Under WBPT Act, non-spouse heir tenancy expires after 5 years. Admitting facts proving expiry justifies O.12 R.6 eviction decree. Party cannot approbate/reprobate Act's applicability.

 RAJIV GHOSH

Vs.

SATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025 (Diary No. 8323 of 2025)

Decided on : 07-04-2025

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 — Section 2(g) — Inherited Tenancy — Limitation — The definition of "tenant" under S. 2(g) extends tenancy rights to specified heirs (including son/daughter) of a deceased tenant for a maximum period of five years from the date of the tenant's death (or the Act's commencement, whichever is later), provided they were ordinarily living with and dependent on the tenant and meet other conditions — This five-year limitation does not apply to the dependent spouse — After the expiry of this statutory period, such heirs (other than the protected spouse) cease to be tenants under the Act.

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A & 306 — Cruelty & Abetment of Suicide —

 JAGDISH GOND

Vs.

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A & 306 — Cruelty & Abetment of Suicide — Allegations supporting charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC must be specific and substantiated — Vague complaints about the deceased being lazy or sick, without evidence of physical violence or persistent harassment meeting the threshold of cruelty likely to drive suicide, are insufficient for conviction under these sections.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Insufficient Allegations

 UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Vs.

BRIJ BHUSHAN

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.12026 of 2024

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Insufficient Allegations — An FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 120-B IPC concerning a decades-old land transaction was rightly quashed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. against the Managing Director of the beneficiary cooperative society where the allegations amounted merely to a “bland allegation of connivance” with state officials, without specifying his role in the alleged criminal conspiracy or corruption, and where no personal benefit was alleged to have accrued to him.

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — False Promise of Marriage

 JASPAL SINGH KAURAL

Vs.

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No…of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4007 of 2024

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — False Promise of Marriage — For consent to sexual intercourse to be vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising from a promise to marry, the promise must be false ab initio, made without any intention of being adhered to, and must have a direct nexus to the complainant’s decision Where the complainant was aware that the accused was married at the inception of the relationship, and the relationship was prolonged (spanning several years, even after both parties obtained divorces from their respective spouses), the consent given by a mature complainant is deemed reasoned and conscious, negating the element of “misconception of fact” — A subsequent breach of promise does not automatically convert the initial consent into one obtained by deceit under S. 375 IPC.

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — Misconception of Fact — Promise to Marry

 BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE

Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER

( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No….of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4261 of 2024

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Consent — Misconception of Fact — Promise to Marry — Consent to sexual intercourse given by a mature individual, fully aware from the outset that the promisor is already married (though separated), cannot be deemed to be vitiated by a “misconception of fact” under Section 375 IPC merely based on a promise to marry after obtaining a divorce — Such knowledge precludes the necessary “misconception” and indicates a reasoned decision to engage in the relationship, especially when the relationship is prolonged and consensual.

 K. GOPI

Vs.

THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025

Decided on : 07-04-2025

A. Registration Act, 1908 — Tamil Nadu Registration Rules — Rule 55A(i) — Validity — Ultra Vires — Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowers a registering officer to refuse registration of a document relating to immovable property unless the presentant produces the previous original title deed of the executant or other specified proof of the executant's right/title, is declared ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 — The Rule imposes a condition for registration (proof of executant's title) and confers a power (to refuse registration based on lack of title proof) which are inconsistent with the provisions and scheme of the parent Act.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim Petitions — Standard of Proof

 KUNCHAM LAVANYA AND OTHERS

Vs.

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No….. of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No….of 2025 @ Diary No. 44210 of 2019]

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim Petitions — Standard of Proof — In motor accident claim proceedings, the standard of proof required to establish the involvement of a vehicle and negligence is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Pleading and Evidence — Rejoinder — A respondent/complainant cannot introduce new factual evidence, such as a surveyor's report assessing quantum of loss, for the first time in a rejoinder

 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Vs.

M/S. PARK LEATHER INDUSTRIES LTD.

( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 913 of 2023

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Pleading and Evidence — Rejoinder — A respondent/complainant cannot introduce new factual evidence, such as a surveyor's report assessing quantum of loss, for the first time in a rejoinder and expect the opposing party (appellant/opposite party) to have denied it in their earlier written statement/reply — The adjudicatory body cannot base its findings on the premise that the opposing party failed to deny evidence that was not before it when its pleadings were filed.

Insurance Law — Marine Insurance — Special Condition

 SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD.

Vs.

M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2021

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Insurance Law — Marine Insurance — Special Condition — “Voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in” — Implied Waiver / Non-Materiality — Where a marine insurance policy covers a voyage (Mumbai to Kolkata) for a specific period (16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013) which overlaps with the officially defined monsoon/foul weather season (commencing 1st May East Coast / 1st June West Coast), a special condition requiring the voyage to both commence and complete before the monsoon sets in is deemed non-material or impliedly waived by the insurer — This is because: (i) the insurer, knowing the voyage details and policy period, knew or ought to have known the voyage would occur during the monsoon; and (ii) strict interpretation leads to absurdity, potentially rendering the insurance cover illusory if a peril prevents timely completion.

Res Judicata / Constructive Res Judicata — Applicability to SEBI Proceedings — The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, based on public policy ensuring finality, apply to proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and its Whole-Time Members (WTMs)

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Vs.

RAM KISHORI GUPTA AND ANOTHER

( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 7941 of 2019 with Civil Appeal Nos. 1649-1652 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No..........of 2025 (@ Diary No. 42829 OF 2019)

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Res Judicata / Constructive Res Judicata — Applicability to SEBI Proceedings — The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, based on public policy ensuring finality, apply to proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and its Whole-Time Members (WTMs) — SEBI cannot pass multiple final orders imposing penalties on the same cause of action against the same parties based on the same show-cause notice, particularly after an earlier order (imposing debarment) has attained finality and been fully acted upon — Reopening the matter years later to impose additional penalties (like disgorgement) without just cause is impermissible.