SCO.LR | 2025 | Volume 4 | Issue 4

Presenting Volume 4, Issue 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR). This edition covers five key judgments from 21–30 April 2025. 

SCO.LR (pronounced “scholar”) is evolving and growing with every issue. This week, we’ve updated our citation format based on your feedback and comments!  

Our citations now allow you to catalogue and reference each case more precisely, with Volume, Issue and the number of the case indicated in brackets. 

So, you can find the following details in our citations: 

• The year 
• Volume Number (which indicates the month of the judgement)
• Issue Number, which indicates the week in (small brackets) 
• Case number within that Volume in [square brackets]

Also releasing this week: Volume 1, Issue 3 (the third issue of January). This is part of our plan to provide a complete SCO.LR docket for 2025. Read now!

Stay tuned for more updates on how SCO.LR can support your research. Share your feedback and help us build the most accurate and accessible archive of the Indian Supreme Court.

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

2025 SCO.LR | Vol 4 | Issue 4

21 April – 30 April 2025 

**********

Guidelines to Disburse Unclaimed Compensation in MAC and Labour Tribunals

In Re: Compensation Amounts Deposited With Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts

22 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 530 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4)[16]

Bench: Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court set guidelines for High Courts to tackle the issue of crores of unclaimed compensation amounts in motor accidents and labour disputes. The guidelines will remain in place until state governments frame their own rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to disburse compensation awarded in these cases. 

The Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the case after a retired District Judge from Gujarat wrote an email to former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighting the issue of the accumulation of unclaimed compensation piling up in Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MAC Tribunals) and Labour Courts. The Court reviewed reports from various High Courts on the current status and proposed reforms. It noted that figures going as high as ₹239 Crores in the Allahabad MAC Tribunal and over ₹92 Crores in their Labour Courts were unclaimed.

The Supreme Court directed High Courts to issue practice directions to appropriate authorities to ensure the collection of all relevant personal and bank details. Judges of MAC Tribunals will have to verify bank account details and may now order direct disbursement of compensation to the claimant’s bank account. If the funds are disbursed to the MAC Tribunal itself, the amount must be invested in a fixed deposit account. These directions would also apply to Labour Courts. The High Courts were also directed to work with the IT teams to create a dashboard to track the accumulation and proper disbursement of compensation. High Courts, along with District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities, paralegal volunteers and police authorities, will track down the recipients of the unclaimed funds. 

Key words/phrases: Motor vehicles accident compensation—labour dispute compensation—unclaimed compensation—Surpeme Court suo moto cognisance—direction to high court—coordinate disbursement drive—state government to formulate rules for claim disbursement 

Read the Judgement here. 

Mind map

**********

Contempt Orders cannot be Reversed by Co-equal Bench 

Rajan Chadha v Sanjay Arora

23 April 2025 

Citations: 2025 INSC 546 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4)[17]

Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih

The Supreme Court held that it is against judicial propriety for a judge of the same court to review and reverse the decision of another judge who had held a party guilty of contempt.

A single judge of the Delhi High Court had found the respondent, Sanjay Arora, in the case guilty of contempt for breaching an Order directed by a single-judge bench. The judge had directed him to purge the contempt within seven days by complying with the Order. In the event that he did not, the judge held that Arora had to explain the delay. Following this, there was a change in the Roster and the case fell before another single judge of the High Court. The second judge set aside the contempt order, finding that the respondent had not willfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The appellants then moved the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. 

The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the second judge, holding that it was not permissible for him to revisit the question of whether the respondent had committed contempt or not. The respondent could appeal the decision of the first judge, but not reopen the case before another judge. The Bench remitted the case back to the single judge for reconsideration. 

Key words/phrases: Contempt of Court—contempt finding by first judge—reversal by second judge—quashed by Supreme Court—reversal of contempt order by second judge against judicial propriety. 

Read the Judgement here

Mind map

 

**********

Disability Presumed to be Service-related if not Detected at Time of Enrollment

Bijender Singh v Union of India 

23 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 549 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4)[18]

Bench: Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that if a person in the Armed Forces gets a disease after joining the force, it is presumed to have arisen during the service. Further, if a person is invalided (removed)  from service due to a medical condition, it is assumed their disability is over 20 percent. 

Bijender Singh, a member of the Armed Forces, was invalided from service in August 1989 after he was diagnosed with “generalised tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67”. The Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability at below 20 percent and held that it was not attributable to military service. Subsequent assessments by the Board in 1993, 1998, and 2002 continued to peg his disability between 15 to 19 percent. Singh challenged this in the Armed Forces Tribunal, arguing that his disability was service-related since he showed no symptoms at the time of joining. He also claimed that he was entitled to disability pension at the rate which is provided to a person with 50 percent disability. The Tribunal rejected this application and endorsed the Medical Board’s reasoning. A subsequent application in the Tribunal was also rejected.  

The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders as unsustainable. It relied on Dharamvir Singh v Union of India (2013), Union of India v Rajbir Singh (2015) and Sukhvinder Singh v Union of India (2014). These decisions held that if a disease is not recorded at the time of enrolment, it is presumed to have arisen during service unless the employer rebuts that presumption. The Court directed that Singh be granted pension at the rate applicable to individuals with 50 percent disability.

Key words/phrases: Disability pension—armed forces—disability during service period—invalidation of service due to disability—disease presumed to arise during service if not detected at time of enrolment

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

Courts should Quash FIRs in Economic Offences Sparingly at the Preliminary stage 

Dinesh Sharma v Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd.

23 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 571 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4)[19]

Bench: Justices B.M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale

The Supreme Court held that a First Information Report (FIR) cannot be quashed in the preliminary stage of a case involving a serious economic offence.

BLS Polymers alleged that EMGEE Cables made fraudulent representations and induced it to supply goods worth over ₹2.2 crore. Further, it alleged that EMGEE Cables failed to clear its dues, with cheques returned as dishonoured. Dena Bank had filed a separate FIR alleging siphoning of funds and embezzlement. Parallely, proceedings were initiated against the directors of EMGEE Cables under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 . The Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR against EMGEE under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 treating the long-standing business relationship as indicative of a purely civil dispute. BMS Polymers appealed to the Supreme Court to restore the quashed FIR.

The Supreme Court while restoring the FIR held that this was a prima facie case of criminality as there was an alleged use of shell companies, circulation of funds and continuation of involvement by a “resigned” director. The Court relied on State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal (1992) and Parbatbhai Aahir @Parbhatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v State of Gujarat (2017) to reiterate that Section 482 of the CrPC must be exercised sparingly. It held that economic offences affect public trust and cannot be lightly quashed on the basis of an ongoing commercial relationship.

Keywords/phrases: Section 482—Criminal Procedure Code 1973—quashing of FIR—to be exercised sparingly in economic offences

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

Reliance on Corroborated Statements by ‘Hostile’ Witnesses

K.P. Tamilmaran v State

28 April 2025

Citations: 2025 INSC 576 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(4)[20]

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.K. Mishra

 

The Supreme Court held that statements made by hostile witnesses are not “washed off” under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The judge can verify the statements if they corroborate with reliable material evidence.

Murugesan, a Dalit and Kannagi from the Vanniyar community, were murdered for marrying out of their caste. Thirteen out of 15 accused persons were convicted by the Trial Court. The Madras High Court affirmed 11 of those convictions and reduced the sentence for some. In the Supreme Court, the accused persons argued that there were inconsistencies in the statements provided by prosecution witnesses indicating that many of them had turned ‘hostile’. They also argued that Murugesan’s stepmother, a key eyewitness, was not mentioned in the chargesheet.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. It ordered additional compensation to the parents of the deceased male, noting that the girl’s father and brother were the main perpetrators. The judgement also held that there is no bar on courts to disregard “creditworthy” statements provided by close family members of victims. 

Keywords/phrases: Honour killing—inter-caste marriage— statement of hostile witness be considered if corroborated with material evidence—statement of close members of victims valid if creditworthy—Evidence Act, 1872

Read the Judgement here.

Mind map

**********

This edition of SCO.LR was put together by Advay Vora, Ajitesh Singh, Gauri Kashyap and R. Sai Spandana