Latest Post

Indian Air Force — Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) — Reinstatement and consideration for Permanent Commission (PC) — Dismissal of appeal challenging AFT order — Delay in approaching legal forum. Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) — Eligibility for Permanent Commission (PC) and pensionary benefits — Applicability of Air Force Human Resource Policy — Refusal of benefits due to not meeting minimum average Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grading of 6.5 — Court’s refusal to grant benefits where minimum criteria not met and no demonstrated mitigating circumstances exist compared to other successful applicants. Air Force Act, 1950 — Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) — Permanent Commission (PC) — Denial of PC — Assessment of performance and eligibility — HRP 01/2019 — Minimum Performance Criteria — ACR gradings — Mandatory In-Service Courses (MISCs) — Categorisation — Arbitrariness — Hurried implementation — Inadequate opportunity to meet criteria — Pregnancy — Deemed qualifying service for pension — One-time measure. Army Act, 1950 — Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) — Permanent Commission (PC) — Annual Vacancy Cap — The Supreme Court examined the annual cap of 250 vacancies for PC, finding it not to be an immutable rule and that it had been breached historically for exigencies of service and policy changes, thus it should not act as an absolute bar to corrective relief, especially when the method of assessment was found to be unfair. Service Law — Indian Navy — Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) — Grant of Permanent Commission (PC) — Assessment of suitability for PC — Whether casual grading of ACRs and “Not Recommended for PC” endorsements prejudiced officers’ chances of PC — Held yes, as officers were considered ineligible for PC at the time of their ACRs, leading to a distorted assessment of their inter se merit for PC — This circularity transformed past ineligibility into deemed unsuitability for career progression, creating an uneven playing field.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 307, 326, 324 — Conviction for causing life-threatening injuries — High Court reducing sentence to period already undergone and enhancing fine — Supreme Court held High Court acted in defiance of law and created a travesty of established criminal jurisprudence by relying on irrelevant factors like time elapsed and death of victim by other persons, without proper reasoning — Such reduction undermines the deterrent effect of punishment and erodes public confidence in the justice system.

2026 INSC 164 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARAMESHWARI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Admission of application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Rejection of settlement proposal — Court must ascertain existence of default in financial debt when a financial creditor triggers insolvency under Section 7 — No scope for inquiry into disputes regarding existence of debt or inability to pay at admission stage — Rejects arguments based on financial viability and settlement proposals.

2026 INSC 166 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POWER TRUST (PROMOTER OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LTD.) Vs. BHUVAN MADAN (INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LTD.) AND OTHERS ( Before…

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 32(2) and 36-A — Trial of offences — Section 32(2) mandates that no court inferior to the Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV — Section 36-A provides for summary trial by Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences not exceeding three years, but specifically excludes offences triable by Special Court or Court of Sessions — Therefore, Section 36-A is not applicable to offences triable by Court of Session, and commitment of case to Sessions Court by JMFC is not illegal.

2026 INSC 171 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SBS BIOTECH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Contract Law — Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Interpretation — The JDA and GPA clearly indicate that the developer is authorized to enter sale agreements, construct, receive consideration, and transfer possession and title for flats within the developer’s share — The JDA also contains indemnity clauses where the developer indemnifies the landowners against any liabilities arising from construction and sale agreements, and landowners indemnify the developer against title defects or delays caused by landowners — The court interpreted these clauses to mean that while landowners are responsible for ensuring title transfer, the actual construction and timely delivery of flats within the developer’s share is the developer’s sole responsibility

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Admissibility of information received from accused in custody leading to discovery of fact — Recovery of dead body and Scooty at the instance of the accused, based on memorandum statement, considered a distinct fact and sufficient to prove guilt when connected to other circumstances.

2026 INSC 173 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEELU @ NILESH KOSHTI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Telecommunication Act, 2023 — Spectrum Allocation — Supreme Court’s order dated 15.02.2013 directing licensees to pay reserve price — Liability commences from 02.02.2012 for those continuing operations — End date is determined by the issuance of Letter of Intent (LoI) or cessation of operations.

2026 INSC 174 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA Vs. SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.

2026 INSC 139 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J. MUTHURAJAN AND ANOTHER Vs. S. VAIKUNDARAJAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

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.

2026 INSC 83 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIJIT PANDEY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

You missed