Index:
| 1. The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust …….. 1 |
| 2. Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. ………. 14 |
| 3. Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. ………………… 27 |
| 4. A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors. …………. 42 |
| 5. Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another ………. 55 |
| 6. Smt. Shaifali Gupta v. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors. ……….. 69 |
| 7. Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr. ………………………. 79 |
| 8. Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others …….. 94 |
| 9. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. ……………………. 105 |
| 10. Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh ……………. 139 |
| 11. Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …… 150 |
| 12. Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police …………………… 160 |
| 13. Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. ……… 190 |
| 14. In Re: Right To Privacy of Adolescents ………………… 216 |
| 15. Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 |
| 16. National Spot Exchange Limited v. Union of India & Ors. ……. 252 |
1. The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust
Case Overview: This case revolved around land allotted by the government to a charitable trust. The core question was whether this transaction was a sale or a conditional allotment, and if the conditions imposed were valid.1
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court clarified that the alienation of land was not a sale but a conditional allotment under a statutory scheme.2…
• The land was allotted to a charitable trust, meaning it was intended for charitable purposes only.2…
• Specific conditions were imposed, including that the land be used only for its allotted purpose, construction be completed within two years, and trees be planted. Deviation from these conditions would result in the land being resumed by revenue authorities.2…
• The respondent-Trust was aware of these conditions and had even admitted to following them “scrupulously” in prior communications and court filings.4…
• The Trust, however, violated these conditions by developing a residential colony (named ‘Eden Orchard’) on the land, subdividing it into plots, and selling some to third parties.8…
• The Court deemed this action a “fraud on the statute.”810
• Consequently, the High Court’s judgment, which had treated the transaction as a sale and nullified the conditions under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was set aside.11…
Takeaway: When government land is allotted for a specific purpose, especially to a charitable trust, the conditions of that grant are paramount. Violating these conditions, such as converting the land to a commercial or residential use, is a serious breach and can be considered a “fraud on the statute,” leading to the land’s resumption.
——————————————————————————–
2. Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Overview: This appeal challenged the conviction of appellants for murder, arguing that the prosecution failed to conduct a fair investigation and suppressed crucial evidence.14
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction and life sentences.1516
• A major flaw in the prosecution’s case was the suppression of affidavits filed by three out of four eyewitnesses during bail hearings, which stated that the accused were not involved.17…
• The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to controvert these affidavits or conduct further investigation based on these critical statements, despite being granted time to do so. This was a clear indication of a failure to conduct a fair investigation.17…
• The Court noted that the IO’s excuse for not investigating the affidavits was “lame”.19
• The prosecution’s actions created “serious doubt about the truthfulness” of their own eyewitnesses’ versions in court.1722
• The failure to recover the weapons of offence also became relevant in light of these circumstances.1522
• The Court reiterated its direction that trial court records should not be referred to as “lower court record” as it is “against the ethos of our Constitution.”2123
Takeaway: A fair investigation is a fundamental right of the accused. Suppression of material evidence or failure by the investigating agency to properly investigate crucial information (like eyewitness affidavits contradicting the prosecution’s case) can vitiate the entire trial and lead to acquittal, even if eyewitness testimony is presented in court.
——————————————————————————–
3. Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Overview: This appeal sought to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged sexual offenses, including rape, based on a false promise of marriage.2425
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the criminal case and all proceedings against the appellant.26
• The Court found that even if the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) were taken as true, it did not appear that the complainant’s consent was obtained merely on an assurance to marry, or against her will.27
• There was no evidence of coercion or threat to the complainant.28
• The relationship between the appellant and the complainant was initially cordial, and the criminal prosecution was likely filed with an “underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind” after the appellant moved away.28
• The complainant’s conduct of visiting the appellant’s native village without intimation was also deemed “unacceptable” and reflective of her agitated state.28
• The allegations, even at face value, did not prima facie constitute any offence.29
• Considering that the appellant was only 25 years old and had a “lifetime ahead of him,” the Court found it in the “interest of justice” to quash the proceedings to prevent him from suffering an “impending trial.”26
Takeaway: This judgment highlights that not all cases alleging sexual assault under the “false promise of marriage” rubric warrant criminal prosecution. Courts will examine the nature of the relationship, the context of consent, and the complainant’s conduct to ascertain if the allegations genuinely constitute an offence or are driven by other motives, such as a “disgruntled state of mind.”
——————————————————————————–
4. Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police
Case Overview: This appeal concerned a murder case where the High Court reversed the trial court’s acquittal and convicted the accused, primarily relying on the testimony of Investigating Officers (IOs) based on Section 161 CrPC statements.30
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s conviction and acquitted all accused, restoring the trial court’s order.31…
• A critical issue was that 71 out of 87 witnesses, including eyewitnesses, turned hostile during the trial.34…
• The High Court erred by relying heavily on the statements made by witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, as affirmed by the IOs. The Court unequivocally stated that such statements are inadmissible for conviction unless the witnesses themselves affirm them in court.34…
• What is revealed to an IO during investigation must be established before the Court through oral testimony or other admissible evidence, not merely by the IO’s recounting of Section 161 statements.3443
• The High Court also wrongly relied on “voluntary statements” of the accused, as confessions are only admissible to the extent that they lead to the discovery of a “fact” (e.g., a hidden object). Narrations about conspiracy or money transactions are inadmissible.31…
• The recovery of items like cash, clothes, or weapons was found to be not properly linked to the crime or the accused through admissible evidence.44…
• The Court found no “two views” emerging from the evidence; rather, the prosecution had “completely failed to prove the allegations” due to the widespread hostility of witnesses.3239
• While acknowledging the “consternation” of the High Court regarding the unsolved crime, the Supreme Court firmly stated that a “purely moral conviction” based on absent legal evidence is “total anathema to criminal jurisprudence.”33
Takeaway: This judgment powerfully reaffirms the bedrock principles of criminal law: conviction must be based on legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion, police statements not affirmed by witnesses in court, or “voluntary statements” that don’t lead to concrete discoveries. The widespread turning hostile of witnesses fundamentally weakens the prosecution’s case, and courts cannot base convictions on assumptions or “moral convictions.”
——————————————————————————–
5. In Re: Right To Privacy of Adolescents
Case Overview: This landmark case addressed the sentencing of an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, along with the rehabilitation of the victim and her child, and broader measures for adolescent well-being.5960 The victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident, married the accused, and had a child with him.5961
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to address the complex situation.62…
• Despite restoring the accused’s conviction under POCSO Act and IPC Section 376(2)(n) and (3) (setting aside the High Court’s acquittal), the Court held that the accused “will not undergo sentence.”59…
• The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the victim’s expressed desire to continue residing with the accused and her “fervent desire for preservation of his liberty,” noting her emotional commitment and possessiveness towards her “small family.”62…
• The Court acknowledged the “systemic failure of the State” to protect the victim when she was most vulnerable, which led to her current situation.60…
• Sending the accused to jail would have a detrimental impact on the victim and her child, who are now “comfortable with her small family” and focused on the child’s education.67
• The Court recognized that the victim had incurred significant financial burdens (Rs. 1,35,000) during the legal process, indicating she had been exploited.70
• The Court issued comprehensive directions to the State for the victim’s and child’s rehabilitation, including providing better shelter, bearing education expenses (up to graduation for the victim, and quality schooling for the child), and assisting with debts.6264
• Beyond the immediate case, the Court called for broader measures for adolescent well-being and child protection, including comprehensive sexuality education and the implementation of a structured data collection mechanism at the state level to improve accountability and policy-making.71…
Takeaway: This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s compassionate use of its extraordinary powers (Article 142) to ensure “complete justice” in sensitive cases, balancing statutory mandates with the complex realities and welfare interests of victims, especially in situations where systemic failures have occurred. It emphasizes rehabilitation and prevention through policy changes rather than just punitive measures.
——————————————————————————–
6. Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Overview: This appeal challenged the High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR against the appellant, who was accused of establishing sexual relations under a false promise of marriage and also under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.76
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing both the impugned FIR and an earlier related FIR, along with all proceedings stemming from them.7778
• The Court found no “prima facie material” to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage.7980
• Crucially, there were “inherent contradictions” and “great variance” between the two FIRs filed by the complainant. Specifically, the second FIR, lodged almost seven months after the first, alleged multiple sexual encounters that “ante-dated” the first FIR but were inexplicably omitted from it.79…
• The complainant was noted to be a “highly educated woman aged 30 years,” making it improbable that she would have forgotten earlier incidents of sexual intercourse.7982
• A significant revelation was that the complainant had previously filed a “similar FIR” against another individual (an Assistant Professor) for identical allegations of cheating and sexual exploitation under a false promise of marriage.77…
• Evidence from chats on record depicted the complainant’s “manipulative and vindictive tendency,” including admissions of trying to “get a green card holder” and needing to “invest on the next victim.”7784
• The Court concluded that the appellant was “absolutely justified in panicking and backing out” from the proposed marriage upon realizing the complainant’s “aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature.”7785
• The allegation under the SC/ST Act, included only in the subsequent FIR, was dismissed as “nothing but a sheer exaggeration.”7786
• Allowing the prosecution to continue would be a “travesty of justice” and “gross abuse of the process of Court,” as the FIR was a “bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations.”7786
Takeaway: This judgment serves as a strong cautionary tale against the misuse of legal provisions like Section 376 IPC or the SC/ST Act for personal vendettas or manipulative motives. Courts will critically scrutinize inconsistencies in complaints, past conduct of complainants, and corroborating evidence (like digital communications) to prevent the abuse of the legal process and protect individuals from fabricated allegations.
——————————————————————————–
7. National Spot Exchange Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Overview: This case originated from a massive payment default and fraud (Rs. 5,600 Crores) at the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL). The Supreme Court was addressing two key questions regarding the priority of secured creditors over assets attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act (MPID Act), and the availability of MPID-attached properties for decree execution despite an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) moratorium.8788
Key Findings:
Question (i): Priority of Secured Creditors over assets attached under PMLA and MPID Act.
• The Court held that secured creditors have no priority of interest over properties attached under the MPID Act. The MPID Act provisions would override any claim for priority by secured creditors.8990
• The monies or deposits of defrauded investors, which the MPID Act aims to recover, are not a “debt” as contemplated by Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, Section 26E, which grants priority to secured creditors for “debts,” is not applicable here.8991
• The MPID Act was validly enacted by the Government of Maharashtra for matters falling under the State List (Entries 1, 30, and 32 of List-II, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution).92…
• The SARFAESI and RDB Acts, on the other hand, relate to “Banking” (Entry 45 of List-I, Union List). Since the State and Central laws relate to different legislative lists, the issue of “repugnancy” under Article 254 of the Constitution is not attracted.92…
Question (ii): Availability of MPID-attached properties for execution despite IBC moratorium.
• The Court held that properties attached under the MPID Act would be available for the execution of decrees by the Supreme Court Committee, despite the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.9798
• The Court found no inconsistency between the MPID Act and the IBC.99100
• Section 14 of the IBC (moratorium) applies to debtor-creditor relationships, whereas Section 4 of the MPID Act (attachment) operates “beyond the realm” of such relationships.92…
• Under the MPID Act, once properties are attached and an order of attachment is published, they “forthwith vest in the Competent Authority,” subject to the Designated Court’s orders. This vesting means they are no longer the property of the judgment debtor/corporate debtor for IBC purposes.99…
• Therefore, Section 238 of the IBC, which gives it overriding effect, is not attracted in the absence of inconsistency.99100
Takeaway: This complex judgment clarifies the interplay between special laws designed to protect depositors (like MPID Act) and general financial recovery laws (like SARFAESI, RDB, and IBC). It establishes that the MPID Act, being a specific state law addressing fraudulent financial establishments and falling under the State List, takes precedence over the claims of secured creditors or the moratorium provisions of the IBC in cases of attachment for investor protection.
——————————————————————————–
8. Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Case Overview: The appellant, insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., claimed extensive damage to his basement due to heavy rains and flooding. The insurance company repudiated the claim, citing “seepage” (not a covered peril) based on a second survey report. The core issue was the actual cause of loss and the reliability of the survey reports.103
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court set aside the National Commission’s (NCDRC) findings and remanded the matter to determine appropriate compensation.104…
• The first survey report (dated 06.09.2016) unequivocally stated that the cause of loss was “heavy rain” and water entering through the flooring, resulting in damages.107108
• The insurance company commissioned a second survey without providing “any reasonable, cogent, or valid grounds” for a reassessment, despite the first survey being comprehensive.104105
• The second survey report (dated 18.10.2016) “curiously recorded that the damage… was caused by seepage,” a direct deviation from the first report.104105
• The Court found that the second survey report “failed to counter or address the detailed and comprehensive observations made in the first survey report” and offered no explanation or new facts to warrant a reversal of the initial conclusion.104105
• This “abrupt departure from the earlier findings, without explanation or justification, raises serious concerns about the reliability and objectivity of the second survey.”104105
• Additional certificates from other structural engineers supported the conclusion that flooding due to heavy downpour, not seepage or structural defect, was the cause of damage.108…
• The argument that a rapid accumulation of over 3 feet of water within three days could not be classified as “seepage” was also noted.111112
Takeaway: This judgment emphasizes that insurance companies cannot arbitrarily dismiss initial survey reports or commission subsequent surveys without valid reasons to repudiate a claim. An unexplained “abrupt departure” in findings between surveys raises serious questions about objectivity and reliability, and the burden is on the insurer to provide cogent grounds for such changes.
——————————————————————————–
9. Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case Overview: This case involved an appeal against the concurrent conviction of two accused for an acid attack (Section 326A IPC). The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds related to the nature of injury and source of acid, and sought a reduction in sentence.113
Key Findings:
On Conviction:
• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of both appellants.114
• The Court found that the eye injury and facial deformity were indeed the result of “serious Chemical Burn injuries,” as substantiated by the testimonies of multiple doctors (PW-5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14) and medical evidence.115116
• The argument about the non-recovery of the acid’s source was dismissed because the incident occurred at a railway crossing where the accused fled, making recovery unlikely. The chemical burns were independently established.117118
• The Court reiterated that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not be given undue importance, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for such cases are procedural guidelines, not mandatory.119…
On Sentence:
• The sentence for Appellant Hakim (Accused No.1) was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of INR 50,000. This was done considering his role in the offence (holding the victim), his age (over 70), and his ailments, bringing his sentence in parity with Accused No.3.117…
• However, the life imprisonment sentence for Appellant Umesh (Accused No.2) was affirmed. The Court noted that as an advocate, he was “well-read in law” and “owed a duty to the court” to act with dignity and respect. By committing such a heinous act (pouring the acid), he “let down the community as a whole,” and therefore, no leniency was warranted.117125
• The Court outlined relevant factors for determining a sentence, including motive, impulsiveness, intent, injury gravity, age, and post-incident conduct.126
Takeaway: This judgment underscores the gravity of acid attack offenses and the importance of robust medical evidence in securing convictions. It also demonstrates how the Supreme Court evaluates mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing, particularly emphasizing the higher standard of conduct expected from legal professionals due to their “duty to the court” and society.
——————————————————————————–
10. A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.
Case Overview: This appeal concerned disciplinary proceedings against a bank employee nearing retirement. The appellant challenged the charge sheet served by Union Bank of India without first receiving the “first stage advice” from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), arguing the action was mala fide and arbitrary.127
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing and setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and the charge sheet against the appellant.128129
• Regulation 19 of the Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, mandates that the Bank “shall consult” the CVC in disciplinary cases with a “vigilance angle” “wherever necessary.”130131
• CVC’s procedures require “first stage advice” to be obtained before the issuance of a charge sheet.132…
• Crucially, the Bank itself acknowledged that the case had a “vigilance angle” and that consultation with the CVC was “necessary”. The Bank had even sought this advice.131…
• Moreover, the Executive Director of the Bank had submitted an affidavit to the High Court explicitly stating that the charge sheet “would be issued to the appellant on receipt of the CVC’s advice.”132…
• Despite this commitment and the Bank’s own acknowledgment of the necessity of CVC advice, the charge sheet was served without receiving and considering this first-stage advice.134…
• The Court found that the Bank’s actions were “mala fide and arbitrary,” particularly since the charge sheet was served only 12 days before the appellant’s superannuation after 34 years of unblemished service.141142
• The High Court had erred in deeming Regulation 19 non-mandatory, as this point was irrelevant given the Bank’s own recognition of the need for CVC advice.128142
Takeaway: This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to internal regulations and commitments in disciplinary proceedings, especially when they involve consultations with vigilance bodies like the CVC. Serving a charge sheet without fulfilling a self-acknowledged necessary pre-condition, particularly at the fag end of an employee’s career, can be deemed “mala fide and arbitrary,” leading to the quashing of the entire proceeding.
——————————————————————————–
11. Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another
Case Overview: This case involved challenges to the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) examination, specifically regarding the suitability and correctness of several questions and their answers.143144
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court expressed “deep anguish regarding the callous and casual manner” in which the Consortium of National Law Universities (Respondent No.1) frames CLAT questions, impacting thousands of students.145146
• The Court noted this was a recurring issue, previously highlighted in the Disha Panchal case regarding improper conduct of CLAT.147…
• The Court modified the High Court’s judgment and issued specific directions for six disputed questions:
◦ Question No. 56 (Environmental Duty): The Court directed that marks be awarded to candidates who selected either option (c) or option (d), acknowledging that both were valid interpretations based on the provided material and legal principles (duty of both State and citizens to protect natural resources).150…
◦ Question No. 77 (Minor’s Agreement): The High Court’s decision to exclude this question as “Out of Syllabus” was set aside. The Supreme Court found that the correct answer (b) “A voidable agreement” could be logically deduced from the provided material, even without prior legal knowledge.154…
◦ Question No. 78: The High Court’s finding that option (c) was the correct answer was affirmed.158
◦ Question No. 88: This question was deleted. The Court reasoned that if Question No. 85, which was similar and based on the same material, was deleted by the Consortium, Question No. 88 should also be deleted for fairness.159160
◦ Question No. 115 (Wage Gap Calculation): This question was deleted. The Court found that answering it required “detailed mathematics analysis,” which is not expected in an objective test like CLAT.161162
◦ Question No. 116: This question was also deleted from all sets as a necessary corollary, as it was based on the information provided in the deleted Question No. 115.163…
• Finally, the Court directed the Consortium to amend the answer key, revise mark sheets, and republish the final list of candidates forthwith, and commence counselling within two weeks.165166
Takeaway: This judgment serves as a strong judicial rebuke against negligence in the conduct of high-stakes competitive examinations. It underscores that questions must be clear, unambiguous, and solvable based on the provided material, without requiring external specialized knowledge or complex calculations in an objective format. The Court’s intervention ensures fairness and protects the career aspirations of students from arbitrary or poorly framed questions.
——————————————————————————–
12. Smt. Shaifali Gupta v. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors.
Case Overview: This case involved a family dispute over property, with a mother and younger son suing the elder son and his family for partition, possession, and declaration of properties as Joint Hindu Family assets. The defendants (subsequent purchasers) sought to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing the suit was barred by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.167168
Key Findings:
• The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the lower courts’ decision to reject the application for plaint rejection.169170
• Standing of Petitioners: The Court noted that Defendant No.2 (elder son’s wife) had not filed the original application for plaint rejection or a revision, thus “acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the trial court” and could not appeal its rejection.171
• The subsequent purchasers (Defendant Nos. 5 and 6) were deemed not the “right person” to move the application under Order VII Rule 11 based on the Benami Act, as they could not claim personal knowledge about the original nature of the property (Joint Hindu Family property versus individual/benami).172173
• On the Benami Issue: The plaint consistently described the properties as “Joint Hindu Family properties” purchased from joint family funds or income, not as benami.172174
• The Court emphasized that whether a property is “benami” and falls under the exceptions of the Benami Act is a “mixed question of fact and law” that requires evidence, not mere allegations in the plaint. A suit is only barred if the property is benami and does not fall within the statutory exceptions.175…
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC: For a plaint to be rejected under this rule, it must be “without doubt or dispute that the suit is barred by any statutory provision” from the plaint’s reading itself. This strict test was not met here.177178
• Hindu Succession Act, Section 14: The argument that the suit was barred by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not raised in the lower courts, and in any event, Section 14 “does not bar or prohibit a suit in respect of such a property.”169…
• The Court concluded that the defendants suffered no prejudice as they were still free to contest the suit on merits and raise the issues during trial after evidence is led.169172
Takeaway: This judgment clarifies that plaints cannot be summarily rejected at an early stage unless it’s unequivocally clear from the allegations that the suit is legally barred. Claims related to properties being “benami” or subject to specific statutory prohibitions often involve complex factual inquiries that require a full trial and evidence, not just initial pleadings. It also highlights the importance of raising all legal pleas at the earliest opportunity in the lower courts.
——————————————————————————–
13. Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.
Supreme Court on Lawsuits: Don’t Dismiss if There’s Even One Valid Claim!
The Supreme Court, in a ruling on 23 May 2025, clarified that a civil lawsuit (plaint) generally should not be completely dismissed at an early stage if it contains multiple, distinct reasons for filing (causes of action), even if some parts might be legally flawed1.
The Core Dispute:
• Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (the owner) sought declarations, possession, and injunctions over land1….
• They claimed they took a loan from Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent 1), for which unregistered documents (power of attorney, agreement to sell) were executed as security, not for ownership transfer1….
• Crucially, the company revoked these documents in May 2022, but Respondent 1 still proceeded to register sale deeds for the property in July 20221….
What the Courts Decided:
• The Trial Court rejected an application to dismiss the suit, finding serious issues that needed to be heard1….
• The High Court, however, reversed this, dismissing the entire lawsuit1….
The Supreme Court’s Key Rulings:
• Plaint Rejection (Order VII, Rule 11 CPC): A lawsuit can only be dismissed early if, on its face, it clearly lacks a cause of action or is barred by law. Courts must look only at the lawsuit’s claims at this stage, not delve into their truthfulness1.
• Multiple Causes of Action: The High Court erred by rejecting the whole plaint, particularly by calling the claims about the post-revocation sale deeds “academic”19. The Court emphasised that “selective severance of reliefs is impermissible where different causes of action are independently pleaded and supported by distinct facts”110. If even one valid claim exists, the lawsuit must proceed11.
• Unregistered Documents: Unregistered documents cannot transfer ownership1…. They are generally inadmissible for conveying title, only for specific performance or collateral purposes5…. The fact that Respondent 1 did not file a suit for specific performance further weakened his claim1319. These facts raised “serious triable issues”119.
• Jurisdiction: Civil courts have jurisdiction over property title disputes, not revenue authorities. Arguments about ‘khatedari’ rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were not applicable to this ownership dispute20….
• Insufficient Court Fees: If court fees are insufficient, the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to rectify the deficiency before the suit can be dismissed20….
The Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restoring the original lawsuit and allowing it to proceed to trial17. This judgment reinforces that courts should be reluctant to summarily dismiss a case when complex factual and legal questions need to be thoroughly examined.
——————————————————————————–
14. in In Re: Right To Privacy of Adolescents
Justice Beyond Bars: Rehabilitating Victims
The Gist: This powerful suo motu writ petition addressed the sentencing of an accused under the POCSO Act, the rehabilitation of the victim and her child, and the broader framework for adolescent well-being and child protection1314.
The Facts: A 14-year-old girl was a victim under the POCSO Act1315. She later married the accused and had a child1316. The High Court had acquitted the accused, noting the victim’s desire to continue cohabiting with him1317. The Supreme Court, however, restored the conviction but postponed sentencing13….
The Supreme Court’s Unprecedented Move: In a truly extraordinary exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction (power to do “complete justice”), the Supreme Court ruled that despite the conviction, the accused would not undergo sentence20…. This decision was driven by the urgent need to prevent further trauma and injustice to the victim, who, after facing societal abandonment and immense financial hardship (incurring over Rs. 2 lakhs in debt to defend the accused), was now deeply committed to her family unit16…. The Court stressed that this specific judgment should not be taken as a precedent, but rather as an illustration of the “complete failure of our society and our legal system”22.
Broader Directives: The Court issued comprehensive directives to the State of West Bengal:
• Act as a true guardian of the victim and her child2123.
• Provide a better shelter to the family2123.
• Bear the entire expenditure for the victim’s education (up to graduation/vocational training) and the child’s education (up to 10th standard in a good school)21….
• Assist the victim in securing debts incurred during the legal battle21.
• File regular compliance reports2129.
The Court also called for a committee of experts to address suggestions for adolescent well-being and child protection, including comprehensive sexuality education, robust data collection mechanisms for institutional accountability, and a review of inconsistent approaches by High Courts when quashing POCSO proceedings21….
——————————————————————————–
15. Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Unmasking Deception: Quashing FIRs
The Gist: This appeal sought to quash an FIR that alleged sexual relations under a false promise of marriage and also included charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 198935.
The Facts: The complainant, a 30-year-old highly educated woman, filed two FIRs against the appellant. The first (June 2021) alleged cheating and a single incident of sexual intercourse. The second (February 2022), lodged seven months later, dramatically expanded on this, claiming multiple incidents of sexual intercourse under a false marriage promise and citing the appellant’s caste-based abandonment35…. The appellant argued the complainant’s aggressive and obsessive behavior led him to withdraw from the marriage41. Disturbingly, the complainant had a history of filing similar complaints against others, and chat records revealed her “manipulative and vindictive tendency,” where she admitted to trying to “get a green card holder” and referring to the appellant as a “victim” to “invest on”36….
The Supreme Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed both FIRs and all related proceedings, finding no prima facie material to support the allegations4246. The Court highlighted the stark variance and inherent contradictions between the two FIRs, especially the complainant’s omission of multiple sexual encounters in the first FIR despite them allegedly occurring beforehand36…. The complainant’s sophisticated background and her recorded manipulative behavior cast serious doubt on her claims3645. The Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be a “travesty of justice and gross abuse of the process of Court”4042.
——————————————————————————–
16. National Spot Exchange Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Upholding State Protections
The Gist: This case addressed complex legal questions regarding the priority of secured creditors over assets attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), and the availability of MPID-attached properties despite an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) moratorium48.
The Facts: The National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) commodity exchange platform was embroiled in a massive fraud, duping around 13,000 traders of approximately Rs. 5,600 Crores49. Properties were attached under PMLA and the MPID Act to recover the lost monies50. A Supreme Court Committee was established to oversee the speedy recovery and distribution of these funds to investors51.
The Key Questions & Supreme Court’s Answers:
1. Do secured creditors have priority over assets attached under PMLA and MPID Act?
◦ No, the MPID Act prevails5253. The Court explained that the MPID Act, enacted by Maharashtra to protect depositors from fraudulent financial establishments, falls under the State List of the Constitution (Entries 1, 30, and 32)54…. In contrast, the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act, which primarily deal with secured creditors, relate to “Banking” in the Union List (Entry 45)57. Since they operate under different lists, the principle of repugnancy (Article 254), which applies only to concurrent list conflicts, is not triggered54…. The Court reiterated that MPID-attached funds are not considered a “debt” as contemplated by Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, thus not attracting its priority clause5259.
2. Are MPID-attached properties available for decree execution despite an IBC moratorium?
◦ Yes, they are available6061. The Court clarified that there is no inconsistency or overlap between the IBC and the MPID Act54…. The IBC’s Section 14 moratorium applies to debtor-creditor relationships arising from an adjudicating authority’s order5458. However, attachment under Section 4 of the MPID Act aims to protect depositors from fraudulent schemes and vests properties in a Competent Authority5463. This process, focused on addressing fraud and vesting property, is distinct and “beyond the realm of the Debtor-Creditor relationship as contemplated in the IBC”5463. Thus, the IBC’s overriding effect (Section 238) is not attracted61.
The Court upheld both orders of its Committee, finding its own use of Article 142 for speedy recovery justified, as it aimed to achieve “complete justice” for the duped investors in a complex scenario involving multiple jurisdictions and substantial fraud51….
