Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period.
2026 INSC 652 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARAFAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION HARIDWAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra…
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later.
2026 INSC 651 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED KHALEEL (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. JAYAMMA ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 140 — Compensation for death in motor vehicular accident — Negligence — Truck stationed on road at night without warning lights or indicators — Wagon-R car collided from behind — Held, truck driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
2026 INSC 653 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KALU RAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Enhancement — High Court enhanced compensation, but calculation of future prospects and omission of certain awarded amounts were infirmities — Supreme Court addressed these infirmities.
2026 INSC 655 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. PARAMESH Vs. VRL LOGISTICS LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 — Forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings — Appeal confined to quantum of sentence, conviction upheld — Occurrence of offence in 2014, appellant facing proceedings for over a decade, no prior or subsequent criminal antecedents, forged document detected at early stage, no irreversible consequences — These factors warrant reconsideration of substantive sentence on grounds of proportionality and mitigating circumstances.
2026 INSC 654 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISRAFIL @ PAPPU @ NAIMUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles
2026 INSC 647 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIYAR ILIYAZ @ SHAIK RIYAZ AND ANOTHER Vs. P. AYYAPPAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S.…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC
2026 INSC 648 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. S D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and…
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.
2026 INSC 646 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH SHARMA Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
2026 INSC 645 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar,…
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
2026 INSC 644 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT Vs. KAMTA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal…