SPUR LAW OFFICE®

The death of a Policyholder due to malaria after a mosquito bite is an accidental death, and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured. Case Law: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mosumi Bhattacharjee, R.P. No. 1270/2016. It relied on the earlier judgment of Matbar Singh v/s Oriental Insurance Co., wherein it was held that Snake-bite, dog-bite, and frost-bite are also considered accidents. 

Wrong diagnosis does not amount to medical negligence. - Case Law: Vinod Jain vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 2019 Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32721/2017, dated February 25, 2019

The "Blue Pencil Doctrine" is a contract law principle that allows courts to strike out illegal, unenforceable, or unnecessary portions of a contract (as if with a blue pencil) to render the remaining parts valid and enforceable, rather than voiding the entire agreement. This doctrine, rooted in the concept of severability, is commonly applied to cases involving non-compete agreements, where an overly broad clause can be edited to become reasonable while upholding the contract's core purpose. 

In M. Krishnaswamy’s “Law of Adverse Possession” (12th Edition), the jurisprudential concept of possession is divided into two ingredients: (i) the corpus, and (ii) the animus. Corpus means actual exclusive physical control over the property, denoting physical possession. The animus denotes the intention and exercise of the right to possess the property as owner to the exclusion of others. These two ingredients put together constitute legal possession. Thus, the mere throwing of kudha (Garbage) over an open plot of land for a very long period, much more than even 12 years, will not constitute legal possession of the persons throwing kudha, and much less can such a user ripen into adverse possession, to extinguish the title of the rightful owner.

Supreme Court establishes framework for quashing criminal proceedings. Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880 

The four step test:

1. Is the material presented by the accused sound, reasonable, and indubitable?

2. Does this material effectively negate the factual foundation of the charges? 

3. Has the prosecution successfully refuted this material, or can it reasonably do so?

4. Would continuing the trial constitute an injustice or abuse of legal process?  

In S.138 NI Act cheque bounce cases, now there is no need for a pre-cognisance summons to the accused as required under section 223(1) of BNSS. Supreme Court issued fresh guidelines in the matter of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. Crl. Appeal 1755 of 2010

Supreme Court in M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1102 ruled that a person purchasing a product for a "commercial purpose" having nexus with the generation of a profit can't be categorized as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

Supreme Court in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. HEG Ltd., TP (CRL.) NO. 1099 Of 2025, decided on 28-11-2025, states that for determining jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish whether a person maintains an account in a particular bank. It is also necessary to ascertain the specific branch of the bank in which he maintains the account to completely and unambiguously decide the said question. 

Contractual employees are also entitled to maternity benefits.  Case Law: Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Family and Health Welfare, 2023   

A religious deity, also a legal person, cannot be allowed to encroach on land. Case Law: K. Ramakrishnan v. District Collector, 2019 SCC Online Mad 36

Anticipatory bail is permissible under the SC/ST Act only if a prima facie offence isn't made out. - Supreme Court in  Kiran v. Raj Kumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 869 

The Delhi High Court has held that the remedies available to homebuyers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) are concurrent.

A proprietorship concern is not a legal entity. It cannot sue, but it can be sued. - Supreme Court in Dogiparthi Venkata Satish v. Pilla Durga Parsad (2025) INSC 1046 

The Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act. - Supreme Court in Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 2025 SCC Online SC 1467, decided on 17-7-2025

Supreme Court on Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest – M/s Interstate Construction v. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 585. Arbitrator can award 3 types of interest:

1. Pre-reference (Cause of action to Filing of claim)

2. Pendente lite (Claim filed to Award)

3. Post-award (Award to Payment) 

Supreme Court expands protection for employees & their families from the accidents that occur while commuting to or from work, which are considered to arise out of employment if there is a clear nexus between the time, place, and employment.  Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534, decided on 29-07-2025

Supreme Court in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105 established that a suit for possession based on a title against a void ab initio sale deed is governed by the 12 year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not the 3 years under Article 59. The Court held that plaintiffs do not need to seek the cancellation of a void document, as it is legally a nullity, and can directly sue for possession.

Supreme Court in Balwant Singh & Anr. Etc. v. Daulat Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 7 July, 1997 clarified, mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour the mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.

Delhi High Court strikes down the "12 months claim bar" in insurance policies as void under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in HP Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., FAO(OS) 426/2009.