Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

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affidavit and satisfaction of complainant — Substratum of complaint ceased to exist once dispute was resolved and withdrawn — Finding of professional misconduct unsustainable.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. )…

Corporate

Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 — Section 37 — Proceedings on annulment — The validity of acts done by a court or receiver before annulment of adjudication of insolvency depends on whether the sales and dispositions of property and payments made were “duly made.” If these acts are found to be not duly made, Section 37 will not protect them.

Oct 5, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1159 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SINGAMASETTY BHAGAVATH GUPTHA AND ANOTHER Vs. ALLAM KARIBASAPPA (D) BY LRS./ALLAM DODDABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam…

Corporate

Competition Act, 2002 — Sections 3(1), 3(3)(b), 27, 48 — Anti-competitive agreements — Penalty on office-bearers — Principles of natural justice — Show cause notice — Opportunity of hearing — Commission’s power to differ with DG — Competent to impose penalties and behavioural remedies on individuals responsible for contravention after due process.

Sep 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1167 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs. KERALA FILM EXHIBITORS FEDERATION AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.…

Corporate G S T

Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 — Section 3 — Levy of tax — Requirement of motor vehicle being used or kept for use in a ‘public place’ — ‘Public place’ defined under Section 2(34) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a road, street, way or other place to which public has a right of access — Visakhapatnam Steel Plant premises, being a restricted area with controlled access, not a public place — Tax not leviable on vehicles used exclusively within such premises.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

025 INSC 1052 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…

Corporate

ESI – The definition of ‘principal employer’ under Section 2(17) is wide and includes not only the owner or occupier of a factory (or head of department in government establishments) but also the managing agent or any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment — Designation is immaterial if the person functions as a managing agent or supervises/controls the establishment

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 500 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY RAJ SHETTY Vs. DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Corporate

Validity of State rule providing for cancellation of Form C declaration — The power to prescribe the form of declaration (Form C) required under Section 8(4) of the CST Act, and the particulars to be contained therein, is conferred upon the Central Government under Section 13(1)(d) — The Central Government exercised this power by framing the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which prescribe Form C (Rule 12(1)) but do not contain any provision empowering any authority to cancel such a declaration once issued.

Apr 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 496 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. COMBINED TRADERS ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw