Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — Section 15Z — Appeal to Supreme Court against SAT order setting aside Adjudicating Officer’s order imposing penalties for violation of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 — Held, diversion of funds from preferential issue was in violation of Regulations and detrimental to investors — SAT’s reversal of AO’s order based on shareholder ratification was erroneous — Appeals allowed — Order of Adjudicating Officer restored.
2026 INSC 245 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. TERRASCOPE VENTURES LIMITED ETC ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to dignified life — Includes reproductive autonomy and the right to foster a family through adoption — Restricting maternity benefit based on the age of an adopted child infringes upon this right by denying adoptive mothers the opportunity to bond and integrate with their child, compromising both maternal and child welfare.
2026 INSC 246 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Writ Petition (C)…
Contract Act, 1872 — Section 126 — Guarantee — Corporate Guarantee — Defendant No.1 executed a written undertaking (Corporate Guarantee) to pay a sum of USD 100,000 — This constituted a valid guarantee, not just a freight payment arrangement — Liability of surety is co-extensive with principal debtor.
2026 INSC 247 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH CANARA BANK OVERSEAS BRANCH REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER Vs. ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 498A — Appeal against conviction for murder and cruelty — Court considered evidence of eyewitness daughter, post-mortem report, and dying declaration of the deceased — High Court reversed acquittal by Trial Court and convicted the appellant — Trial Court acquitted on grounds of inconsistent witness testimonies, unreliable dying declaration due to victim’s serious injuries and sedation, and improbability of incident occurring in a small bathroom — Supreme Court found eyewitness testimony credible, post-mortem report confirmed cause of death, and dying declaration reliable despite victim’s severe burns, supported by medical opinion that she was conscious and fit to make a statement — Recovery of kerosene tin, matchbox, and burnt cloth pieces from the scene further corroborated the prosecution’s case — Supreme Court held that the evidence unequivocally proved the appellant’s responsibility for the offences.
2026 INSC 249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2432 of 2010…
Coal Allocation and Supply — Dispute regarding supply of coal and compensation for wrongfully suspended supply — Supreme Court clarified that Union of India and SECL were obligated to supply coal at the current price/prevalent policy as of either April 9, 2014, or May 17, 2019, and gave the choice to the Respondent/PIL to select one of these dates for the purpose of determining the current price and prevalent policy for the proposed Fuel Supply Agreement for the suspended period — The Fuel Supply Agreement was to be entered into within four weeks of the Respondent’s choice, with coal supply being on a normal coal linkage basis, not tapering.
2026 INSC 250 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Miscellaneous Application…
[Art. 141, Constitution of India] | Judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court on constitutional interpretation are binding and must be followed by all courts.
2026 INSC 248 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH CHARAN PREET SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil…
. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — High Court quashed FIR during investigation based on speculation and without awaiting forensic report on alleged forged documents — Such action is unjustified and premature, especially when allegations of forgery and fraud are made and expert examination is underway.
2026 INSC 252 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHARLA BAZLIEL Vs. BALDEV THAKUR AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s)….of 2026…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — Summoning additional accused — Trial Court rejected application to summon additional accused — High Court set aside order and directed summoning — Supreme Court found Trial Court applied stricter standard than necessary — Trial Court erred in isolating inconsistencies and not considering cumulative weight of evidence — Supreme Court held testimony of complainant and two other witnesses, despite inconsistencies, met strong and cogent evidence standard for summoning under Section 319 — Judgments of lower courts set aside and persons directed to be produced as additional accused.
2026 INSC 251 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MOHAMMAD KALEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Essential conditions — If allegations in FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, quashing is justified — Vague and general allegations are insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
2025 INSC 1168 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY D. JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran and…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in appeal — Appellate court can allow additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances as laid down in the rule, such as where the court needs it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause — Parties do not have a right to produce additional evidence and it cannot be introduced at their convenience — The provision is not meant to fill gaps in evidence or to pronounce judgment in a particular way — If the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment based on existing evidence, additional evidence is not required — The High Court rightly rejected the application for additional evidence as it was without merit and did not satisfy the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
2026 INSC 211 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOBIND SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…