Supreme Court of India Judgements

46970 Judgements hosted as on 10/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10) Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12) Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35)
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)
Service
Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)
State Laws
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Land Acquisition

HELD the decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Section 173(8) – Endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only – mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant

Mar 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANT THANUR KARMUSE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Acquittal

HELD where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – mother of the deceased, an interested witness evidence was not reliable – F S L Report, no blood was present on the weapons recovered except for traces of blood on one lathi, and even that could not be linked with the blood of the deceased – Order of acquittal is upheld

Mar 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROOPWANTI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Service Matters
Service

HELD promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 09.04.2021 i.e., the date on which the juniors came to be promoted is directed to be considered afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20 and thereafter the DPC/competent authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and taking into consideration the ACRs of remaining years, i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Mar 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R.K. JIBANLATA DEVI — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58 and 72 – Suit for declaration – Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw