Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Accident

Accident

Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs – Any change in the position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 would undoubtedly have an impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on the law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences – A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood HELD entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Two months time granted

Sep 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAMBHA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…

Accident

Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in construing the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. – In the light of the compensation awarded towards ‘Loss of Future Income’ the sum of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Permanent Disability’ and ‘Loss of Amenities in Future Life’ would not arise – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,94,812 – Appeal allowed.

Jul 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI LAKSHMANA GOWDA B.N. — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…

Accident I P C

(IPC) – Ss 279 and 304A – Causing death by negligence – driving the Scorpio in rash and negligent manner due to which one innocent person lost his life and two persons who were travelling in the ambulance sustained the injuries – Orders passed by the H C reducing the sentence while maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 304A of IPC from two years RI to eight months SI quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. DIL BAHADUR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 844…

Accident

What may constitute an accident but it would not qualify as “accidental means”. (a) a fatal heart attack while dancing would be called “accidental” but would fail to attract insurance cover as not due to “accidental means”; (b) heart attack suffered as a result of over-exertion on being chased by a ferocious dog the death might attract the insurance cover as it was caused by “accidental means” – Insurance company is not liable – Appeal allowed.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S.…

Accident

Death case – Motor Accident – the actual income should be computed @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 60,000) amounts to 2,10,000 – With a 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), the annual loss of dependency ( 2,10,000 – 52,500) would be Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., Rs. 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. Rs. 25,20,000 – Filial and parental consortium have to be increased – Each of the children, and the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- – Thus, the total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is Rs. 1,20,000/- – Appellants are entitled to Rs. 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency; and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased, are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium – Appeal allowed.

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARPREET KAUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MOHINDER YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw