Supreme Court of India Judgements

47050 Judgements hosted as on 18/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Central Civil Services Rules, 1965, Rule 10, Sub-rule 6 and 7–Suspension–Delay in reviewing suspension order–suspension of the respondent not extended–Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the suspension order of the respondent as became invalid on the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension–High Court affirmed the orders of the Tribunal–Appeal–Held, that after the operation of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 10, since the review not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days as neither was there any review nor extension within the said period

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 130 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6661…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law–Backwages–Respondent was appointed as a Constable in PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary)–He was convicted in a criminal case–Therefore, his services were terminated–Later , respondent acquitted from the charges of the Criminal case–Respondent filed writ petition for his reinstatement which was allowed by Single Judge–Respondent accepted that he would not be entitled for back wages–Fact that the respondent would not be entitled to back ages accepted by the respondent–Appeal deserves to be disposed of with clarification that the respondent would not be entitled to back wages–Appellants not been directed by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench to pay back wages to the respondent–Clarified that the respondents would not be entitled to back wages at all

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  124 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2007…

Service Matters
Service

IMP::: In view of the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566, there cannot be any dispute on this aspect. This Court has settled the law that uncommunicated and adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon in the process. The competent authority is directed to ignore the uncommunicated adverse ACRs and take a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Sep 2, 2018 sclaw

HEAD NOTE:::: Uncommunicated Adverse Annual Confidential Reports Can’t Be Relied Upon To Deny Promotion, Reiterates SC… In view of the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw