Supreme Court of India Judgements

46700 Judgements hosted as on 25/01/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

About Us

We are a group of Advocates, based at Jalandhar, Punjab, India.

Contact us at  sclaw@sclaw.in

You missed

I P C

The testimony of related eyewitnesses should be carefully scrutinized but not dismissed solely based on their relationship to the victim; minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not render the testimony unreliable; medical evidence should be used to corroborate eyewitness accounts

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw
Child Custody

Custody and visitation — Appellant and Respondent married in 2007 and separated in 2016, have been in a custody dispute over their daughter, who has lived with mother since the separation — The father sought joint custody or expanded visitation, while the mother raised safety concerns due to alleged abusive behavior — The Family Court granted sole custody to the mother with limited visitation for the father — The High Court expanded visitation rights, including more frequent visits, shared vacations, and video calls, while retaining sole custody with the mother — The Supreme Court upheld most arrangements but reduced vacation visits to one day initially and mandated a female court commissioner’s presence during physical visits in public places — The decision aims to balance the child’s safety, stability, and the father’s involvement, pending a full hearing.

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw
Constitution Corporate

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not absolutely barred by the statutory arbitration mechanism under the MSMED Act and can be exercised in exceptional cases, such as violations of fundamental rights, natural justice, or jurisdictional errors, despite the availability of alternative remedies

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw
Stamp Act State Laws

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 48(1) — Refund of stamp duty — The appellants sought a refund of stamp duty paid for a property transaction that was later cancelled — The High Court dismissed their claim, holding that the amended six-month limitation period applied — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the unamended two-year limitation period applied, and the appellants were entitled to a refund.

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw