Future Gaming Solutions (P) Ltd., (2025) 5 SCC 601]
