Supreme Court of India Judgements

47285Judgements hosted as on 19/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Evidence Act

Evidence Act

Estoppel–Concession–If one party abuses the concession then it is always open to the other party to revoke such concession but if one party avails the benefit and is acting on the same representation made by the other party then the other party who has granted the said benefit cannot revoke the same under the garb of public interest.

Dec 1, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 304 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal Nos. 1215-1216 of 2001…

Evidence Act

Admissibility of Document—Objection as to method—An objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of making of the document as an exhibit and not later. Admissibility of document—Objections regarding admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage because it is a fundamental issue. Electronic Record—Objection as to admissibility—Call records of mobile was admitted during trial without any objection that required certificate is not tendered—Such objection regarding mode or method of proof cannot be taken a t appella te stage.

Oct 8, 2017 sclaw

2017(2) Law Herald (SC) 1578 : 2017 LawHerald.org 1135 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao CRIMINAL APPEAL…

Evidence Act

Accomplice–An accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Accomplice–The rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present in the mind of the Judge. Pardon to accomplice—The stage of examining the approver comes only after he has been granted pardon.

Sep 3, 2017 sclaw

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3758   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No.…

Constitution Evidence Act

The case of the Appellants and the Writ Petitioners, in most of the cases, is based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel on the basis of a promise apparently made by the Respondents to the land owners that they would be granted dealerships in lieu of the lands offered by them for setting up of the retail outlets

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 8 AD 665 : (2013) 10 JT 304 : (2013) 8 SCALE 762 : (2014) 1 SCC 201 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MOHD. JAMAL — Appellant Vs. UNION…

Evidence Act

Sections 33 or 35 are not concerned with any copy of the instrument and party can only be allowed to rely on the document which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14). There is no scope for the inclusion of the copy of the document for the purposes of the Stamp Act. Copy of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act, 1899.

Jun 21, 2017 sclaw

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3239 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce P.P. Naolekar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
Railways Act

Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed.

Jul 19, 2026 sclaw