The Appellant husband was represented by Advocate S. Nagamuthu,

Cause Title- M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 982) Appearance: Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Gaichangpou Gangmei, Advocates Srinivas Kotni, Rishabh Dev Dixit, Rohit Dutta, Arjun D. Singh, Akshay Kumar, Lalit Mohan, Niharika Singh, and Gurdeep Singh. Respondents: AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker Click here to read/download the Judgment Justice J.B. PardiwalaJustice R. MahadevanCentral Goods and Service Tax ActCGST Act Swasti Chaturvedi Assistant Editor Swasti Chaturvedi is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum, specializing in meticulously covering Supreme Court and High Court Judgments. She holds a postgraduate degree – LL.M. in Business Law and B.B.A. LL.B. from the Department of Law, PIMR, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. She brings over two years of expertise in legal writing and editing to her role. Prior to Verdictum, she worked as a Legal Analyst in the Corporate Sector. Next Story Merely Because Petition Involves Political Figure, It Can’t Be Ground To Transfer Proceedings: Supreme Court The proceeding before the Supreme Court originated from a Transfer Petition seeking transfer of a Criminal Petition from the Telangana High Court to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. ByTulip Kanth|16 Aug 2025 4:30 PM CJI B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court While asking the Advocates to tender an unconditional apology for making scandalous allegations against a Telangana High Court Judge, the Supreme Court has held that merely on the basis that a petition involves a political figure in a State cannot constitute a ground to transfer the proceedings. The proceeding before the Apex Court originated from a Transfer Petition seeking transfer of a Criminal Petition from the Telangana High Court to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “We find that merely on the basis that a petition involves a political figure in a State cannot constitute a ground to transfer the proceedings from the High Court of that State to the High Court of another State.” “A perusal of the affidavit of apology would reveal that the apology is tendered only to this Court. In our view, the scandalous allegations are made against the learned Judge of the High Court. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the alleged contemnors to tender an apology 11 to the learned Judge of the High Court”, it further added. Advocate Varun Thakur represented the alleged contemnors while Advocate Vipin Nair represented the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). Factual Background The grounds on which the Criminal Petition was sought to be transferred were that the conduct of the Single Judge of the Telangana High Court, who was hearing the matter, gave rise to serious apprehension of partiality and procedural discrimination, since the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner were summarily curtailed. The petitioner stated that he was given only five minutes to argue the matter. Further averments were made regarding the political status of the Respondent therein, and the fact that the executive control was now led by him. The alleged contemnor believed that there existed a likelihood of derailment of justice. The Apex Court had earlier dismissed the transfer petition, taking into account the scandalous and scurrilous remarks made against the Judge of the High Court. Show cause notice was issued not only to the alleged contemnor but also to the Advocate-on-Record, who had filed the petition and the counsel, who had drawn the petition, as to why an action for committing contempt of the court should not be initiated against them. Reasoning The Bench referred to the judgment in M.Y. Shareef and Another v. Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Others (1954), wherein it was held that the counsel who signs applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds are themselves guilty of contempt of court. Referring to various other judgments, the Bench said, “It can thus be clearly seen that this Court, in unequivocal terms, has held that when a lawyer is faced with a conflict between his duty towards the Court and duty towards the client, he has to give preference to duty to the Court rather than duty to the client.” The Bench also highlighted the trend among lawyers to criticize judges of the High Court or the Trial Court without reason. “It has also become a recurring trend that whenever the matter involves a political figure in a particular State, to allege that in that State a litigant may not get justice and therefore, transfer of the proceedings from that State to any other State is sought. Such practices cannot be countenanced”, it said while also adding, “The Judges of the High Court are also Constitutional functionaries, and they enjoy the same immunity as is enjoyed by a Judge of the Supreme Court. In our view, when scandalous allegations are made against the Judges of the High Court, it becomes the duty of this Court to protect the Judges of the High Court.” The Bench thus held, “We find that merely on the basis that a petition involves a political figure in a State cannot constitute a ground to transfer the proceedings from the High Court of that State to the High Court of another State.” As per the affidavit of apology, the apology was tendered only to the Apex Court. The Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors sought liberty from the Court to approach the High Court to tender their unconditional apology. “We, therefore, permit the alleged contemnors to tender unconditional apology before the learned Judge of the High Court”, the Bench said. Ordering the matter to be reopened and asking the respondents to tender their unconditional apology before the Judge of the High Court, within one week of reopening of the matter, the Bench held, “The learned Judge would decide the question of acceptance of the apology within a period of one week thereafter. We will consider the issue with regard to acceptance of apology tendered to this Court by the alleged contemnors, after the matter is disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.” “We hasten to add that the Courts gain no pleasure in penalizing or sentencing the lawyers for acting in a manner which would amount to Contempt of this Court”, it concluded. Cause Title: In Re: N. Peddi Raju and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 989) Appearance Alleged Contemnors: Senior Advocates S. Nagamuthu, Sanjay R. Hegde, M. R. Shamshad, Advocates Varun Thakur, Shraddha Saran, Ramkaran, AOR M/s Varun Thakur & Associate, Advocates Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Anzu K. Varkey, Yogesh Yadav, AOR James P. Thomas, Advocates Ankit Tiwari, Tanay Hegde, Rahul Singh, Vishal Jogdand, Pratik Bombarde, Rishi Raj Singh, Saurabh Singh SCAORA: Advocates Vipin Nair, Amit Sharma, Nikhil Jain, Kaustabh Shukla, Click here to read/download Judgment CJI BR GavaiJustice K. Vinod ChandranJustice AS Chandurkar Tulip Kanth Assistant Editor Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University. Next Story Husband Remarried Before Divorce Decree Was Reversed: Supreme Court Grants Divorce Subject To Payment Of ₹ 1.25 Cr Alimony The Supreme Court was considering an Appeal against an order of the High Court whereby the divorce granted by the Family Court was set aside at the Wife’s instance. BySheetal Joon|16 Aug 2025 3:00 PM Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court The Supreme Court, while granting divorce invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has made the same subject to payment of Permanent Alimony of Rs. 1.25 Crores, since the husband had remarried before the High Court reversed the order of divorce by the Family Court. The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of the High Court whereby the divorce granted by the Family Court was set aside at the Wife’s instance. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “We are of the considered view that this is a fit case for granting divorce by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the marriage solemnized on 15.02.2009 stands dissolved.” The Appellant husband was represented by Advocate S. Nagamuthu, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate-on-Record Anup Kumar.