Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 05/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Month: October 2018

Acquittal

When the doctor has given opinion that the suicide cannot be ruled out and the death of the deceased could have been due to suicide which was accepted by the High Court—Held; when the High Court has a view which is a plausible view such order does not call for interference—Acquittal upheld.

Oct 24, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 22O1 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1443 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Criminal Appeal Nos. 1496…

Bail Granted

Challenge to order granting bails—As per orders of Supreme Court bail would be subject to furnishing of bank guarantee—Held; (i) Bank guarantee would be mean obligation as per agreement and not the due amount; (ii) Ail those who had already furnished sufficient security by way of pledging immovable property need not to furnish bank guarantee as per earlier orders; (iii) All those who had not given any security are obligated to furnish bank guarantee—In absence of it, bail would stand cancelled and they be taken into custody; (iv) Corporation permitted to serve its interest either by involving the bank guarantees where ever furnished and or by putting to auction the unencumbered immovable property pledged by the millers—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438.

Oct 24, 2018 sclaw

2018(3} Law Herald (SC) 2193 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Criminal Appeal…

Constitution

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—Real Estate Project—Home Buyers—However, keeping in view the change of legal status of home buyers and facts and circumstances of the case, while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution directions issued to start the process under code afresh.

Oct 24, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2162 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1440   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHITRA SHARMA — Appellant  Vs.  UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dipak Misra, CJI.,…

Constitution

Tender Bid—Judicial Review—High Court could not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues of technical qualifications of a bidder.

Oct 21, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2098 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1437 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                                   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogol                                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mr.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw