Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Grant of bail: Effect, when respondent-accused committed similar offence during bail, explained, [State of Jharkhand v. Sunny Kumar, (2025) 3 SCC 489]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 61 and 62 — Locus to file an appeal — Appeal by non-applicant creditor — Maintainability of: S. 62 stipulates that “any person” who is aggrieved by the order of NCLAT may file an appeal before the Supreme Court within the prescribed limitation period. Also, similar language is used in S. 61, which provides for appeals to NCLAT from orders of NCLT. The use of the phrase “any person aggrieved” indicates that there is no rigid locus requirement to institute an appeal challenging an order of NCLT, before NCLAT or an order of NCLAT, before the Supreme Court. Thus, any person who is aggrieved by the order may institute an appeal, and nothing in the provision restricts the phrase to only the applicant creditor and the corporate debtor, [GLAS Trust Co. LLC v. BYJU Raveendran, (2025) 3 SCC 625]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Circumstantial evidence: Absence of explanation, as required under S. 106 of the Evidence Act, not material, when the prosecution itself did not discharge its initial burden of prima facie establishing the guilt of the accused, [Ravi v. State of Punjab, (2025) 3 SCC 584]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Circumstantial evidence: Principles summarised re extra-judicial confession, when may be relied on, [Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 3 SCC 565]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 323 r/w Ss. 319 and 321 — Essential ingredients of: Infliction of actual hurt is essential to attract S. 323 IPC, [Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, (2025) 3 SCC 612]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 498-A — Cruelty on account of dowry: In this case, oral evidence including that of victim wife clearly revealed that the appellant husband subjected her to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns. Further, he continued to harass her when she and her relatives failed to meet such demand. Resultantly, ingredients of S. 498-A IPC and S. 4 of the DP Act, held, clearly made out on the record and, therefore, conviction affirmed, [M. Venkateswaran v. State of T.N., (2025) 3 SCC 578]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 201 and 34 — Recovery at instance of accused: Effect of recovery at instance of accused, when IO did not conduct TI Parade and when his testimony found woefully lacking on the material aspects required to prove the disclosure statement followed by the recovery, explained, [Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, (2025) 3 SCC 590]
Service Law — Banks — Misconduct — Acquittal in criminal proceedings — Effect: Acquittal in criminal case is no ground to exonerate delinquent in disciplinary proceedings as standard of proof is different in these proceedings. Further held, adequacy of evidence adduced during disciplinary enquiry cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction, [Syndicate Bank v. B.S.N. Prasad, (2025) 3 SCC 601]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 28(1) and 20 — Decree for specific performance: From language of S. 28(1), it could be seen that court does not lose its jurisdiction after grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. Very fact that S. 28 itself gives power to grant order of rescission of decree would indicate that till sale deed is executed in execution of decree, trial court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with decree of specific performance, [Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh, (2025) 3 SCC 543]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 9, 10 & 20 and S. 31 — Specific performance of agreement to sell: Law clarified on necessity of framing of issue of maintainability by trial court and effect of non-framing of such issue/erroneous finding on such issue, [R. Kandasamy v. T.R.K. Sarawathy, (2025) 3 SCC 513]
I have not seen topic abouts labour legislation.