Judgments

Landmark Judgments from January to June 2025

1️⃣ RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENA v. DINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* In this case, the wife, Reena, had left her matrimonial home after suffering a miscarriage and being ill-treated by her husband and his family.

* The husband had obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which required the wife to return to live with him, but the wife did not return to the matrimonial home.

* The Family Court had granted maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the CrPC, but the High Court later set aside that order, stating that since the wife had refused to live with her husband despite the decree, she was not entitled to maintenance.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* The Supreme Court held that even if a wife refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, she is still entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if she has a valid reason for not returning.

* The Court observed that if a wife refuses to comply with the decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a just cause, such as cruelty or ill-treatment, it will not disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.

* Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the wife's appeal and directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.

2️⃣ KIM WANSOO v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* Hyundai Motor India awarded a construction project to HEC India LLP.

* HEC subcontracted the work to KOTEC, which further subcontracted it to YSSS India Construction Pvt. Ltd.

* After the work was completed, the complainant alleged that payments were not made, cheques bounced, and threats were issued.

* An FIR was filed alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, and 120-B IPC.

* Kim Wansoo, a foreign national and project manager at HEC, was named in the FIR, even though he had no direct role in the transactions or payments. LAWVITA

📌 High Court's View

* Kim Wansoo had approached the High Court under Article 226 to cancel the FIR.

* The High Court rejected his request on technical grounds and did not properly check if there was real evidence.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* That this was an error, as the High Court failed to use its

powers properly under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.

* The Court observed that criminal law must not be misused to settle civil disputes or for personal vendetta.

* Referring to key precedents like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court quashed the FIR, noting it was an abuse of judicial process.

* So the conclusion was that the powers under Article 226 and Section 482 must be exercised to protect individuals from vexatious litigation.

3️⃣ VIHAAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* Vihaan Kumar was arrested, and he claimed that the police did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (Now Section 47 BNSS).

* The question before the Supreme Court was whether not informing the grounds of arrest would make the arrest and remand illegal.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* Informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1).

* This information must be given clearly in a language the arrested person understands, ensuring they know the basic facts for the arrest.

* If the arrested person claims they were not informed, the police have to prove that they complied with Article 22(1).

* If this is not done, it violates the Fundamental Rights under Articles 21 and 22, making the arrest and remand illegal, but it does not invalidate the investigation, chargesheet, or trial. However, filing a chargesheet later will not cure this constitutional violation.

* When producing the arrested person for remand, the Magistrate must check whether Article 22(1) and other safeguards have been followed.

* If a violation of Article 22(1) is found, the court must immediately release the accused.

4️⃣ SUDHEERA v. C. YASHODA, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* A second appeal was filed under Section 100 CPC.

* Before deciding whether any substantial question of law arose, the High Court granted interim relief (stay).

* The question was whether the HC could grant such relief before framing the substantial question of law.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* It was held that the High Court cannot grant interim relief (like stay) before framing a substantial question of law.

* The HC gets jurisdiction to hear the case only after framing that question.

* If no substantial question of law arises, the appeal must be dismissed at admission stage.

5️⃣ RAJIV GHOSH v. SATYA NARAIN JAISWAL, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* The case involved Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which deals with judgment based on admissions.

* The issue was how and when courts can use admissions to pass judgment and what constitutes a valid admission.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the court may pass a quick judgment based on clear, unconditional admissions made either in pleadings or outside (documents or statements), at any stage, on its own or on a party's request.

* The rule is discretionary, not mandatory, and must be applied fairly; a decree under it can be preliminary or final.

6️⃣ CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. SMT. PRABHA JAIN, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* Smt. Prabha Jain filed a civil case asking for 3 things about a mortgaged property.

* Two reliefs were about ownership and title.

* One relief was about getting possession back under SARFAESI Act.

* The Bank said this third relief could only be decided by DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and asked the court to reject the entire case under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* The Supreme Court rejected the Bank's request.

* It said if even one relief is legally valid, the whole plaint cannot be rejected.

* Courts must look at the plaint as a whole and not just one relief.

* Issues like ownership and title can still be heard by civil courts.

* Including a relief under SARFAESI does not make the entire suit invalid.

7️⃣ PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH SHARMA v. STATE OF GUJARAT, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a former IAS officer from Gujarat, approached the High Court stating that multiple FIRs had been filed against him.

* He argued that according to the Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) judgment, the police must first conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* The Supreme Court clarified that the Lalita Kumari judgment does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry is required in every case before filing an FIR.

* If the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, then registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC, and no preliminary inquiry is needed.

* Preliminary inquiry is only needed when the information does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.

* In this case, the allegations against the accused were related to abuse of official position and corruption, which are cognizable offences, so no preliminary inquiry was required.

8️⃣ THE STATE OF TELANGANA v. DR. PASUPULETI NIRMALA HANUMANTHA RAO CHARITABLE TRUST, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* The Telangana government gave land to a charitable trust for public use.

* The allotment included conditions, including one that allowed the government to take the land back if it was misused.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* The Supreme Court said that such government allotments are not private or commercial deals, but are done for the public good.

* So, Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA)-which usually stops complete restrictions on selling property-doesn't apply here.

* The condition allowing the government to take back land is valid.

9️⃣ SACHIN JAISWAL v. M/S HOTEL ALKA RAJE, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* In this case, the issue was whether a partner's personal property can become part of the partnership firm's property without any formal agreement.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* The Court said that under Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, a partner can bring in personal property into the firm just by showing intention.

* No formal written agreement is needed.

* If the property is added at the time of forming the partnership, it automatically becomes firm property.

1️⃣0️⃣ AMLESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR, 2025 SC

📌 Facts of the case

* The Patna High Court allowed the police to do involuntary narco-analysis tests (forcing accused to undergo narco-tests during investigation).

* Amlesh Kumar challenged this, saying it violated constitutional rights.

📌 Supreme Court Held

* The Supreme Court said forced narco-tests cannot be used as evidence in court.

* These tests violate Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty).

* The Supreme Court cancelled the High Court's order, confirming that forced narco-tests are unconstitutional and cannot be used in evidence.

* Police cannot force accused persons to undergo narco-tests, and if they do, the results cannot be used in court, as it violates constitutional rights.

 Landmark Judgements of Hindu law (with facts)

📌 Laxmikant Pandey u. Union of India, [1984)

◾ Facts of the case:

* Lakshmi Kant Pandey, a lawyer, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court.

* He complained that many organisations were sending Indian children to foreign countries for adoption, but later these children were forced into begging, prostitution or were exploited.

* The Supreme Court treated his letter as writ petition.

It called the Indian Government and other child welfare bodies to help make rules to protect children in such adoptions.

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* The Court laid down guidelines for adopting Indian children by foreigners. It said:

  - First, try to find adoptive parents in India.

  - If none are found in 2 months, only then look for foreign parents and Foreign parents must apply through a recognised agency, with full reports on their home, income and family.

Biological parents, if found, must be given 3 months to change their mind.

  - Adoption process must be private and confidential and After adoption, regular reports must be sent to India on the child's well-being.

📌 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)

◾ Facts of the case:

* This case involved several petitions, all raising similar issues. The main matter was that Hindu men, already married under Hindu law, converted to Islam solely to marry again without divorcing their first Hindu wives. 

* Their first wives challenged these second marriages, arguing that they violated the Hindu Marriage Act.

◾ Supreme Court Held: 

* The Supreme Court held that conversion to Islam does not automatically dissolve a Hindu marriage.

* A second marriage without legally ending the first is bigamy under Section 494 IPC.

* Court also highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code to prevent misuse of personal laws.

📌 Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000)

◾ Facts of the case: 

This case arose after Sarla Mudgal, where people tried to challenge or review that judgment. Lily Thomas, a lawyer, argued that Sarla Mudgal wrongly limited freedom of religion under Article 25. The Court had to examine whether its earlier stand was correct.

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* The Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed SarlaMudgal, holding that conversion to Islam to solemnize a second marriage without dissolving the first Hindu marriage is invalid and amounts to bigamy under Section 494 IPC. It clarified there was no violation of Articles 21 or 25. 

* The judgment reinforced the rule that religion can't be used as a tool to bypass personal laws.

📌 Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999)

◾ Facts of the case: 

* Githa Hariharan married Dr. Mohan Ram and they had a son, Rishab.

* A divorce case was pending, and Dr. Mohan was not taking interest in the child's welfare.

 In 1984, Ms. Hariharan applied to the RBI to invest in bonds in Rishab's name, naming herself as his natural guardian.

* The application was rejected, asking for either the father's signature or a court certificate declaring her guardian.

Ms. Hariharan filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, arguing it violated Articles 14 & 15 (right to equality) as it put the father first and only allowed the mother as guardian "after" the father.

◾ Supreme Court Held: 

* The Supreme Court interpreted the word "after" in Section 6(a) broadly, saying it does not mean only after the father's death but also covers situations where the father is absent or indifferent to the child's welfare. The Court ruled that the mother can act as natural guardian even when the father is alive, if it is in the child's best interest.

* Thus, the Court protected the mother's equal rights as guardian and upheld the principle of gender equality under the Constitution.

* The RBI was directed to revise its procedures accordingly.

📌 Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006)

◾ Facts of the case:

* The Case was a petition from the  Haryana District Court regarding the issue of the registration of marriage which was the issue of the states. 

* The different states had different rules regarding the marriages and the case used Acts of marriages from the states such as Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976; Bombay Registration of Marriages Act, 1953; Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1996; Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002; Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1935; Orissa Muhammadan Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1949;  and Bengal Muhammadan Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1876. 

* The decision was reached on 14th February 2006 with directives sent to the state to compulsorily register marriages and come back with the procedure for registration  in 3 months

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* The registration of marriage would serve as the presumption of marriage, and non-registered marriages would not have the benefit of the presumption.

* Therefore, all the citizen of all religions must register their marriage in the state where the marriage was solemnized.

* The court also directed the state and central government:

    - To create rules/regulation/ procedure for registration of marriages.

    - To appoint an officer who should be authorized to register the marriage, the age and marital status of the parties.

📌 Amardeep Singh us Harveen Kaur (2017)

◾ Facts of the case:

* Amardeep Singh and Harveen Kaur got married on 16 January 1994 in Delhi and had two children. They started facing disputes and began living separately in 2008.

* In 2017, both parties decided to end their marriage by mutual consent. They reached a settlement where Amardeep Singh agreed to pay 2.75 crores as permanent alimony (out of which 50 lakhs was already paid), and the custody of the children remained with him.

* They filed a petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Tis Hazari, New Delhi. Both parties jointly requested the court to waive the mandatory six-month waiting period under Section 13-B(2), arguing that they had already lived apart for more than eight years and there was no possibility of reconciliation.

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* Supreme Court held that the 6-month period under Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory.

Court can waive it in exceptional cases if:

   - Parties have lived separately for more than 1 year (as per Section 13B(1)).

   - All issues like alimony, custody, property settled.

   - There is no chance of reconciliation.

   - Waiting further only prolongs agony.

📌 Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020)

◾ Facts of the case:

* This case was about whether daughters have equal rights in Hindu joint family property under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if they were born before 2005 or if the father had died before 2005.

•  Earlier judgments had conflicting views, so the Supreme Court took up this case to clear the confusion.

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* Supreme Court held that Daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, just like sons.

* It doesn't matter if they were born before 2005 or if the father was alive or not on 9 November 2005.

* The amendment is retroactive, so it applies to all living daughters on the date of the amendment.

* It was also ruled that any partition after 20 December 2004 must be registered or proved by a court decree.

📌 Abhilasha v. Parkash, (2020)

◾ Facts of the case:

* The appellant's mother filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself, her two sons, and her daughter (the appellant Abhilasha) against her husband Parkash.

* The Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the application for the mother and two sons, but allowed maintenance only for Abhilasha, till she attained majority.

* All four then filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed it, but slightly modified the order - saying Abhilasha could get maintenance till 26 April 2005 instead of 7 February 2005, when she attained majority.

* They then moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but the High Court dismissed their petition.

Aggrieved, Abhilasha (the daughter) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* The Supreme Court held that under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), an unmarried Hindu daughter who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to claim maintenance from her father even after attaining majority, until she gets married.

* Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 imposes a statutory duty on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who cannot support herself out of her own income or property

📌 DOLLY RANI US. MANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL (2024)

◾ Facts of the case:

* Dolly Rani and Manish Kumar Chanchal were both pilots.

They got engaged in March 2021 and registered their marriage in July 2021 under Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules.

However, the actual Hindu marriage ceremony (as per customs) was planned for October 2022 but never took place.

They lived separately and later had disputes.

* Dolly filed criminal cases alleging dowry demands and harassment.

* Meanwhile, Manish filed for divorce.

* Dolly wanted the divorce case moved to Ranchi.

* Both later agreed before the Supreme Court that there was no valid marriage, so the marriage certificates should be cancelled.

◾ Supreme Court Held:

* The Supreme Court held that no valid marriage existed, as required Hindu ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act were never performed.

* The marriage certificates were declared null and void.

* The Court stated that registration alone does not create a valid Hindu marriage without proper rituals.

posted on  16-8-2025

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling for Homebuyers under IBC

On 9th September 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Justices Sanjay Kumar & Satish Chandra Sharma) in Amit Nehra & Anr vs Puma Realtors Pvt Ltd & Ors

(Civil Appeal No, 4296/2025) delivered a landmark judgment protecting homebuyers' rights.

Key takeaways:

Verified and admitted claims of homebuyers under IBC must be honoured with possession, not just refunds.

The published list of financial creditors is not a formality - it carries full legal recognition.

NCLT/NCLAT cannot deny possession when a Resolution Professional has verified the claim.

The Court has directed the execution of the conveyance deed and the handing over possession within 2 months

This ruling witl strengthen the confidence of thousands of homebuyers impacted by insolvency proceedings, ensuring that IBC remains a true instrument of justice and resolution.