Latest Indian Case Laws August 2025: Supreme Court Highlights

1. C. Hari v. Shine Varghese

 Citation: Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 408 of 2024; Kerala High Court, Ernakulam (P.V. Kunhikrishnan J.); 2025:KER:54510; Dated: 25.07.2025​

 Ratio: The Kerala High Court in Crl Rev Pet No 408 of 2024 held that a debt created by cash transaction above Rs 20000 in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot qualify as legally enforceable debt under the explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act thereby rebutting the presumption under Section 139 NI Act through preponderance of probabilities. When the Income-Tax Act 1961 for short Act 1961 prohibit a person from taking or accepting from another person any loan or deposit or any specified sum above an amount of Rs 20000 otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or such other electronic mode as may be prescribed can a criminal court justify cash transaction above an amount of Rs 20000 treating it as a legally enforceable debt is the important question to be decided in this case. The court acquitted the accused setting aside conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act as complainant admitted unaccounted cash payment without tax disclosure confirming no recoverable liability.​

2. K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.

 Citation: Contempt Pet. (Civil) Nos. 1002-1003 of 2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6732-6733 of 2009; Supreme Court of India (B.R. Gavai CJI & Augustine George Masih J.); 2025 INSC 1003; Dated: 19.08.2025​

 Ratio: The Supreme Court held that delayed payment of outstanding dues despite three month direction lacks wilful disobedience for contempt absent deliberate intent proven through material showing only administrative merger hurdles not mens rea essential for civil contempt under Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Tested on the anvil of the above principles we find that although the Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by this Court the material placed on record do not demonstrate that the delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent. No pension granted as never claimed earlier or adjudicated while rejecting contempt rule discharge and directing Rs 3 lakhs lump sum compensation to widow within eight weeks at 8% interest thereafter for protracted litigation since 1980s bringing quietus to claims.

3.Glencore International AG v. M/s Shree Ganesh Metals & Anr.

 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 11067 of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 27985 of 2019]; Supreme Court of India (Sanjay Kumar & Satish Chandra Sharma JJ.); 2025 INSC 1036; Dated: 25.08.2025​

 Ratio: The Supreme Court held that a written arbitration agreement under Sections 44 and 45 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 qualifies even without party signatures if inferred from email exchanges conduct accepting terms and performance like supplies invoices and letters of credit referencing the unsigned contract demonstrating ad idem. It is clear that for construing an arbitration agreement the intention of the parties must be looked into. The materials on record which have been discussed hereinabove make it very clear that the appellant was prima facie acting pursuant to the sale contract issued by the respondent. So it is not very material whether it was signed by the second respondent or not. High Court orders rejecting referral under Section 45 set aside suit disputes restored for arbitration as respondent accepted acted upon Contract No 061-16-12115-S including clause 32.2 arbitration by lifting 2000 MT zinc furnishing LCs and corresponding thereon.