Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Contract Law — Hire Agreement — Dispute over outstanding charges and vehicle possession — Plaintiff (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) hired out two tractor trailers to the defendants (M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt — Ltd.) with specific monthly charges — The defendants failed to pay charges and sought waiver — Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Contract Law — Hire Agreement — Dispute over outstanding charges and vehicle possession — Plaintiff (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) hired out two tractor trailers to the defendants (M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt — Ltd.) with specific monthly charges — The defendants failed to pay charges and sought waiver — Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery.
Contract Act Tenders & Contracts
Contract Law — Hire Agreement — Dispute over outstanding charges and vehicle possession — Plaintiff (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) hired out two tractor trailers to the defendants (M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt — Ltd.) with specific monthly charges — The defendants failed to pay charges and sought waiver — Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.
Constitution

Hijab Ban case – Per Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J If girl wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education – Per Mr. Hemant Gupta, J State is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the State from the State funds – Thus, the practice of wearing hijab could be restricted by the State in terms of the Government Order.

Oct 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AISHAT SHIFA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil…

Corruption

Period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory – Consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason – The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act.

Oct 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY RAJMOHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…

Contempt

Contempt of Court – Deliberate and willful disobedience of order – Direction issued to Telangana Power Utilities viz. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to pay salary and other service benefits to the petitioners from the day they are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, to be implemented within two weeks.

Oct 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. D. PRABHAKARA RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…

Constitution

Union of India to evolve a mechanism to ensure that whenever conflicting stands are taken by different departments, they should be resolved at the governmental level itself. direct the Registry to furnish a copy of this judgment to the learned Attorney General for India to use his good offices and do the needful.

Oct 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. ADANI PORTS SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED (APSEZL) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T.…

Acquittal

Abetment of suicide – Cruelty – Conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral evidence of mother and sister of the deceased, who are interested witnesses – Complaint against the appellants was filed after 3 weeks of the death of the deceased -deceased was also undergoing treatment for depression -Appeal allowed

Oct 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARIANO ANTO BRUNO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Customs & Excise

HELD a chiller machine is attempting to masquerade as a heat pump, to gain concessional tariff benefits – Conclusion therefore is inevitable that the MVAC machine must not be categorized as a Heat Pump – falls in Sub-heading 8418.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in the category of refrigerating equipment.

Oct 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S THERMAX LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-1 — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

You missed

Contract Act Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Hire Agreement — Dispute over outstanding charges and vehicle possession — Plaintiff (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) hired out two tractor trailers to the defendants (M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt — Ltd.) with specific monthly charges — The defendants failed to pay charges and sought waiver — Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery.

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw