Supreme Court of India Judgements

47250 Judgements hosted as on 17/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.
State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.
State Laws
[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.
[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.
Constitution
[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [
C P C

(CPC) – Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 – – Supreme Court in its discretion does entertain special leave petitions directly from orders of tribunals/courts without the High Court having been approached only in matters where substantial questions of general importance are involved or where a similar issue is pending for its (the Supreme Court’s) consideration.

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JINI DHANRAJGIR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHIBU MATHEW AND ANOTHER. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…

Consumer

Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy – extent to which the claim of the appellant is required to be accepted and the respondent be directed to reimburse the same – – on the exchange of correspondence between surveyor and the appellant who brought on record additional material before the surveyor to indicate that the machinery cannot be repaired, the amount assessed was Rs.2,32,02,000 – Appeal partly allowed

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUPER LABEL MFG. CO. — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Corruption I P C

Prevention of Corruption Act – IPC – The directions issued in the said original petition for de novo investigation are set aside. The Investigation Officer shall proceed with further investigation in all cases by including the offences under the PC Act – writ petitions challenging the initiation of proceedings by ED shall stand dismissed.

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y. BALAJI — Appellant Vs. KARTHIK DESARI & ANR. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

“…gold would not be precious if we all had gold to spare………..” HELD held that bitumen is not a valuable article in the context of Section 69A and the assessee here was not the owner of the concerned bitumen for the purpose of section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961.

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S.D.N. SINGH — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PATNA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Cr P C

Gambling – Benefit of probation – Incident pertains to the year 2007, when the appellant was about 31 years of age and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month – As per the information furnished by the learned counsel for the State, the appellant has never indulged in any case of gambling – Probation granted

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOORI @ T.V. SURESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Will & Succession

Will – Writ petitioner did not have any knowledge about the contents of the Will and the bequest made under the Will – Therefore, this appears to be a case where the writ petitioner is on a treasure hunt, if not a wild goose chase, in the hope that there exists a treasure and that if found, it will be hers – The Court cannot go to the aid of such a person.

May 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. WILSON PRINCE — Appellant Vs. THE NAZAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Special Leave…

C P C Consumer

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 1 Rule 8 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 12(1)(c) – there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved. Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond.

May 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and M. M. Sundresh,…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Sections 107 and 360 – Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Section 80 – Gambling – Benefit of probation – Appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the duration of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence.

May 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOORI @ T.V. SURESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

You missed

State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw