Browsing: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside the arrest and remand of three accused booked under UAPA and IPC, holding that Section 43B UAPA and Article 22(1)…

The Supreme Court of India, in Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors. (2025), reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to…

The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on a multifactor assessment—chiefly control, supervision, business integration, remuneration source, and disciplinary authority—rather than on mere provision of facilities or subsidies. Deciding in General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal (2025 INSC 1175), the Court set aside rulings that had treated a bank’s canteen workers as its employees, holding that the bank only provided infrastructure and subsidy while a staff society hired and managed the workers, negating a direct master–servant relationship.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection in the country, even without a permanent office or physical presence. Deciding in Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2025 INSC 1247), the Court restored Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relief to the company and overturned the Uttarakhand High Court’s restrictive stance. It clarified that a “permanent establishment” applies under tax treaties, not domestic law, and directed reassessments accordingly. The judgment emphasizes that bids and correspondence can demonstrate ongoing business activity in India.

The Supreme Court in Zoharbee & Anr v. Imam Khan (2025 INSC 1245) ruled that a Muslim widow without children is entitled to one-fourth of her deceased husband’s estate under Mohammedan law. The Court rejected her claim for a larger share, holding that property under an unexecuted “agreement to sell” remains part of the estate until a registered sale deed is executed. Referring to Qur’an 4:12 and Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, the bench explained inheritance priorities and cautioned that inaccurate translations of trial court judgments may mislead appellate courts and affect outcomes.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 in service recruitment disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Deciding appeals related to teacher recruitment in Karnataka, the Court upheld a Division Bench order directing parties to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). It emphasized that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing this remedy. The Court clarified that provisional select lists do not create vested rights and urged the KSAT to conclude the matter within six months.

The Supreme Court has ruled that speculative investors cannot use Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate insolvency proceedings against real estate developers. Affirming the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s decision, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the IBC’s objective is to revive distressed companies and protect genuine homebuyers, not speculative actors seeking assured returns. The Court identified indicators of speculation such as buyback clauses, refusal of possession, high-interest refund demands, and deviations from the RERA Model Agreement, directing such investors to approach RERA, consumer fora, or civil courts instead.

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.

In a landmark ruling on September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari directed that when motor accident claimants cannot prove income, insurance companies must furnish applicable minimum wage notifications to tribunals. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced compensation for an 8-year-old Gujarat boy with 90% disability from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakh, fixing his income at skilled worker minimum wages.

The Court held that minors cannot be treated as non-earning individuals, emphasizing compensation based on skilled worker wages, with additions for future prospects. Insurance companies now bear responsibility to present wage data in disputed claims. The judgment, circulated nationwide to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, ensures uniform application. This decision strengthens claimants’ rights, curbs arbitrary awards, and sets higher benchmarks for fair compensation in accident cases across India.

The Supreme Court is examining whether Governors can indefinitely delay assent to State Bills, following controversies in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. A Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai stressed that Governors “cannot behave like monarchs” or stall governance. The hearings stem from an April 2025 ruling granting a three-month window for assent, after which Bills gain “deemed assent.” The Centre sought clarity via a Presidential Reference under Article 143. With Articles 200–201 at stake, the Court’s decision will shape Centre-State relations and curb gubernatorial inaction.