Supreme Court of India Judgements

47285Judgements hosted as on 19/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: C P C

C P C I B C

Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Section 9(2) — “Decree or order” — Whether includes a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (pre-2016 amendment) — Held, no — Insolvency Act, being weighed with grave civil consequence of “civil death”, must be strictly construed — Expression “decree or order” must bear the meaning assigned under Ss. 2(2) and 2(14), CPC, requiring adjudication by a “court” in a “suit” — A DRT recovery certificate, not being a decree or order of a court within this meaning, cannot found an insolvency notice under S. 9(2) — Ratio of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 (rendered qua arbitral awards) held to rest on a wider principle applicable equally to DRT recovery certificates — Impugned judgment of Division Bench, Bombay High Court, affirming Single Judge’s quashing of insolvency notice, upheld.

Jul 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 688 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H.D.F.C. BANK LIMITED Vs. KISHORE K. MEHTA (DEAD) THR. LRS. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

C P C State Laws

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Sections 29 & 30 — Auction sale of mortgaged property by Financial Corporation for recovery of dues — Judicial review of, scope — Borrowers persistently defaulting over eight years despite multiple opportunities, repayment schedules fixed by High Court, and statutory notices — Financial Corporation auctioning mortgaged property after affording repeated chances including a final 21-day matching offer, which borrowers ignored — Held, fairness required of a Financial Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it; fairness is not a one-way street — Courts have no say in matters between the Corporation and its debtor except where there is (a) statutory violation, or (b) the Corporation has acted unfairly/unreasonably — Writ court/civil court does not sit as an appellate authority over commercial decisions of the Corporation — Absence of prior valuation report, by itself, held insufficient to vitiate auction where borrowers never objected to the basis of sale (BOS — balance outstanding as on date of possession/sale deed) and themselves sought to retain the property on the very same terms — Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court setting aside auction sale, reversed.

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 673 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. BHUSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 674 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

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…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
Railways Act

Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw