National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and its amended provisions extended to NH Act — Court clarified that landowners acquired lands under NH Act between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to solatium and interest — Review Petition filed by NHAI arguing financial burden was underestimated rejected, but clarification on delayed claims issued.
2026 INSC 291 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI and Ujjal Bhuyan, J. )…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 102 — Applicability — Provision contemplates a situation where a judgment debtor transfers property after institution of suit to a person who then obstructs execution — Not applicable where respondents derived title from independent registered sale deeds, not from the judgment debtor.
2026 INSC 292 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARADA SANGHI AND OTHERS Vs. ASHA AGARWAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court’s award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners to benefit from higher compensation — Object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners.
2026 INSC 293 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANDANAYYA AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…
Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not necessarily deduct it — SERC’s power to determine tariff includes considering incentives — Parliament’s allocation of funds for GBI does not prevent SERC from considering it in tariff — SERC must exercise its power harmoniously with other stakeholders to achieve policy objectives.
2026 INSC 294 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. GREEN INFRA WIND SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before :…
Contract Law — Award of Tender — Judicial Review — High Court should exercise restraint when reviewing tender evaluation processes, especially in technical matters, unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, arbitrariness, or irrationality — A marginal difference in scores, as seen in this case, does not automatically warrant interference, especially when the owner has the right to accept or reject bids and the contract is already underway.
2026 INSC 295 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. STEAG ENERGY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. GSPC PIPAVAV POWER COMPANY LTD. (GPPC) AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…
[Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, S. 5A] – State Government can withdraw electricity duty exemptions, provided it’s reasonable, fair, and not arbitrary or discriminatory. [Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, S. 5A] – Withdrawal of electricity duty exemption requires reasonable notice to industries structured around the concession.
2026 INSC 296 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 482 and 226 — Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings — Allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and assault resulting in miscarriage — Delay in lodging FIR — Vague and omnibus allegations without corroborating evidence — Inherent improbability of allegations — Abuse of process of law — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants (sister-in-law and parents-in-law) leading to a miscarriage — The Court noted significant delay in lodging the FIR, vague and omnibus allegations without concrete evidence, and the inherent improbability of the accusations — The Court emphasized that general and sweeping accusations unsupported by evidence cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution and that the legal provisions should not be misused for personal vendetta or arm-twisting tactics — The Court relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, including cases where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive — The Court also considered the age and career prospects of the accused, deeming it inexpedient and not in the interest of justice to allow the prosecution to continue against them.
2026 INSC 297 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHARUL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…
U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 — Section 21(2) — Eviction proceedings — Landlord-tenant relationship established and affirmed up to Supreme Court — Tenant’s subsequent restoration application before Rent Authority, challenging sale deed validity, was an abuse of process and overreaching court orders — Rent Authority’s order setting aside eviction was void for lack of jurisdiction, as title dispute is purview of Civil Court, not Rent Authority — Judicial discipline and adherence to law require subordinate authorities to follow higher court orders
2026 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH GOYAL Vs. M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 215, 228, 464 and 465 — Charge framing — Substantial compliance — Purpose of charge framing is to give notice to accused of accusation and enable defence preparation — Defect in charge, including absence of signature, is curable if no prejudice or failure of justice is occasioned — Accused’s active participation and cross-examination indicate awareness of charges and no prejudice — Belated objection to charge defect, especially after demise of key witnesses, suggests lack of genuine prejudice.
2026 INSC 301 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP YADAV Vs. SATISH AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.1617 of 2026…
Indian Air Force — Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) — Reinstatement and consideration for Permanent Commission (PC) — Dismissal of appeal challenging AFT order — Delay in approaching legal forum.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEERAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…