Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.
2026 INSC 357 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANOSH EKKA Vs. STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself.
2026 INSC 359 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD. Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.
2026 INSC 360 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHANANJAY RATHI Vs. RUCHIKA RATHI ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s). 1924 of 2026…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
2026 INSC 361 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VPS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale,…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court — High Court quashed FIR and proceedings at a nascent stage when Magistrate had merely directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC — Sale deeds relied upon by accused were examined by High Court, treating them as determinative of the dispute, and criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and sale deeds were not cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Such exercise by High Court was beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a petition under Section 482 CrPC, as it involved delving into defence material and adjudicating disputed questions of fact, which is the domain of investigation and trial — This approach stifled the investigative process and ran contrary to well-settled principles — High Court fell into error.
2026 INSC 362 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ACCAMMA SAM JACOB Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NISSAN MOTOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAISON LUKOSE AND OTHERS ( Before : A. P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) First Appeal…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AKTHAR KHAN Vs. GOYAL’S MEDICAL CENTRE AND OTHERS ( Before : Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member ) Consumer Complaint…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SUNEHRI CARS PVT. LTD. Vs. GANESHARAM AND OTHERS ( Before : A. P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) Revision Petition No. NC/RP/213/2022…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CANARA BANK Vs. M/S. OASYS CYBERNETICS PVT. LTD. ( Before : A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) NC/FA/712/2012 Decided on : 25-02-2026…
Housing Finance — Loan Disbursement — Due Diligence — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized that while a housing finance company (HFC) has a duty to exercise due diligence, borrowers also have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care and circumspection when availing home loans, especially in builder-linked projects with potential delays or issues — The Commission found that the borrowers had already booked their flats and made initial payments before approaching the HFC for loans, negating claims of reliance on alleged assurances from the HFC — The HFC disbursed loans based on the borrowers’ proposals and submitted records, and could not be held liable for the developer’s subsequent defaults.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SUBASH CHANDRA SEN Vs. HDFC LTD. ( Before : Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member ) First…