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.
Constitution

State Bank of India (SBI) was directed to disclose details of Electoral Bonds purchased and redeemed, including purchaser names and bond denominations – The Election Commission of India (ECI) was ordered to publish the disclosed information on its website by a specific deadline – SBI sought an extension for compliance, which was denied, and the Court warned of contempt proceedings if the directions were not followed.

Mar 22, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjiv…

Customs & Excise

Court directed the Commissioner to work out remedies for the cases of goods under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act within a specified timeframe – The Court sustained the demand for customs duty and interest on certain cases while upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for unauthorized removal of imported goods – The impugned order of the CESTAT was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Mar 22, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. BISCO LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Acquittal POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Supreme Court found significant discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, including the victim’s, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events – Due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences – The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and the consequences of accusations on the lives of individuals, highlighting the need for careful examination of testimonies in sexual harassment cases.

Mar 12, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NIRMAL PREMKUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep…

Property Matters

Land Dispute – Appeal Against High Court Order – The appellant challenges the High Court’s decision to quash a resolution for land allocation for a new primary school – The dispute involves land needed for a highway project, leading to the demolition and proposed relocation of a school – Respondents filed multiple writ petitions, with the latest being dismissed due to concealment of previous petitions and lack of notice to parties – The Supreme Court finds the High Court’s order arbitrary and sets it aside, allowing the appeal and the school’s construction on the disputed land.

Mar 12, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNEETA DEVI — Appellant Vs. AVINASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). of…

Food Safety and Standards Act

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 52 – Misbranding – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but considered the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which provides for a lesser penalty for misbranding, leading to a reduction in the sentence – Appellant no.2’s sentence was converted to a fine, and appellant no.1’s fine was upheld – The appeal was partly allowed.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S A.K. SARKAR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…

Constitution

Allegations were based on WhatsApp status messages that were considered to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, specifically regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and Independence Day of Pakistan – The Court analyzed the intention behind the messages, referencing past judgments and the importance of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – The Court quashed the FIR, stating that the appellant’s messages were an expression of protest within his rights, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED AHMAD HAJAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims – The Supreme Court re-assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 35,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 38,81,500/- with interest @8% per annum to the appellants – The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the Tribunal partially.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VETHAMBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(2)(n) and 506 – Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR, holding that the complainant was a mature and intelligent woman who consented to the relations with the appellant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage – The Court also relied on a similar case, Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the accused was not held guilty of rape on false promise of marriage.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXXX — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

High Court did not consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, the circumstances peculiar to the respondent, and the larger interest of the public or the State – The Court also notes that the respondent failed in his fundamental duty as a police officer and the possibility of his influencing the witnesses and the investigation was high – The Court holds that the respondent is not entitled to anticipatory bail and directs him to apply for regular bail if arrested.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…

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