Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 17/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Companies Act Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 213 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANNALAL BHANSALI Vs. BHARTI TELECOM LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Banking Corporate

Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 — Auction Sale — Revaluation of Property — High Court’s direction to reconsider valuation after confirmation of auction sale is permissible if there are credible issues regarding adequacy of valuation or fairness of process for fixing reserve price, to ensure best possible value is realised for the secured asset.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 237 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM SAKTHI SEKAR Vs. V. SUKUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Corporate Tenders & Contracts

Contract Act, 1872 — Section 133 — Discharge of surety by variance in terms of contract — A variance made without the surety’s consent in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor discharges the surety only with respect to transactions occurring subsequent to the variance. The surety remains liable for the original amount guaranteed.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 205 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGYALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. BABALDAS AMTHARAM PATEL (D) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal…

Corporate

“Sharbat Rooh Afza” — Classification — Contains declared fruit juice and derives essential beverage identity from fruit-based constituents — Invert sugar syrup acts as carrier, sweetener, and preservative, not determinative of commercial identity — Fruit juice and allied distillates impart flavour and beverage character — Held to be classifiable as “fruit drink” under Entry 103.

Feb 26, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 195 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. COMMERCIAL ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil…

Corporate

Telecommunication Act, 2023 — Spectrum Allocation — Supreme Court’s order dated 15.02.2013 directing licensees to pay reserve price — Liability commences from 02.02.2012 for those continuing operations — End date is determined by the issuance of Letter of Intent (LoI) or cessation of operations.

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 174 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Advocates Act Corporate

Advocates Act, 1961 — Section 38 — Appeal against Bar Council of India judgment — Professional misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and absence from Court hearing leading to dismissal of quashing petition — High Court ordered quashing of FIR subject to deposit of costs — Costs not deposited in time, FIR quashing order recalled and petition dismissed — Application to recall dismissal order allowed, quashing restored subject to enhanced costs — Compromise reached between advocate and complainant, misunderstanding about costs resolved — High Court waived enhanced costs — FIR quashed — Complainant filed affidavit withdrawing complaint due to misunderstanding about costs and expressing satisfaction with advocate’s services — Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India held advocate guilty of professional misconduct despite withdrawal affidavit — Supreme Court held that disciplinary committee ignored vital aspect of withdrawal affidavit and satisfaction of complainant — Substratum of complaint ceased to exist once dispute was resolved and withdrawn — Finding of professional misconduct unsustainable.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 94 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MONTY GOYAL Vs. NAVRANG SINGH ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 77 of 2026…

Constitution Corporate

Expression ‘date of this Notification’ means date of publication in Official Gazette – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Section 3 — Notification — Publication in Official Gazette — Essential requirement for enforceability — Delegated legislation requires publication for accessibility, notice, accountability and solemnity — Not an empty formality but transforms executive decision into law — Strict compliance with publication requirement is a condition precedent — Law must be promulgated or published in a recognisable way. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)

Jan 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 80 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIRAJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

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

2026 INSC 43 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Companies Act Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 42 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Essential conditions — If allegations in FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, quashing is justified — Vague and general allegations are insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence in appeal — Appellate court can allow additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances as laid down in the rule, such as where the court needs it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause — Parties do not have a right to produce additional evidence and it cannot be introduced at their convenience — The provision is not meant to fill gaps in evidence or to pronounce judgment in a particular way — If the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment based on existing evidence, additional evidence is not required — The High Court rightly rejected the application for additional evidence as it was without merit and did not satisfy the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Manifest Arbitrariness — Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 — Held, the Act is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it involves complete vesting of property, dissolution of trust, absence of necessity or mismanagement, illusory compensation, and lack of guiding principles — State’s action was excessive, unreasoned and disproportionate to the stated object of better management and development.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw
Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 50 — Compliance with search provisions — Accused must be apprised of legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, not a Police Officer — Offering a third option to be searched before a Police Officer contravenes Section 50 and vitiates the entire trial — High Court correctly set aside conviction based on non-compliance with Section 50

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw