Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 46 to 50 — Award in foreign currency: Conversion rate of foreign currency for computation of awarded amount must be considered, as rate on the date on which award becomes enforceable, [DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators & Motors Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 343]
Consumer Protection — Services — Housing and Real Estate — Possession — Non-delivery of: Period for grant of interest on refund of payment to allottee/homebuyer in case of non-delivery commences from the date of payment and not proposed date of delivery of possession, [Rishab Singh Chandel v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 433]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — S. 24-A — Limitation period — Extension of, on account of acknowledgement/acceptance of part-payment unconditionally: Limitation period of two years for filing complaint seeking compensation against developer of allotted plot extended, where reminders for making payment repeatedly sent by developer and also developer accepts part-payment, [Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, (2025) 1 SCC 422]
Contract and Specific Relief — Contractual Obligations and Rights — Force majeure clauses — Law governing: S. 32 or S. 56 of the Contract Act would govern the matter, [Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP, (2025) 1 SCC 435]
Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises — Government Grants, Allotment, Transfer of Government/Public property/Largesse and Licences —Termination/Cancellation/Resumption/Lapse/Restoration/Relief: Cancellation of allotment/lease on ground of not clearing outstanding dues, valid. Plea that no notice was served on tenant of original allottees not even relevant, when original allottees themselves had failed to comply with conditions of auction-sale/allotment, [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Manjit Kumar Gulati, (2025) 1 SCC 372]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 7 — Insolvency proceedings by financial creditor against corporate debtor: Simultaneous proceedings against guarantor and principal borrower under IBC, permissible, [BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 456]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 30 and 31 — Approved resolution plan, regarding statutory dues, etc. — Bindingness of: Law clarified on bindingness of approved resolution plan, regarding statutory dues, etc., [Noida Special Economic Zone Authority v. Manish Agarwal, (2025) 1 SCC 415]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 120-B r/w S. 420 — Discharge: Entitlement to benefit of bar from prosecution on grant of immunity under S. 32-K of the [Central Excise, determined, Baccarose Perfumes & Beauty Products (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2025) 1 SCC 384]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 or S. 304 Pt. I — Related eyewitnesses — Effect of relationship and duty of court: Merely because the witnesses are relatives, cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. Courts, held, required to scrutinise the testimonies of such witnesses with greater caution and circumspection, [Hare Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2025) 1 SCC 339]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 304-B or Ss. 306, 498-A and 34 — Dowry death or abetment of suicide — Acquittal — When warranted — Absence of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, as factor: In this case, deceased wife undisputedly committed suicide within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. Evidence of relatives of deceased including her parents and brother indicated that she committed suicide because of cruelty and harassment at the hands of her husband. However, said witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry. Some general statements made by said witnesses with respect to the demand for dowry, held, not sufficient to record conviction under S. 304-B, [Chabi Karmakar v. State of W.B., (2025) 1 SCC 398]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 384, 389, 406 and 420 r/w Ss. 34 and 120-B — Quashing of summoning order: Quashing of summoning order not justified when prima facie case made out on record, [Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 420, 468, 471 and 120-B — Discharge: Discharge justified when mere suspicion found on record for framing charge, [CBI v. Srinivas D. Sridhar, (2025) 1 SCC 378]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 44(1)(b), 3 and 4 — Quashing of cognizance — Sanction for prosecution under S. 197(1) CrPC, as factor: Prior sanction under S. 197 CrPC required to prosecute public servants under PMLA, [Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, (2025) 1 SCC 404]
