The Supreme Court (SC) in Amlesh Kumar v The State of Bihar [2025 INSC 810], States that narco-analysis tests on accused individuals cannot be done without their consent.
Misjoinder of a cause of action arises when a plaintiff improperly unites in the same lawsuit multiple, unrelated claims or claims against different defendants where there is no common question of law or fact linking them.
The Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 (LSA Act) refers to two types of Lok Adalats:
the first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act which has no adjudicatory functions or powers and which discharges purely conciliatory functions and
the second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under section 22B(1) of LSA Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions.
The court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder, for attachment to be sold, if the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small. This is not a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court, says the Supreme Court (SC), in Ambati Narasayya v M. Subba Rao & Another [1990 AIR 119].
The mutation of the property and acceptance of land tax done under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 (in Kerala) will, by itself, neither create or extinguish the title, nor has it any presumptive value on the title. The mutation or paying land tax only enables the person in whose favour mutation has been effected to pay the land tax in question.
The Supreme Court (SC) in Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust & Anr Versus U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Others [2025 INSC 791] enlists essential elements of a legal notice.
Abetment to suicide cannot be charged on a teacher for mere scolding of a student who consequently committed suicide, and no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in suicide of the student so scolded, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Thangavel v The State, Through Inspector of Police & Another.
Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Lokayuktha Police Davangere v C B Nagaraj [2025 INSC 736].
The High Court of Kerala in paragraph 19 of the judgement in Shajeev George v The Chief Registrar Of Births And Deaths states that the declaratory decrees can be made by a court only after being satisfied with sufficient proof available on record for declaration of the civil death.
The Record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR), says the Supreme Court (SC) in Sakhawat & Another v State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 777].