Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process. 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)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114A, Rules 17, 27, 28 of West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 — Competency of Gram Panchayat to grant building permission — Not competent if area governed by Act of 1979 and development plan exists — Panchayat Samiti is the competent authority.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S AARSUDAY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD Vs. JOGEN CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — Clause 3(c) defining “Caste-based Discrimination” — Incorporation argued as restrictive and exclusionary — Claim that it renders individuals from non-reserved/general classes remediless against caste-based discrimination or institutional bias — Allegation that regulations proceed on unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination only affects reserved categories.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRITUNJAY TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Surya Kant, C.J. and Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 101/2026 with…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439 — Bail — Cancellation of bail — Supreme Court’s power to interfere with High Court’s bail order — Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with High Court orders granting bail, but will intervene if discretion was exercised without due application of mind or contrary to law — Factors to consider include prima facie view of guilt, nature/gravity of offence, and likelihood of obstruction/evasion of justice — Grant of bail balances public interest in justice with individual liberty.

2026 INSC 98 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH USMAN ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Equality before law — Arbitrariness — State as a model employer is obligated to act with fairness and cannot exploit employees or take advantage of their unequal bargaining power — Prolonged contractual engagement on sanctioned posts, followed by abrupt discontinuation without cogent reasons, is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

2026 INSC 99 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHOLA NATH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 — Section 26(1)(e) and (g) — UGC Regulations, 2018 — Regulation 7.3 — Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019, SECTION 14(5) — Vice-Chancellor Appointment — Search-cum-Selection Committee — The UGC Regulations, framed under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution, prescribe mandatory standards for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. State legislation must conform to these regulations. A deviation, such as the exclusion of a UGC nominee from the Search-cum-Selection Committee or the inclusion of a conflicted member, renders the appointment invalid.

2026 INSC 100 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. S. MOHAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE CHANCELLOR, PUDUCHERRY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, PUDUCHERRY AND OTHERS ETC ( Before : Vikram Nath…

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Sections 15, 20 — Environmental compensation — Quantification — Project cost — NGT has discretion to mould relief based on polluter pays principle, scale of offending activity, and capacity of violator — Project turnover or cost can be relevant yardstick for determining compensation — Large scale operations indicate bigger environmental footprint and greater responsibility — Compensation must be rational, proportionate, and reasoned — Mechanical application of turnover or project cost is impermissible. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 46.2)

2026 INSC 102 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RHYTHM COUNTY Vs. SATISH SANJAY HEGDE AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against order under Section 34 — Scope of interference by appellate court — Appellate court under Section 37 should only determine if the court under Section 34 exercised its jurisdiction properly and without exceeding its scope — Re-working and re-calculating reasonable compensation by the Division Bench when the Single Judge had already determined it based on the agreement, was beyond the scope of Section 37. (Para 18)

2026 INSC 103 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SAISUDHIR ENERGY LTD. Vs. M/S NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAM LTD. ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar,…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Sections 8, 20, 23 — Recovery of contraband — Search and seizure — Procedural safeguards — Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Act concerning search and seizure, including informing the accused of their rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, vitiates the entire process and raises reasonable doubt. (Paras 8, 9, 13)

2026 INSC 95 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DONIYAR VILDANOV Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

You missed