Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 319 — Summoning of additional accused: Principles of law, that need to be kept in mind while summoning of additional accused, summarised, [OMI v. State of M.P., (2025) 2 SCC 621]
GST — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — S. 17(5)(d) and S. 17(5)(c) — Scheme under i.e. regarding non-availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) permissible under S. 16: Constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of S. 17(5) and S. 16(4) of CGST Act, upheld. Use of expression “plant and machinery” distinguished from “plant or machinery”, [Commr. (CGST) v. Safari Retreats (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 523]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Ss. 7 and 8: Solemnisation of marriage in terms of S. 7 sine qua non for valid marriage registration under S. 8, [Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 166 — Accident — Negligence — Proof of: A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by Tribunal. Strict proof of accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. Case has to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident, [ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, (2025) 2 SCC 599]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 162, 164-B(3)(a) and 2(12-A) — Motor vehicle accidents — Cashless treatment for victims: Direction issued to Central Government to frame cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims during “golden hour”, [S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, (2025) 2 SCC 579]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 354 — Ingredients of — Summarised — Quashing of charge-sheet/proceedings: For invoking S. 354, criminal force must be applied against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, [Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 604]
Succession Act, 1925 — Ss. 61 to 63, 9 and 73 to 111 — Technical validity of will — Effect on its genuineness: “Will is validly executed” and “a will is genuine” cannot be said to be same, [Lilian Coelho v. Myra Philomena Coalho, (2025) 2 SCC 633]
