Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cr P C

Cr P C

(IPC) – Ss 425, 427 & 447 – Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984 – S 3(1) – (CrPC) – S 321 – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result, which is that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law. This is not being in aid of the broad ends of public justice – CJM justified in declining withdrawal of the prosecution under S 321 Cr PC

Aug 1, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. K. AJITH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…

Cr P C

Compounding Must Be Conferred Statute Which Creates Offence HELD First, that private parties should be allowed to settle a dispute between them at any stage (with or without the permission of the Court, depending on the offence), even of a criminal nature, if proper restitution has been made to the aggrieved party. Second, that, however, this should not extend to situations where the offence committed is of a public nature, even when it may have directly affected the aggrieved party.

Jul 24, 2021 sclaw

Societal interest in the prosecution of crime which has a wider social dimension must be borne in mind “59….The first of these principles is crucial so as to allow for…

Cr P C

HELD extraordinary circumstances, when a strict case for grant of anticipatory bail is not made out, and rather the investigating authority has made out a case for custodial investigation, it cannot be stated that the High Court has no power to ensure justice proviso which necessitates the Court pass such an exceptional discretionary protection order for the shortest duration period of 90 days, or three months, cannot be considered reasonable.

Jun 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATHU SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose,…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Section 31(1) – Kidnapping and rape – Multiple punishments of imprisonment – Whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively? – Held, It is legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, to specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.

Jun 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha…

Cr P C

According to the learned counsel for the co-accused, they are also aged and that they are also suffering from ill health – Therefore, they contend that a transfer from Darjeeling to New Delhi will make their life miserable – If the petitioner is entitled to a fair trial, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also equally entitled to a fair trial – Transfer dismissed.

Apr 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH DEVENDRA KUMAR SAXENA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer Petition…

Cr P C

Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari case – It is a well settled principle of law that the Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same – State Government being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration – Petition under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.

Mar 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw