Month: February 2026

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 32(2) and 36-A — Trial of offences — Section 32(2) mandates that no court inferior to the Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV — Section 36-A provides for summary trial by Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences not exceeding three years, but specifically excludes offences triable by Special Court or Court of Sessions — Therefore, Section 36-A is not applicable to offences triable by Court of Session, and commitment of case to Sessions Court by JMFC is not illegal.

2026 INSC 171 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SBS BIOTECH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Contract Law — Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Interpretation — The JDA and GPA clearly indicate that the developer is authorized to enter sale agreements, construct, receive consideration, and transfer possession and title for flats within the developer’s share — The JDA also contains indemnity clauses where the developer indemnifies the landowners against any liabilities arising from construction and sale agreements, and landowners indemnify the developer against title defects or delays caused by landowners — The court interpreted these clauses to mean that while landowners are responsible for ensuring title transfer, the actual construction and timely delivery of flats within the developer’s share is the developer’s sole responsibility

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Admissibility of information received from accused in custody leading to discovery of fact — Recovery of dead body and Scooty at the instance of the accused, based on memorandum statement, considered a distinct fact and sufficient to prove guilt when connected to other circumstances.

2026 INSC 173 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEELU @ NILESH KOSHTI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Telecommunication Act, 2023 — Spectrum Allocation — Supreme Court’s order dated 15.02.2013 directing licensees to pay reserve price — Liability commences from 02.02.2012 for those continuing operations — End date is determined by the issuance of Letter of Intent (LoI) or cessation of operations.

2026 INSC 174 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.

2026 INSC 139 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J. MUTHURAJAN AND ANOTHER Vs. S. VAIKUNDARAJAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

2026 INSC 83 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIJIT PANDEY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

2026 INSC 87 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PREMIUM TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

2026 INSC 88 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 4629 of…

You missed