Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Accident

Accident

The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 165 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARE KRUSHNA MAHANTA Vs. HIMADARI SAHU AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Accident

The primary issues revolved around whether the compensation awarded by the MACT and High Court was adequate, particularly under heads like loss of income, future medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages – The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s correct adoption of the notional income and enhancement of loss of income but criticized its failure to adequately consider other compensation heads — The court emphasized the need to follow established guidelines for multipliers and future prospects additions, and highlighted the importance of considering doctors’ recommendations and the actual needs of the victim — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000, matching the petitioner’s claimed amount.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 29 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATUL TIWARI Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 162 — Scheme for golden hour — Obligation of Central Government — The court emphasizes the statutory obligation of the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — This obligation is not discretionary but a legal requirement.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 45 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. RAJASEEKARAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George…

Accident I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304A — Rash and Negligent Driving — The court found that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the death of one person and injuries to another — The prosecution presented evidence demonstrating that the accused’s vehicle hit the motorcycle from behind — This is corroborated by witness testimony and the fact that the motorcycle was dragged a considerable distance — The court dismissed the defence’s argument that the incident was due to contributory negligence, pointing out that the road was wide enough for the accused to avoid the collision and that there was no evidence of a sudden turn by the victim — The courts also noted the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation when questioned about the incriminating evidence — The fact that the victim suffered 19 wounds also supports the court’s conclusion that the accused’s driving was rash and negligent —The court rejected the petitioner’s plea for leniency due to his family circumstances, emphasizing that the accused’s actions caused a death — Based on the above points, the court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.

Dec 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 1038 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMES Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2024…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — The appellants, family members of the deceased claimed compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the car driver — Whether the car driven by respondent no. 2 was involved in the accident and if the accident was due to the negligence of the car driver — The appellants argued that there was ample evidence showing the car’s involvement and that the lower courts misread the evidence — The respondents contended that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence and that the car was not involved — The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ findings, holding that the car was involved in the accident and awarded compensation to the appellants — The Court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the condition of the car, supported the involvement of the car in the accident — The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, to conclude the car’s involvement — The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 787 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAJEENA IKHBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MINI BABU GEORGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw