Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114A, Rules 17, 27, 28 of West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 — Competency of Gram Panchayat to grant building permission — Not competent if area governed by Act of 1979 and development plan exists — Panchayat Samiti is the competent authority.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S AARSUDAY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD Vs. JOGEN CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 52 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN AND ANOTHER Vs. HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

C P C

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 61 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY PALIWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1450 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OBALAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BHIHANI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

C P C Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Scope and Applicability — Transfer of mortgaged property pendente lite (after institution of suit by bank for recovery/foreclosure but before execution/attachment) is hit by Section 52 — Lack of knowledge of proceedings or possession of No Encumbrance Certificate does not constitute a valid defence against lis pendens, as the doctrine is based on public policy and binds the transferee regardless of notice — Pendency of suit commences from presentation of plaint and continues until complete satisfaction or discharge of final decree, as per Explanation to Section 52 — Where a bank institutes a suit for recovery of a loan against a mortgagor, seeking sale of the mortgaged property upon default, the right/interest in the mortgaged property is “directly and specifically in question” even if the initial decree is only a money decree. (Paras 46, 49, 50, 52, 62, 66, 67, 70)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1434 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DANESH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. HAR PYARI (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 90(3) — Execution Sale — Setting aside sale on ground of irregularity — Statutory bar against judgment debtor — Scope and application of Order 21 Rule 90(3) CPC (inserted w.e.f. 01.02.1977) — No application to set aside sale shall be entertained on any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date the proclamation of sale was drawn up — Mandates vigilance by judgment debtor regarding pre-sale illegalities or material irregularities. (Paras 10, 15, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.R. SELVARAJ (DEAD), THROUGH LRS. Vs. K.J. PRAKASH KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 38 Rule 5, Rule 8, Rule 10 — Order 21 Rule 58 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 53 — Attachment before judgment — Scope of — Effect on prior transfer — Property already transferred by registered sale deed prior to institution of suit cannot be subject to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC — Essential condition for Order 38 Rule 5 is that property must belong to defendant on date of institution of suit — Attachment before judgment is a protective measure and does not create any charge or proprietary interest in favour of plaintiff (Rule 10). (Paras 10.1.1, 11.1, 11.3, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1364 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH L.K. PRABHU @ L. KRISHNA PRABHU (DIED) THROUGH LRS Vs. K.T. MATHEW @ THAMPAN THOMAS AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 58 — Execution First Appeal — Partition Suit — Preliminary decree for partition — Inter se bidding — Joint owners (siblings) of property in equal shares (1/3rd each) — Property incapable of physical partition — Disposal of property via inter se bidding — Challenge to High Court order disposing of Execution Appeal on ground of offer matching — Where an offer of Rs.6.25 crores was made by the Appellant (Petitioner) and matched by the Respondents (2/3rd owners), the High Court directed Respondents to pay Appellant’s share after adjusting previous deposit — Supreme Court modified the approach, requiring the Petitioner to deposit 2/3rd of the bid (Rs.4.16 Crores) with Registry to demonstrate genuineness, pending further resolution. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Order dated 25.9.2025;

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA Vs. ROHIT SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal…

C P C Registration Act Specific Relief Act Transfer Of Property Act

Registration Act, 1908 — Section 17(1)(e) — Compulsory registration of non-testamentary instruments — Assignment of a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property — Whether such assignment deed requires compulsory registration — HELD NO – A decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any right, title, or interest in or charge on the immovable property (Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882)

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1329 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESWARI AND OTHERS Vs. SHANMUGAM AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration C P C

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Execution of Arbitral Award — Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) — Maintainability — Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 — Order 21 Rule 22 — Execution proceedings against legal representatives — The Act is a self-contained code restricting judicial interference — An order passed by a Single Judge in the course of executing an arbitral award is traceable to the Act, not the CPC; therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is not maintainable — Where execution is sought against entities/persons arrayed as executors/legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor for limited execution purposes and cannot be treated as third parties to the arbitral award for the purpose of challenging maintainability of the appeal under the Act.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1334 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

You missed

Bail Granted

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.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

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

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

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)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw