Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11, 8 and 11 — Parties to arbitration proceedings — Arbitration agreement/clause — If binding on non-signatory to agreement: Law clarified on binding effect of arbitration agreement/clause on non-signatory to agreement, [Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel, (2025) 2 SCC 147]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 125 — Applicability — Right to maintenance thereunder, of a divorced Muslim woman, despite enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — Effect of non obstante clause occurring in the 1986 Act: A divorced Muslim woman can maintain a petition under S. 125 CrPC, despite enactment of the 1986 Act. Non obstante clause occurring in Ss. 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act cannot be deemed to override the rights so provided by S. 125 CrPC. Equivalent rights of maintenance under the secular provision of S. 125 CrPC, and the Personal law provision of S. 3 of the 1986 Act, parallelly exist in their distinct domains and jurisprudence. Thereby, leading to their harmonious construction and continued existence of the right to seek maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under the provisions of CrPC despite enactment of the 1986 Act, Mohd. [Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, (2025) 2 SCC 49]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 125 — Grant of maintenance — Divorced Muslim women — Jurisdiction of Family Court — Scope: Issue relating to whether Family Court has jurisdiction to try application filed by a divorced Muslim woman for maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and whether Family Court can convert the petition for maintenance under S. 125 CrPC to one under S. 3 or S. 4 of the 1986 Act and decide the same, pending adjudication before a larger Bench herein, [Rana Nahid v. Sahidul Haq Chisti, (2025) 2 SCC 113]
Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises — Government Grants, Allotment, Transfer of Government/Public property/Largesse and Licences — Modes of Allocation of State Largesse, Government Grants, Government/Public Property and Licences and Related issues – Mainly Public Law/Administrative Law Principles —Cancellation/Rectification/Modification/Revisional/Competent Authority/Denial of or Restriction on grant/transfer/allotment/ Resumption/Relief — Cancellation of allotment — When warranted — Arbitrary allotment of land: Land is a precious material resource of community and therefore the least which is required from State is transparency in its distribution. Citing arbitrariness in allotment process as it was violative of procedure as well as eligibility criteria, Supreme Court set aside allotment of land made by State Government in favour of Cooperative Housing Society (MRCHS) to provide housing facilities to doctors working at Tata Memorial Hospital, Proposed Vaibhav Coop. [Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2 SCC 128]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 168 — Compensation — Determination: Principles re-clarified relating to determination of compensation in case of death of homemaker in a car accident, [Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey, (2025) 2 SCC 145]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 306 r/w Ss. 107 and 114 — Abetment of suicide: Mere harassment, by itself, not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide, [Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 116]
Service Law — Promotion — Criteria/Eligibility — Promotion to post of DGM (Technical): In case of requirement of possessing four years continuous service in feeder category of post of Manager (Technical), effect of gap in service rendered on deputation and regular service, explained, [NHAI v. G. Athipathi, (2025) 2 SCC 39]
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Norms/Principles/Rules applicable — Change in rules in midst of recruitment process: Change in rules in midst of recruitment process, not permissible; Placement in select list confers no indefeasible right to appointment, even if vacancies are available, [Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — S. 41 — Requirements of applicability of — Clarified — Non-voidable transfer: Ostensible owner’s consent is necessary for granting relief to buyer, [Duni Chand v. Vikram Singh, (2025) 2 SCC 138]
Very Good Reporting… Keep It Up