Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Bail Granted
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 2(15) and 11 – Exemption for income derived from property held under trust – the matter requires to be re-examined, and the question as to whether the amounts received by the assessee qualify for exemption, under Section 2 (15) or Section 11 needs to be gone into afresh.

Feb 9, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI — Appellant Vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376 – Rape – False promise to marry – Acquittal – It would be a folly to treat every breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 – There is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused

Jan 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAIM AHAMED — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Ss 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B – Civil remedy – In respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. FIR Quashed

Jan 31, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH USHA CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8(a) – Estoppel – Mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel – Effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel.

Jan 29, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. KAMALA AND OTHERS AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

C P C Corporate

Injunction – While passing an order of injunction, the Courts are required to be guided by the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury – A blanket order directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the all 11 properties admeasuring 115 acres is not justified

Jan 29, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVELOPER GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SURINDER SINGH MARWAH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ.…

Constitution

Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – – A State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine contrary to the said standards that have been determined by the Central Law – Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder

Jan 29, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAHARUL ISLAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Murder

(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – – whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death – The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased – Thus, the injuries and the death were closely and directly linked

Jan 29, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASAD PRADHAN AND ANOTHER @.APPELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal…

Constitution

HELD restricted interim order, allowing the Purse Seine Fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, but within the Exclusive Economic Zone, with certain conditions – Only registered fishing vessel will be given permission – The Fisheries Department will give permission to such boats only, which are installed with an approved Vessel Tracking System – These vessels will be allowed to operate only twice a week – It shall be mandatory for all the sailors to keep their biometric card/photo ID with them – Fisheries Department of the State shall also give a colour code to these Purse Seine Fishing Boats – The Registration Number of these vessels shall be prominently displayed on the boat

Jan 29, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FISHERMAN CARE, REGISTERED ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS…

Specific Performance

The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay the consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bite for the time which disentitles him as time is the essence of the contract.” Thus, both readiness as well as willingness have to be established by the plaintiff on whom the burden is cast in a suit for specific performance of an agreement.

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. HARIDASAN — Appellant Vs. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw