Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 04/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Evidence Act

Evidence Act

Defendants have denied that the plaintiff is their brother or the son of their parents – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test — Respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case – In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and the court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party

Oct 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. RAJ GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act S 92 – Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement – The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed

Oct 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – HELD if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGENDRA SAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Evidence Act

HELD Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness – In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land.

Sep 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 90 and 114(e) – Relief of permanent injunction – Presumption Admissibility in evidence of thirty years old documents – Two reports of the Pleader Commissioner also confirmed the possessory title of the appellants along with property tax registers and municipal tax receipts – Appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of the suit property – Appeal allowed.

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IQBAL BASITH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N. SUBBALAKSHMI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Evidence Act

HELD Narco Analysis Test Cannot Be Forcibly Conducted On An Individual. “……..the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self incrimination’. This is because the underlying rationale of the said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence.”

Oct 3, 2020 sclaw

HELD For what is punitively outrageous, scandalizingly unusual or cruel and rehabilitatively counter-productive, is unarguably unreasonable and arbitrary and is shot down by Article 14 and 19 and if inflicted…

Evidence Act

IMP :: WILL proof when both attesting witness are dead.HELD in a case covered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, what is to be proved as far as the attesting witness is concerned, is, that the attestation of one of the attesting witness is in his handwriting. The language of the Section is clear and unambiguous. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as interpreted by this Court, contemplates attestation of both attesting witnesses to be proved. But that is not the requirement in Section 69 of the Evidence Act.

Jul 17, 2020 sclaw

HELD “in a case covered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, what is to be proved as far as the attesting witness is concerned, is, that the attestation of…

You missed

Artificial Intelligence Constitution

Artificial Intelligence (AI) — Use in Legal Proceedings — Reliance on AI-generated judgments by a court is a serious matter concerning the integrity of the judicial process — Such judgments, if non-existent or fake, amount to misconduct rather than a simple error of judgment — Supreme Court orders examination of consequences and accountability for such practices — Notice issued to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India to address this institutional concern.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw
Electricity Act

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) / Power Supply Agreement (PSA) — Interpretation of Contract — Surrounding Circumstances — Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 92, 94, 95 — Contractual terms can be clarified by attending circumstances and conduct of parties, even if contract is reduced to writing, to give meaning to terms that may otherwise be meaningless or unworkable.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) — Interest awarded by Arbitral Tribunal — Contractual bar — Where a contract expressly prohibits the award of pre-award and pendente lite interest, an Arbitral Tribunal cannot award such interest, even if termed as compensation, as the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw
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