Latest Indian Case Laws November 2025

1. Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa and Others 

 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 with connected writ petitions/review petitions, Supreme Court of India B.R. Gavai CJI and Aravind Kumar Satish Chandra Sharma K. Vinod Chandran and M.M. Sundresh JJ, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196, decided 09 October 2025​

 Ratio: Supreme Court under Article 233(2) Constitution held serving judicial officers with seven years combined Bar practice before joining plus judicial service qualify for direct recruitment as District Judge against advocate quota without resigning since “a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader” prescribes past practice eligibility only for non-service persons while service stream under clause 1 needs no Bar requirement allowing Civil Judges with continuous seven years total experience advocate or judge or mix eligible on application date via Governor appointment consulting High Court overruling Dheeraj Mor requiring current practice as misreading per Rameshwar Dayal Chandra Mohan where Article 233 creates two streams both Governor-High Court controlled no ongoing advocate status needed for service candidates, holding Bar Council enrolment under Section 24 Advocates Act permitted for salaried judicial officers per Rule 47 BCI not mandating full-time practice resignation as judges cease practice post-appointment yet retain rolls per Sushma Suri Satish Kumar Sharma, emphasizing framers intent efficient justice via experienced judges not Bar-only direct rejecting rigid 25 percent advocates quota, key sentences note “for a person who is already in the service of the Union or of the State no special qualifications are laid down” and “Article 233(1) provides for appointments of persons who are already in service while Article 233(2) provides that a person not already in service is eligible if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader,” highlighting judicial officers superior merit avoiding absurdity any Civil Judge eligible beyond seven total years per Article 217(2) Explanation (a), and prospectively allowed in-service applications clarifying prior selections unaffected Bar Councils verify valid enrolment no dual practice post-appointment.

2. RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY

 Citation: W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 & CRL.M.As.16639/2017, 8850/2024, Delhi High Court, Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma JJ, Decided on 3^rd November 2025

 Ratio: Delhi High Court probing 2016 suicide of Amity Law School student Sushant Rohilla due to 75 percent attendance shortage debarment ruled no law college university or institution permitted additional seats beyond BCI approved intake without prior approval as excess admissions dilute standards overburden faculty infrastructure violating Legal Education Rules 2008 UGC norms leading GRCs mandatory under UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations 2012 2023 with student rep woman SCST member two-year term online portals confidentiality timelines informing parents peers for prompt mental health support via counsellors psychologists psychiatrists 24/7 helplines mentorship anti-ragging measures, holding strict attendance enforcement flawed post-NEP 2020 COVID hybrid learning prioritizing holistic development over rote physical presence condoning shortages for illness internships moots bereavement via incentives credits not detention debarment warning systems proxy biometric CCTV invasive privacy violations under DPDP Act, emphasizing Supreme Court Amit Kumar Sukdeb Saha mandates student well-being Article 21 life dignity via flexible curricula continuous assessment support distinguishing professional courses, key sentences state “No law college, University or institution shall be permitted to admit students beyond the sanctioned intake approved by the Bar Council of India” and “mandatory attendance norms may require reconsideration especially bearing in mind the teaching methods which have substantially changed including post the COVID-19 pandemic,” highlighting stakeholder consultations global practices skill-based exams voluntary engagement urban-rural digital divides employed students open learning warning before penalties teacher accountability, and directed UGC Ministry Education nationwide circulars GRC constitution by deadline biometric halt reconsider BCI 70 percent via affidavit internship lists senior lawyers ensuring no proxy via tech safeguards NEP-aligned reforms closing Sushant Rohilla intervention legacy.

3.Krishnamma Ors. v. Garima Bais

 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 9534/2025), Supreme Court of India Justices Rajesh Bindal & Manmohan, 2025 INSC (ref. 734 for precedent), decided 28 October 2025

Ratio: Supreme Court held petitions under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS challenging proceedings under Section 12(1) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 maintainable per Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v Vidhi Rawal 2025 INSC 734 as High Courts inherent powers curb abuse secure justice ends apply DV cases like others, highlighted that Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore wrongly dismissed quashing as non-maintainable despite settled law confirming such petitions proper remedy against frivolous Section 12 DV complaints, and set aside 10 December 2024 order remitting fresh merits consideration directing parties appear 11 November 2025 concluding appellants appeal allowed restoring High Court jurisdiction exercise Section 482 powers appropriately.

 4.S. Manjunath and Others Vs. Moorasavirappa alias Muttanna Chennapa Batil

 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 13507-13508 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 29405-29406 of 2017) Supreme Court of India, J.B. Pardiwala J. decided on November 10, 2025

Ratio: Supreme Court held subsequent purchaser lacking due diligence cannot claim Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act protection as bona fide transferee for value without notice requiring proof paid money good faith no actual constructive imputed notice via Transfer of Property Act Section 3 wilful abstention inquiry gross negligence despite awareness prior ATS earnest money termination notice impleadment litigation continuing post-alleged cancellation raising suspicion prudent buyer verifies prior vendees not rely vendor ipse dixit, unilateral termination non-determinable ATS invalid without opportunity perform refund no clause permitting convenience repudiation amounts breach original vendees suit specific performance maintainable sans declaration termination legality per Brahm Dutt Balwinder Sarpal S.K. Ravichandran distinguishing I.S. Sikandar where purchaser defaulted despite notices extensions, Trial High Court rightly decreed enforcing ATS against subsequent purchasers who ignored red flags like ongoing impleadment until 2005 termination 2003 status quo death excuses extraneous concluding original vendees continuous readiness payments Rs.812500 assistance subdivision entitled decree vendors execute sale deed balance consideration respondents 15-22.

 5. MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Another v. Renuka Realtors and Others

 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 10428 of 2025), Supreme Court of India, Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2375 / 2025 INSC 1300, decided on November 10, 2025

Ratio: Supreme Court held orders rejecting plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in commercial suits deemed decrees per Section 2(2) CPC as formal expression conclusively determining rights appealable under Section 13(1A) Commercial Courts Act 2015 main provision against judgments/orders Commercial Courts District Judge level unlike interlocutory orders restricted by proviso to Order XLIII CPC enumerated appeals, “The plaintiff who is aggrieved of the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless or compelled to institute a fresh suit for availing such a challenge”, distinguishing Bank of India v Maruti Civil Works rejecting Order VII Rule 10/11(d) applications non-enumerated thus non-appealable via revision Article 227, and quashed Bombay High Court 17 February 2025 non-maintainable order restored appeal original number directing merits consideration expeditious disposal concluding appeal allowed no costs pending applications disposed.

6. Alpro Industries v. Ambience Pvt. Limited and Another

 Citation: O.M.P. (Comm) 480/2019 with I.As., Delhi High Court, Amit Bansal J., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8373 / 2025 DHC 9991, decided on November 14, 2025 (reserved September 15, 2025)

 Ratio: Delhi High Court held “letter consenting to unilateral sole arbitrator appointment post-TRF Limited notice but pre-Perkins does not constitute express waiver under Section 12(5) proviso Arbitration Act requiring full knowledge ineligibility yet full faith post-dispute as conditional consent included both respondents notice” no ipso facto validation per Bharat Broadband Mahavir Prasad Gupta JMC Projects “no conduct participation deemed waiver only writing strict threshold nullity ab initio proceedings unenforceable public policy Article 14 equality”, importance sentence “The Division Bench in Mahavir Prasad supra observed that a statement or conduct before the Arbitral Tribunal does not satisfy the statutory requirement of waiver, as the agreement must reflect awareness, emphasising the strictness of the proviso which has raised the threshold for express agreement in writing as a waiver”, set aside interim award refusing implead Alankar Apartments under group companies doctrine concluding appointment Justice M.S. Liberhan Retd. void ab initio Impugned Interim Award set aside fresh arbitration permitted all pending applications disposed.