Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16. Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Constitution of India, 1950 — List II, Entry 34 — “Betting and gambling” — Whether confined to games of chance — The expression “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 cannot be split to mean that the staking angle alone constitutes “betting” and the chance element alone constitutes “gambling” — Both betting and gambling involve the aspect of staking money on an uncertain outcome — Merely because the risk element is commonly perceived as “taking a chance”, it cannot mean the expression covers only games of chance — The expression is a set composite expression and cannot be rewritten by Courts to read as “betting on gambling” — Such a judicial rewriting would constitute a clear constitutional aberration — State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699 (RMDC-I) and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 (RMDC-II), explained and distinguished.

2026 INSC 594 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS Vs. JUNGLEE GAMES INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R.…

Constitution of India — Articles 246A, 366(12), 366(12A), 265 — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) — Sections 2(1), 2(31), 2(52), 7, 9, 15 — Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 — Rules 31A, 31B, 31C — Schedule III, Entry 6 — Actionable claims arising from betting and gambling — Constitutional validity of levy of GST — Legislative competence of Parliament — Whether online gaming, fantasy sports and casino transactions involve betting and gambling — Whether actionable claims arise therefrom — Valuation of taxable supply.

2026 INSC 595 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) AND OTHERS Vs. GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before :…

Betting and Gambling — Essential ingredients — The essential element of “betting and gambling” lies in staking money or money’s worth upon uncertain outcomes — The character of betting and gambling does not depend exclusively upon whether the underlying activity is a game of skill or a game of chance, but upon the existence of stakes placed upon uncertain future contingencies — Consequently, even where the underlying activity involves substantial elements of skill, once participation is conditioned upon staking money or money’s worth upon uncertain outcomes, the resulting transaction acquires the character of betting and gambling within the framework of the GST legislation — Accordingly, online gaming activities, including fantasy sports and other games played on digital platforms involving staking upon uncertain outcomes, constitute betting and gambling for purposes of the GST framework.

2026 INSC 595 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) AND OTHERS Vs. GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before :…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Grant of Anticipatory Bail — Abuse of Authority by Law Enforcers — Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to police officers accused of misusing their authority, extorting money, and causing stress to a citizen and his minor daughter — The Court emphasized that in cases where there is a clear abuse of authority by law enforcement officials, the normal presumptions applicable to ordinary accused persons may not apply, and greater caution is warranted — Observations made by the Supreme Court were held to be prima facie and not to govern the trial

2026 INSC 596 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAHUL DATTA BHOSALE AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…

SIR ::: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 324 — Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Sections 21(3) — Electoral Rolls — Special Intensive Revision (SIR) — Election Commission of India (ECI) has power to conduct SIR — Commission’s authority under Article 324 operates in conformity with valid law made by Parliament, but parliamentary legislation cannot extinguish Commission’s constitutional function — ECI’s powers supplement law where necessary but cannot override express statutory prohibition — SIR exercise was not in direct conflict with RP Act and 1960 Rules — Exercise subserves constitutional goal of free and fair elections.

2026 INSC 564 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Challenge to Arbitral Tribunal’s order on jurisdiction — Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of Constitution — High Court’s powers and limitations — Distinction between maintainability and entertainability of writ petition — When writ intervention is permissible — Principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings.

2026 INSC 566 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TARINI PRASAD MOHANTY Vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S.…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 — Section 17 — Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (MMC Act) — Sections 127, 128A — Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) — First Schedule, Clause 7(1) — Imposition of tax and fee — Distinction — The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) is empowered to levy fees or service charges for amenities provided, but not to impose taxes — The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) has the power to impose property tax, which includes various components like water tax, sewerage tax, general tax, etc — Fee or service charges levied by MIDC are not taxes as there is a quid pro quo for services rendered, whereas taxes are compulsory exactions for public revenue without reference to specific benefits.

2026 INSC 570 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMALL SCALE ENTERPRENEURS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B.…

Service Matters

Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Post Recruitment Rules, 2008 — Amendment by Substitution — Effect of — Word “substituted” in amending legislation means deletion of old provision and making new one operative — The process of substitution has two steps: old rule ceases to exist, and new rule comes into existence — Unless legislature intends otherwise, substitution has effect of deleting old rule and making new rule operative, prospective in effect.

2026 INSC 572 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. P.M. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — ‘Readiness and Willingness’ — Plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract terms — Such readiness and willingness is gathered from totality of facts and circumstances, including conduct of parties before and after filing suit — Amount to be paid must be proved to be available — Plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness from date of contract till decree — Court can infer readiness and willingness from facts and circumstances.

2026 INSC 573 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. N. MALLIGARJUNA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed