In this case, Advocate appointed was not granted even a reasonable time to prepare herself.
– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Niranjan Das v. State of West Bengal, [Criminal Appeal No. 2643-2644 of 2023] decided on 29.08.2023.
Now, as one is familiar, a monkey cap covers the entire face, chin and cheek of a person, leaving only his eyes and nose and part of the forehead exposed.
– Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, P. Sasikumar v. State, [Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of 2024] decided on 08.07.2024.
Human values and ethics in public functionaries have degraded to a considerable extent. Corruption is on a rampage.
– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, M/s. AI-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2024] decided on 09.07.2024.
As pointed out by this Court in Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777, rules of procedure are made to further cause of justice and not to prove a hindrance thereto. Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75 pointed out, non-compliance with any procedural requirement should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless a relevant statute or rule so mandates, and procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.
– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Livein Aqua Solutions Private Limited v. HDFC Bank Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 11766 of 2025] decided on 24.11.2025.
Even assuming all cases may not involve an act of collusion, there is certainly abject carelessness and indifference, especially when disputes involve substantial amounts of money.
We have observed a trend amongst various High Courts wherein sentences awarded by a Trial Court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind. Additionally, undue sympathy shown by High Court herein was totally unwarranted and such displays of overt sentiments risk undermining administration of justice.
– Hon’ble Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2021] decided on 17.02.2026.
In our view, High Court overlooked, movie making is a high risk business. No one can be sure whether a movie would earn profits or would be a flop. If one agrees to share profits in lieu of his investment in a movie, he takes the risk of a possible zero return.
Had it been a case where V. Ganesan had not made the movie despite borrowing funds to make one, an inference about existence of a dishonest intention was permissible. However, it was made and released. In conclusion, allegations only disclosed a civil cause of action and High Court fell in error.
– Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, V. Ganesan v. State, [Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2026] decided on 19.03.2026.
The need for this Court to begin with words of Rabindranath Tagore emanates from the fact that the present case is a classic illustration of how humans tend to surpass all limits of sound human behaviour and even go to the extent of crushing human lives in the pursuance of their greed.
– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Rambalak v. State of U.P., [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16332 of 2025] decided on 19.05.2026.
The Last Word 