Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 17/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

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.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw

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…

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.…

You missed

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 50 — Compliance with search provisions — Accused must be apprised of legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, not a Police Officer — Offering a third option to be searched before a Police Officer contravenes Section 50 and vitiates the entire trial — High Court correctly set aside conviction based on non-compliance with Section 50

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Deduction of group insurance benefits — Whether amounts received by claimants under employer-provided group insurance or other contractual/social security benefits can be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Held, such benefits arise from independent contractual relationships and lack nexus with statutory compensation for death in a motor vehicle accident — Principle of balancing loss and gain cannot diminish statutory entitlement to just compensation — High Court rightly set aside deductions made by the Tribunal towards group insurance amounts.

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw
Service

Recruitment Rules — Interpretation of — Anganwadi Workers applying for Supervisor posts — Eligibility and quota for graduates vs. SSLC holders — Amendment to rules increasing quota for Anganwadi Workers and earmarking a portion for graduates — Whether graduates are excluded from the general quota for Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years’ experience — Supreme Court held that the amendment did not exclude graduate Anganwadi Workers from applying for the 29% vacancies available to Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and 10 years’ experience — The 11% quota for graduates was carved out from the open recruitment quota, not from the existing quota for Anganwadi Workers with SSLC and experience — The selection process did not give any weightage to graduates, and the number of non-graduates selected indicated a level playing field.

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw
Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw