Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: I P C

I P C

Vicarious Liability— Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. Quashment—Suit for recovery of huge amount pending —The acts of omission and commission on the part of the bank, if any, by withholding export bills of the bank may give rise to a statutory violation on its part but the respondents were not personally liable therefor.

Jun 10, 2017 sclaw

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3149 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 1248…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304 – Custodial death – Nature of offence – Injuries found on body of deceased were confined to skin and upper level of body – In this case of custodial death it is found by the medical evidence that the injuries were confined to the skin and upper level of the body. Grievous injuries were not found on vital parts of the body like head, liver, spleen, heart, lungs, etc. The duration of the injuries were widely variant.

Jun 2, 2017 sclaw

  (2006) ACJ 1002 : AIR 2005 SC 402 : (2005) CriLJ 320 : (2004) 10 JT 547 : (2004) 9 SCALE 390 : (2005) 9 SCC 631 : (2004)…

I P C

The Court has always clarified that the punishment so awarded would be subject to any order passed in exercise of the clemency powers of the President of India or Governor of State, as the case may be. Pardons, reprieves and remissions are granted in exercise of prerogative power. There is no scope of judicial review of such orders except on very limited grounds for example non- Application of mind while passing the order;

May 30, 2017 sclaw

(2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 192 : (2013) 10 SCALE 671 : (2013) 10 SCC 631 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA GURVAIL SINGH @ GALA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376 – Disclosure of identity of victim – Permissibility – Section 228 – A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376 – A, 376 – B, 376 – C, or 376 – D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished

May 28, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 2003 SC 4684 : (2004) CriLJ 1 : (2003) 2 JT 493 Supp : (2003) 8 SCALE 735 : (2003) 8 SCC 551 : (2003) 4 SCR 792…

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