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

V IMP – DEFAULT BAIL ::: HELD This Court are of the view that neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 (Extension of Limitation) can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) CrPC to get to get a default bail

Jun 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S.KASI — Appellant Vs. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAMAYNALLUR POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, M.R.…

Cr P C

Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC HELD The accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Chhagna Ram) is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction under Section 326/148, IPC recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State, assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court.

May 7, 2020 sclaw

Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 7 May 2020 11:09 AM…

Cr P C

We are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others.” HELD that section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation

Mar 21, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar And Sanjiv…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 433-A – Army Act, 1950 – Section 69 – Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 302 – Civil offence of murder – Benefit of remission – Section 433­A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would also be applicable to a case tried for offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 and a person who has been imposed with a life sentence cannot be released unless he has actually served 14 years’ of imprisonment, without taking into consideration the remissions earned by him in jail

Mar 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EX-GUNNER VIRENDER PRASAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) Section 340 read with 195 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Production of forged documents before the Revenue Court – Larger bench to consider (i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?

Feb 27, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. JASBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

“The conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court”

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

Section 482 CrPC] HC Cannot Quash Criminal Proceedings On The Basis Of Its Assessment Of 161 Statements: SC [Read Judgment] Sanya Talwar 11 Feb 2020 7:37 PM “The conclusion of…

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