Supreme Court of India Judgements

46970 Judgements hosted as on 09/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a) – Food adulteration – Minimum sentence – This Court are clearly of the view that the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised against the specific provision of law. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act lays down a minimum sentence of six months.

Oct 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  RAJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Constitution

V IMP : LEVY OF SERVICE TAX BY INCORPORATED CLUBS – HELD – We are also of the view that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members’ clubs in the incorporated form. The expression “body of persons” may subsume within it persons who come together for a common purpose, but cannot possibly include a company or a registered cooperative society. Thus, Explanation 3(a) to Section 65B(44) does not apply to members’ clubs which are incorporated. Consequently, show-cause notices, demand notices and other action taken to levy and collect service tax from incorporated members’ clubs are declared to be void and of no effect in law.

Oct 4, 2019 sclaw

1.The definition of “club or association” contained in Section 65 (25a) makes it plain that any person or body of persons providing services for a subscription or any other amount…

You missed

SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw