Supreme Court of India Judgements

46980 Judgements hosted as on 12/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1405 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUVEJ SINGH Vs. RAM NARESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…of 2025 (Arising…

Constitution State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — Section 4 (unamended) — Person competent to lodge FIR — Essential Nature — Prohibition Act is a special legislation and its procedure must be followed, overriding general CrPC provisions for FIR registration by police — Prior to 2024 Amendment, Section 4 restricted FIR lodging to aggrieved persons or their relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption — This restriction is not a mere procedural nicety but a deliberate legislative choice to protect individual autonomy and prevent frivolous litigation in matters of personal religious faith — FIR lodged by complainant not falling within these categories is ab initio void and liable for quashing.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

State Laws

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 — Section 2(g)(6) — Validity — Land reserved for common purposes under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, vesting with Gram Panchayat — Held valid — Amendment did not suffer from constitutional infirmity — Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst proprietors.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1122 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan,…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1015 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1016 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 791 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLA NEHRU MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and…

State Laws

Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 — Section 3 — Recognition of villages — State’s duty to consider objections fairly — Failure appears to have occurred in present case — Objections by appellant regarding ancestral land ownership not adequately considered by State authorities before recommending recognition — Court cannot definitively decide complex factual disputes regarding land ownership and customary practices — Appropriate for State authorities to resolve such issues.

Jun 1, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL Vs. KAKIHO VILLAGE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. ….of 2025…

State Laws

Sales Tax — Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Kerala Act) — Section 5A — Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act) — Section 7A — Purchase Tax — Liability of assessee purchasing goods from dealers exempt from sales tax — Where goods are purchased from dealers who are exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of notifications or exemptions under the Kerala Act or Tamil Nadu Act, such a purchase is considered a purchase of “goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax” within the meaning of Section 5A of the Kerala Act or Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu Act

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 661 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH C.T. KOCHOUSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC. ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — Section 436-A — Applicability — Undertrial detention exceeding half of maximum sentence — Section 436-A mandates release of undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention extending up to one-half of maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence, unless further detention is ordered with reasons — Exception: This provision is explicitly inapplicable to offences for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the possible punishments under that law. (Paras 7, 9.2, 11)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw
Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) — Conviction for possession of commercial quantity of ganja (23.500 kg) and conspiracy — Appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts — Absence of independent witnesses — Failure to secure independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially under the NDPS Act, if the testimonies of official witnesses are consistent, coherent, and credible, and no material doubt is raised in cross-examination. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 21, 22)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw
General Insurance Service

Insurance Scheme — PMGKY Package — Requisition of Services of Private Doctors — The invocation of special laws (Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897) and implementing regulations (Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020), coupled with executive actions such as the NMMC notice directing private dispensaries to remain open under threat of penal action (IPC S. 188), constitutes a “requisition” of services for doctors and health professionals under the scheme requirements — A narrow interpretation of “requisition” requiring specific individual appointment letters is rejected due to the compelling, emergent circumstances of the pandemic. (Paras 23-26, 30(a))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters Rent

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Scope and Applicability — Overriding Effect over State Rent Control Legislations — Whether PP Act 1971 prevails over State Rent Control Acts (such as Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) regarding eviction from ‘Public Premises’ defined under Section 2(e) — Both PP Act 1971 and State Rent Control Acts are special laws; conflict resolved by legislative purpose and policy, which dictates that PP Act 1971 must prevail — A person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. (Paras 2, 5.6.3, 5.7.1, 5.8.2, 13(i), 13(ii), 13(iv))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw