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)
Dying Declaration

Multiple dying declarations – in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording conviction – In such an eventuality no corroboration is required

Dec 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJARAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…

Land Acquisition

HELD there may be an illegal residential colony , therefore, it cannot be believed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original writ petitioners are in possession of the land in question and/or at the relevant time possession was not taken. Following (2020) 8 SCC 129 in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. Writs dismissed

Dec 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Consumer

Deficiency in service – way the issue was addressed by the Max Life Insurance Corporation following the information conveyed does fail, in our opinion, the test of Reasonable Conduct. HELD acts of Max Life Insurance Corporation amount to a clear case of deficiency of service and a non-bonafide conduct by the Max Life Insurance Corporation

Dec 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOKAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Tenders & Contracts

Slump Sale Agreement – liability of the purchaser for the dues relating to activities and operations of the unit for the period anterior to 17.7.2010, could not therefore have been fastened on the appellant HELD that the liabilities for the transactions made prior to the sale agreement, are to be borne by the seller, U.P State Sugar Corporation .

Dec 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following rotation of quota by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year? Matter placed before 5 judge bench

Dec 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIHARAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HARSH VARDHAN SINGH RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Abhay S. Oka,…

Accident

Death case – Motor Accident – the actual income should be computed @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 60,000) amounts to 2,10,000 – With a 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), the annual loss of dependency ( 2,10,000 – 52,500) would be Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., Rs. 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. Rs. 25,20,000 – Filial and parental consortium have to be increased – Each of the children, and the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- – Thus, the total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is Rs. 1,20,000/- – Appellants are entitled to Rs. 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency; and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased, are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium – Appeal allowed.

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARPREET KAUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MOHINDER YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – S 482 – (IPC) – S 420 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Cheating – Forged signatures on sale deed – Civil remedy – if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court – Criminal proceedings quashed –

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. NAGENDER YADAV — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHERR — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

State Laws

Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – Section 3 – Offence of ‘organised crime’ could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one charge-sheets in the preceding ten years – If ‘organised crime’ was synonymous with ‘continuing unlawful activity’, two separate definitions were not necessary –

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Appellant Vs. SANDIP OMPRAKASH GUPTA — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of…

Corruption

COSTITUTION BENCH :Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Proof of demand – In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEERAJ DUTTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S.…

Land Acquisition

Compensation – Claimants shall not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of acquisition – High Court awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard is unsustainable and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. OMVIR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

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