Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Top Tags

Latest Post

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. Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

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.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased
Accident
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.
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act
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.
C P C
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.
Customs & Excise
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.
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 10, 16 and 20 – Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate – The court refers to Section 16 and Section 20 of the CPC, emphasizing that suits related to immovable property should be instituted where the property is located – The court analyzes the provisions of the CPC and prior case law to determine jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC – The court dismisses the petitioner’s transfer petition and allows the respondent’s petition, ordering the transfer of the petitioner’s suit to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ACME PAPERS LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHINTAMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and…

Juvenile Justice

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 363,342 and 201 – Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 2(13) and 6 –The Court analyzed relevant provisions of the JJ Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of preliminary assessments for CICLs accused of heinous offences – The Court quashed the impugned judgment and ordered the appellant’s release, noting that the proceedings against him were vitiated due to the violation of the JJ Act.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THIRUMOORTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

CBI I P C

CBI investigation for justice – The Court finds the investigation ineffective and is inclined to transfer the case to the CBI, noting the need for a credible investigation and the fundamental rights of the appellants – The Court discusses the circumstances under which investigations can be transferred to the CBI, emphasizing the sparing use of this power and the need for complete justice – The Court sets aside the High Court’s order dismissing the transfer to the CBI and directs the CBI to take over the investigation, ensuring a thorough inquiry and the pursuit of justice.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

Bail Declined

Grant of Bail – Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order lacked legal sustenance as it did not properly consider the detailed evidence against respondent no.2. – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for brief reasons in bail decisions, as established by precedent – The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and respondent no.2 was given three weeks to surrender – The order does not prejudice subsequent proceedings or bar fresh bail applications.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM MURTI SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhansu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 3, 7 and 10(3) – Transferring of employees between different units of the company – – The Supreme Court refers to the case of Cipla Ltd. to assert that the terms of employment and Standing Orders do not conflict, and transfers are permissible – The Court analyzes the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, particularly Sections 7 and 10, to determine the operation and modification of Standing Orders – The Supreme Court concludes that the transfers were legal, overturns the High Court’s judgment, and dismisses the writ petitions filed by the respondents – The Court does not address the broader issue of the power to modify Standing Orders.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and Section 304 Part-I – Murder – Acquital – The Supreme Court finds that the prosecution has not fully established the circumstances necessary for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, as required by the precedent set in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – The Supreme Court allows the appeal, acquits the appellants of all charges, and orders their immediate release, citing insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Environment

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – 3(2)(v)(1) – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(d) – The Court finds the exemption to be unguided and arbitrary, lacking specific criteria for the quantity of earth extraction and the definition of linear projects – The Court concludes that the exemption under item 6 of the impugned notification is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India – The amended notification also fails to address these concerns adequately – Appeal Partly allowed.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOBLE M. PAIKADA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Preventive Detention

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 – Section 3(2) – Power to make orders detaining certain persons – The court examined the definitions of “public order” and “Goonda” under the Act, emphasizing the need for activities to adversely affect the community at large to be considered prejudicial to public order – The court upheld the preventive detention order, concluding that the appellant’s activities did indeed affect public order and that the detention was necessary to prevent further harm to society.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala…

Corporate

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 106 – Notice of claim for compensation and refund of overcharge.- The court examines the distinction between ‘overcharge’ and ‘illegal charge,’ the requirement of notice under Section 106, and the applicability of past cases like Birla Cement Works and West Coast Paper Mills – The court analyzes the scope of Section 106, the reasons for revising freight charges, and whether the revision was due to a new methodology or an error in the existing notified freight charges – Held,, that the chargeable distance of 444 km was illegal

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

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.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

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.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

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.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw