Supreme Court Updates From CiteCase
#SupremeCourt reiterates that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
for prosecution under SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. https://t.co/ZgAgAgHFTX pic.twitter.com/2iSY5pcWsU
#SupremeCourt reiterates that plea of juvenility can be raised before any court and has to be recognized at any stage, even after disposal of the case. https://t.co/58oJWLSy6T pic.twitter.com/A9NpHQ2lBz
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
Important #SupremeCourt judgment on maintainability of a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC: https://t.co/s3e5FMeOhM pic.twitter.com/w08pMg6YZ1
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
#SupremeCourt deprecates practice of accused securing bail by offering to deposit monies and thereafter assailing such condition as onerous: https://t.co/4llBVSPKbc pic.twitter.com/LG0wj7PDas
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
Merely because a litigant barely pleads in his writ petition before this Court that any of his Fundamental Rights has been breached would not entitle him to maintain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.#SupremeCourtofIndia https://t.co/FdOmQjuQHJ pic.twitter.com/EMXgvu7Jtv
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
If there is a must read #SupremeCourt judgment explaining and clarifying the Doctrine of Merger, it is this one by Justice Dipankar Datta: https://t.co/FdOmQjuQHJ pic.twitter.com/O4Bn6P78mm
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 884 - Exceptions To Doctrine Of Merger- Writ Jurisdiction - Fraudhttps://t.co/RJlONesjDw
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 23, 2025
Yet another must read #SupremeCourt judgment on Order XXII CPC.
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
Discusses whether abatement of an appeal on non-substitution of a deceased party is partial or whole? https://t.co/QWEM7KdMMd pic.twitter.com/vfhoXlIIQL
#SupremeCourt holds that any agreement, or clause in an agreement, requiring or contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to arbitration, is not an arbitration agreement. https://t.co/d3AOvwntNl pic.twitter.com/Vj49xf1XqN
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/gsW7Ix61U7 pic.twitter.com/zRKYSsFW43
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
Does Limitation Act apply to Arbitration and Conciliation under MSMED Act?
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
Conciliation Under Section 18(2): ❌
Arbitration Under Section 18(3): ✅ https://t.co/A7jmyhiVHl pic.twitter.com/bXJn5SXUaZ
#SupremeCourt urges all High Courts to make Rules similar to the one made by Punjab and Haryana High Court imposing an obligation on the accused to make disclosures in his bail application regarding his involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered. https://t.co/gsW7Ix61U7 pic.twitter.com/EZyMUgzfT3
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
#SupremeCourt says that its Constitutional Power to punish for contempt cannot be taken away in any manner. https://t.co/DLm8B0z5nz pic.twitter.com/gLxkjGNG2W
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
#SupremeCourt on Trap Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act: https://t.co/1x8vT7C7oc pic.twitter.com/1Lh516wOEp
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
"Mere existence of an arbitration clause in the contract between the parties is not a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.."#SupremeCourt https://t.co/uvWH11yUs7 pic.twitter.com/oNkGMUojnx
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that evidence cannot be lead beyond pleadings in any matters of civil nature and the parties should confine their evidence to the pleadings. https://t.co/maa8tFoy6Q pic.twitter.com/lHbRPJvbJg
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025
Important #SupremeCourt judgment for CPC lovers.#SupremeCourt holds that it is the duty of a pleader to apprise the court as well as the other parties to the suit or appeal of the death of his client !
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
Providing merely an information with regard to the fact of death is not… https://t.co/vTl1P8dBio pic.twitter.com/k63AJ18Ehb
This #SupremeCourt judgment by Justice JB Pardiwala explains difference between two legal maxims:
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
✅Ex injuria ius non oritur
✅Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia. https://t.co/vTl1P8d3sQ pic.twitter.com/OBEs2pKQDR
New India Assurance Vs Usha Devi 2025 INSC - Motor Accident Compensation Claims- S.163A MV Act - Question Of Negligencehttps://t.co/apdfOGxuka
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that the principle that partnership will stand dissolved inter alia on the death of the partner is applicable in cases where there are only two partners constituting the partnership firm ! https://t.co/WtNAiTf46g pic.twitter.com/uWCtLR0KWY
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
Access to justice is inextricably connected to maintaining integrity in the process of invocation and conduct of remedial proceedings before Courts and Tribunals.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/HqrqS1TqaL pic.twitter.com/xTVLoCoTYv
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
Quite important #SupremeCourt ruling for Aided School Teachers.
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
- A teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government
- Aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government… https://t.co/dzmC7PmRS5 pic.twitter.com/2sWY8JAGRZ
When Supreme Court refused to disbelieve 3 months delayed FIR in motor accident compensation matter ! https://t.co/4UEjhtmp3J pic.twitter.com/k6pyzlHE57
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
Very interesting question answered by #SupremeCourt today on Section 372 CrPC !
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025
Whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC would be restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or include even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High… https://t.co/pKGDZ6I2U4 pic.twitter.com/Lnyv02Cjgs
Laws’ delays cannot, without proper substantiation, be cast upon the shoulders of one or other party to the lis.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/jolylbfnIO pic.twitter.com/WFdOCs5bj4
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
#SupremeCourt on value of expert opinion on disability assessment in motor accident compensation claims: https://t.co/KacEaNM4nl pic.twitter.com/QVcf704g7x
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that legal representatives of the deceased in motor accident compensation claims can pursue claims for loss of a property if the injured dies subsequently. https://t.co/AA64ZVMv0Z pic.twitter.com/msuynXlAEN
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 15, 2025
#SupremeCourt holds that a cheque bounce complaint cannot be dismissed merely because partnership firm was not arraigned as an accused or that notice had not been issued to it. https://t.co/sacOwoTvVS pic.twitter.com/D42LK3guLT
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025
#SupremeCourt holds that the fact that the conversation was recorded without the consent and knowledge of the person speaking is not a prohibition on the admissibility of the evidence ! https://t.co/ESUU54TPlo pic.twitter.com/K61O15vPi4
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. https://t.co/7OHYLF694g pic.twitter.com/d5Dyqkuiqa
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025
Very interesting question answered by #SupremeCourt today on Section 372 CrPC !
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025
Whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC would be restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or include even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High… https://t.co/pKGDZ6I2U4 pic.twitter.com/Lnyv02Cjgs
#SupremeCourt interprets the “and” word in Section 364A IPC ! https://t.co/oZZrpRHpaw pic.twitter.com/dzfxX3YRsk
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that in a claim petition filed under Section 163A MV Act, the issue of negligence of the deceased cannot be raised. https://t.co/Ynw56gR69B pic.twitter.com/2MLH6dPNkV
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 14, 2025