This volume of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Part 5 of Volume 5, embodies a curated selection of landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing a wide range of issues such as exercise of quasi-judicial power, scope pf judicial review, tax evasion, false promise to marry, and much more.
Administrative Law — Administrative Action — Quasi-Judicial Function — Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Power — Res Judicata: Quasi-judicial bodies, held, also bound by principles of res judicata to prevent re-litigation on same issue. High Court’s order upholding second order passed by quasi-judicial body despite first order passed by quasi-judicial body not being followed and remaining unchallenged, set aside, [Faime Makers (P) Ltd. v. Coop. Societies, (2025) 5 SCC 772]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Limited scope of judicial interference under, at referral stage/appointment of arbitrator: There is limited scope of judicial interference under S. 11(6), at referral stage/appointment of arbitrator Adjudication on merits by examining whether there is novation of contract at referral stage, [Meenakshi Solar Power (P) Ltd. v. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones (P) Ltd., (2025) 5 SCC 702]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Scope of Judicial Review/Interference under Art. 226 — Order passed by AFT: Order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal is amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226, [Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, (2025) 5 SCC 786]
Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 227 r/w Ss. 18(4), 19 and 7(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006: In view of provisions of S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, writ petition challenging award passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, not maintainable, [India Glycols Ltd. v. MSEFC, Telangana, (2025) 5 SCC 780]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 319 and 401 — Summoning of additional accused — Interference in revision: Law clarified on permissibility and duty of High Court while summoning additional accused in revision, [Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 740]
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Ss. 245-H, 245-C(1) and 271(1)(c) — Tax evasion — Immunity from prosecution and penalty — Discretion of Settlement Commission granting immunity: Scope of judicial interference is limited — Order of Settlement Commission based on a correct appreciation of law could not be interfered with by High Court in writ jurisdiction, more so in a writ appeal, [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. CIT, (2025) 5 SCC 673]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 r/w S. 34 — Sentence — Claim of juvenility after conviction ordered by the Supreme Court — Permissibility and entitlement: Law clarified on permissibility and entitlement of claim of juvenility after conviction ordered by the Supreme Court, [State of M.P. v. Ramji Lal Sharma, (2025) 5 SCC 697]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 375 and 506 — Discharge — Consent for sexual relationship on promise of marriage: Law clarified on determination of consent for sexual relationship on false promise of marriage, [Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 5 SCC 756]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 375 and 506 r/w S. 503 — Consent for sexual relationship on promise of marriage: Law clarified on determination of consent for sexual relationship on false promise of marriage, [Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 5 SCC 764]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 375, 417 and 506 — Rape on ground of deception arising from false promise of marriage: Law clarified on determination of consent for sexual relationship on false promise of marriage, [Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (2025) 5 SCC 749]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 19 and 45 — Arrest and detention: Scope of protection under Art. 22(1) of the Constitution and S. 19(1) r/w S. 45 PMLA, explained. Law clarified on effect of violation of mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest to the arrested person, [Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799]
Service Law — Appointment — Compassionate appointment — Delay/Laches — Effect — Law clarified: Having regard to object of granting compassionate appointment viz. to provide immediate succour to family of deceased employee due to death of breadwinner of family, grant of compassionate appointment after crisis is over would be of no avail. Further held, compassionate appointment not being vested right but relative to financial condition and hardship faced by family of deceased, claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after considerable period of time, [State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712]
