Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 07/07/2026 - 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) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KALRA AND OTHERS Vs. KULVINDER SINGH BHATIA ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (@…

C P C Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 — Rescission of contract for failure to pay purchase money within time limit prescribed by decree — Court’s discretion to extend time or rescind — Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution does not result in merger of trial court decree — Permitting deposit of balance amount does not extinguish judgment-debtor’s right to seek rescission — Court can consider extending time to balance equities and compensate judgment-debtor for delay, but not automatically — Judgment-debtor’s conduct showing willful negligence is a factor for rescission.

May 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 463 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs. JAGAT DHARI ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 7355 of 2026…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 89 — Compromise Decree — Interpretation of — Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) forming basis of decree — Clause (xiii) specifying conditional obligations for exchange of immovable properties or payment of guideline value upon failure to transfer — Held, obligation to pay monetary compensation triggered by failure to transfer agreed ‘B Schedule’ land, not discretionary option.

May 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 434 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. B. GURAPPA NAIDU AND OTHERS ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,…

C P C Rent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Permissibility while considering grant of leave to amend a plaint — Court can examine the merits/demerits of the case — Landlord filed suit for eviction based on bonafide need and other grounds — During appeal, landlord died — Legal heirs sought to amend plaint to incorporate their bonafide need, including that of appellant’s wife and son — Trial Court dismissed the suit — Appellate Bench allowed amendment, directing issue of bonafide requirement to be sent back to Trial Court for evidence — High Court, in writ petition, set aside amendment allowing fresh suit — Supreme Court held that High Court erred in interfering with the discretion of Appellate Bench under Article 227, as amendment was permissible.

Apr 27, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 416 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH Vs. NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 13 — Conclusiveness of foreign judgment — Enforceability in India — Summary judgment granted by foreign court without full trial despite existence of triable issues and crucial documentary evidence like Balance Sheets and Board Minutes, particularly when the respondent was denied leave to defend — Such procedure prevents a fair adjudication and is not rendered “on the merits” as required by Section 13(b) — Foreign judgment is therefore not enforceable in India.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 401 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH) Vs. GOYAL MG GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Valuation and Court Fees — The Supreme Court reiterated that Order 7 Rule 11 allows rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action, is undervalued, insufficiently stamped, or barred by law — It clarified that a plaint should not be rejected at the threshold if it contains averments that, taken at face value, set out a dispute requiring adjudication — The Court emphasized that assessing the sufficiency of evidence or the probability of success is impermissible at this stage and constitutes a premature mini-trial.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 402 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. MARG LIMITED Vs. SUSHIL LALWANI AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. VALLIAMMAI AND OTHERS Vs. S. RAMANATHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C Rent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Subsequent events in litigation — Consideration by courts — Principle for considering subsequent events requires them to be brought promptly, consistently with procedure, with opportunity to oppose, and must have material bearing on relief — Landlord-tenant disputes require pragmatic approach, assessing bonafide need as of the date of filing suit, unless subsequent events materially change the ground of relief and overshadow the need altogether.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 376 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARIA MARTINS Vs. NOEL ZUZARTE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K.Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. ….of…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 343 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANNAPPA (D) THR. LRS. Vs. PARVATEWWA (D) THR. LRS. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

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
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down 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], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw