Ms J.M. Jain Prop. Sh. Jeetmal Choraria v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 16754/2025 (Delhi High Court)

While the prima facie presumption as existing under the IT Act would not apply under the CGST Act, the assets and material seized could form the basis of an independent investigation by the GST Department

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2025 INSC 1288 (Supreme Court)

Written grounds of arrest, furnished in a language the arrestee understands, are now a non-derogable constitutional requirement.

SANJAY D. JAIN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 1168

Section 498-A of the Penal Code: Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

SANJABIJ TARI VERSUS KISHORE S. BORCAR (SUPREME COURT) (2025 INSC 1158)

Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, Supreme Court has revisited and tweaked the guidelines

SHOBHIT KUMAR MITTAL VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (SUPREME COURT) (2025) 3 SCC 735

None of the offences alleged against the accused is made out. In fact, the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the accused herein are vague and general in nature. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR to continue.

Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul (Supreme Court) 2025 INSC 1133

The notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is one of the main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the event of the main ingredient not being satisfied on account of discrepancy in the amount of cheque and one mentioned in the notice, all proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would fall flat as bad in law. The notice to be issued under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque.

M/S. SHIV STEELS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 1126

In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter

SHANTI DEVI VERSUS JAGAN DEVI (SUPREME COURT)

Sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. Payment of price is essential, even if it is payable in the future. A sale deed executed without the payment of price is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is void.

SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS VERSUS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD (SUPREME COURT)

Condonation of 3966 days delay: Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. Constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant.

VINOD KUMAR PANDEY VERSUS SEESH RAM SAINI (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 1095

It is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information. It has been so laid down very clearly in Ramesh Kumari (2006) 2 SCC 677 that the genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration of an FIR