Supreme Court of India Judgements

47280 Judgements hosted as on 09/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.

Jul 7, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 669 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARDARI LAL Vs. BISHAN DASS AND OTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.10990 of…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Requirement of signature/voluntary authorisation — Compromise petition in a partition suit signed on behalf of defendant not personally but through counsel, absent express authorisation or exigent circumstance — Held, invalid — A compromise, to be lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3, must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves; a counsel or authorised representative may sign on a party’s behalf only where there is express authorisation in the vakalatnama or an exigency of circumstance justifying such action — In the absence of either, and there being nothing on record to show that defendant no.5 had authorised his counsel to compromise away his substantial rights in the suit property, the mandatory requirement of a voluntary, party-signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 was not satisfied — The resultant compromise decree was accordingly contrary to law and rightly set aside.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 662 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA AND OTHERS Vs. JITENDRA CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 664 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOBHA VASANT BHOIR AND OTHERS Vs. SONI @ VANDANA GURUMUKHDAS JAGIASI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 648 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. S D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAKARDHWAJ RAM Vs. JAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on Admissions — Scope and Exercise of Discretion — Provision allows for speedy relief where there is no substantial dispute requiring trial, but cannot deprive a party of adjudication if controversy involves disputed questions of fact and requires evidence — Admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal — Admissions should be clear and intentional, and discretion to pass judgment without trial should be used cautiously, only when admission is absolute, clear, categorical, and unconditional.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 603 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSHPA AND OTHERS Vs. DAYAWATI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 545 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MONDIRA GHOSH Vs. CHAITALI GHOSH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No………………of 2026 (@…

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

2026 INSC 502 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JENNIFER MESSIAS Vs. LEONARD G LOBO ( Before : K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. ….of 2026…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 31 — First Appellate Court’s judgment — Compliance with mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is substantial rather than technical, and the substance of the judgment and the manner of dealing with the controversy are more significant than the form of points framed. – -Power of Attorney Act, 1882 — General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Misuse of GPA for sale of property — Held, where GPA holder enters into sale deeds and subsequent transfers are within the family, and the original owner fails to prove loan transactions, repayment, or continued possession, the transactions are unlikely to be considered shams or fraudulent.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 529 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLIKA Vs. R. NALLATHAMBI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9837…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on.

Jul 9, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.

Jul 7, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw