Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that although the expression “arising out of” receives a broad interpretation and compensation proceedings are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the existence of some link whatsoever between the car, and the death had to be established.
The Court observed that although bail is the rule and jail the exception, and every accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the present case stood on a different footing as the earlier orders rejecting the respondent’s bail on merits had attained finality and the trial had already commenced.
The Court directed that directions issued in Rohit Anand Das v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4535, regarding modification of the APAAR consent form should operate on a pan-India basis.
The Supreme Court while quashing criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against a litigant and his counsel held that “wrong statement” is not the same as a “false statement”. The Court reiterated that prosecution can be initiated only where a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood exists and the Court records that such action is expedient in the interests of justice.
The Court held that while conducting preliminary assessment, Juvenile Justice Board was not bound by any opinion or recommendation and must independently apply its mind to all the material available to it, including Social Background Report, Social Investigation Report, witness statements, interaction with the child and every other relevant circumstance.
The Court sets aside the order which treated Section 66 as a non-bailable offence while ignoring Section 77-B
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association issued a statement condemning the use of force against students and young protestors who had assembled to peacefully voice their grievances regarding public examinations.
Supreme Court held that while frequent phone calls alone cannot establish criminal conspiracy, a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including recoveries admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, and the accused’s conduct was sufficient to uphold the husband’s conviction for the premeditated murder of his wife.
The Supreme Court Bar Association issued a resolution condemning the brutal lathi charge against students, and SCBA President Dr. Vikas Singh wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah requesting a judicial enquiry and immediate action in this regard.
Upholding the appellant’s conviction for gang rape, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of remission after considering his young age, absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison and the possibility of reformation.
PIL before the Supreme Court seeks directions to the Centre and States to formulate a uniform investigation framework for paper leak cases, ensure time-bound probes and speedy trials, confiscate proceeds of crime, and reconsider the prohibition on deception detection techniques in light of advances in forensic science and Kathi Kalu Oghad
The Supreme Court held that Railways cannot be held liable for shortage of goods booked at “owner’s risk” unless negligence or misconduct is proved under Section 97, Railways Act, 1989. The Court clarified the burden of proof under Section 65(2) and dismissed the compensation claim.
The Court stated that the 2016 Amendment to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 had created a legal fiction operating prospectively and did not affect proceedings instituted before its enactment.
Supreme Court granted bail the appellant, who was alleged to be an attesting witness to a forged Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds, after over 11 months of incarceration.
Supreme Court imposed ₹3 lakh costs each on Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal and others for alleged brazen violation of undertakings and directed them to file compliance affidavits within 15 days.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, concurring with Justice Sanjay Karol, stated that “the right of pre-emption as conferred under Section 22 of the HSA is, in its pith and substance, an incident of succession and nothing more”.
“Once the parties with their eyes open without any protest whatsoever and with free will accept certain terms of a contract they cannot afterwards be permitted to go back on the same merely because at a later point of time the stipulation proves to be onerous.”
The Court placed reliance on well-established and acknowledged sources of the law as it prevails in the community which, at the cost of repetition, postulates that in the absence of a ghardamad or any other male heir directly related to the landowner, i.e. the male members of the family, the nearest male agnate will have the right in the property.
The Court called for a shift from occasional seminars to continuous professional learning and proposed a full-time National Legal Academy to strengthen advocates’ skills, ethics, technological competence, and long-term development.
The instant dispute arose from Canara Bank’s allegation that the appellant’s legal opinion wrongly certified the entire mortgaged property as belonging to the guarantor, despite prior sale deeds affecting part of it. The Bank treated the alleged omission in title verification as negligence that exposed it to financial risk.