Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — Section 3(2), First Proviso — Constitution of Joint Committee — Proviso applies only when notices of motion given on the same day in both Houses are admitted by both Houses — Does not mandate a Joint Committee if the motion is admitted in one House and rejected in the other — Presiding Officer of the House where motion is admitted can independently proceed to constitute a Committee. (Paras 12.2, 12.4, 14)
2026 INSC 65 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH X Vs. O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF PEOPLE & ORS. . RESPONDENTS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra…
Finance Act, 1994 — Section 65(105)(zu) — Event Management Service — Service Tax cannot be imposed if the activity does not fall strictly within the definition of “event management” as provided in the statute. Strict interpretation of taxing statutes is crucial.
2026 INSC 66 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HT MEDIA LIMITED Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 — Conviction by High Court after acquittal by Trial Court — Supreme Court’s role — Appellate court can review and reconsider evidence, but must respect the presumption of innocence accorded to an accused who has been acquitted. A plausible view taken by the trial court should not be overturned merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only if the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion than guilt is possible. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29)
2026 INSC 67 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,…
Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024) — Rule 6(1) and Note in Appendix-I — Constitutional validity — Fixation of minimum qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist — Held valid — “Note” providing Bachelor’s/Master’s degree holders are eligible subject to possession of Diploma is not arbitrary or exclusionary — Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amended Cadre Rules, finding no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court. (Paras 2, 16, 41, 65)
2026 INSC 68 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. FIROZ MANSURI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra…
Reservation in Public Employment — Migration of Reserved Category Candidates — Reserved category candidates who score higher marks than the cut-off for General Category candidates must be treated as qualified against an open/unreserved post, provided they did not avail of any concession or relaxation. Their appointment on merit in the general category does not count against the reserved category quota. (Para 33)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHAM KRISHNA B AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)
2026 INSC 34 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)
2026 INSC 35 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI Vs. SAKEENA BEEVI ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). 3894…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence
2026 INSC 32 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)
2026 INSC 43 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders etc. Act, 1986 — Section 3(2) — Preventive Detention — Grounds for Detention — Requirement of finding ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ — Detenu, a ‘drug offender’, was detained based on three criminal cases involving Ganja, with an apprehension that if released on bail, she would engage in similar activities — Held, mere apprehension that the detenu, if released on bail, would be likely to indulge in similar crimes would not be a sufficient ground for ordering preventive detention — Order of detention failed to indicate how the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to ‘public order’ as opposed to ‘law and order’ and was therefore unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)
2026 INSC 41 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROSHINI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal…