Ground-truth judicial intelligence from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals — synthesized in plain language with 2023 criminal recodification concordance (IPC↔BNS, CrPC↔BNSS).
The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that a Civil Court, when considering a plaint under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, possesses the inherent power to issue protective or preservatory interim orders even while the application for leave to institute the suit is pending, resolving a long-standing conflict among High Courts.
The Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to reverse an acquittal and convict the appellant for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine.
The Supreme Court granted leave in an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's denial of anticipatory bail to Vimlesh Mishra and others. The case involves alleged offences under Sections 85, 80(2), and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, stemming from an FIR dated November 3, 2024.
The Supreme Court admitted appeals filed by appellants, who were acquitted by the trial court for murder and other offences under the IPC but subsequently convicted by the High Court. The case involves a 2015 murder where the trial court doubted eyewitness reliability and found contradictions, leading to acquittal, which the High Court reversed. The Supreme Court will now review the High Court's decision.
The Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to Manzar Khan, an accused in a corruption case under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, overturning the Jharkhand High Court's rejection. This decision underscores the Supreme Court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail, even in serious economic offences, based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court, in Rajnikant Dudhabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, held that a High Court exercising revisional powers under Section 397 of the CrPC cannot quash a discharge order by reappreciating evidence, especially when the Sessions Court found no prima facie case. The High Court's role is limited to examining legality, regularity, or propriety, not to act as an appellate court.
The Supreme Court, in Finecure Pharmaceutical Limited vs Spirit Pharmaceutical LLC, entertained a petition under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole arbitrator in a dispute arising from a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement and an Exclusive Relation Agreement between an Indian company and two US-based companies, affirming the arbitrability of such international commercial disputes.
The Supreme Court held that merely depositing an awarded sum in court does not constitute 'payment' to the decree-holder, nor does it extinguish the judgment-debtor's liability under an arbitral award. This clarifies that a deposit is not a substitute for direct payment to the creditor for enforcement purposes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Supreme Court granted leave in a case where an FIR, registered under IPC sections including 403, 406, 420, and 384, was sought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC following a full financial settlement between the parties. The High Court had dismissed the quashing petition, prompting the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the non-admissibility of a document due to lack of registration, even if relied upon by the plaintiff, cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of the CPC before the commencement of the trial. Such an issue pertains to the evidentiary value, not the cause of action.