Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 24/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision. Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order. Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside. National Green Tribunal (NGT) — Adjudicatory Function — NGT cannot abdicate its powers and entrust its adjudicatory functions to a committee, even an expert committee — The role of such a committee is only to assist the NGT, not to decide the case.
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.
I B C
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.
Service
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
State Laws

Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 – Sections 14 36(1) – Misappropriation of government properties – Validity of the Direction to Hold Inquiry through Economic Offences Wing — Allegation of misappropriation can be gone into only by the Authorities under the Public Trusts Act

Jul 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KHASGI (DEVI AHILYABAI HOLKAR CHARITIES) TRUST, INDORE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIPIN DHANAITKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Abhay…

Specific Performance

Specific performance -There is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance – While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff.

Jul 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. A. M. KRISHNAMURTHY — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

State Laws

HELD On account of competition between the existing and new sugar factory, it would be the farmers who will be the beneficiary as they would have an option to select the sugar mill which provides better service in the manner of payment of price. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Rangarajan Committee and the fact that the Central Government has exercised its jurisdiction to grant extension in time, the ultimate beneficiary would be the farmer and not the existing or the new sugar factory.

Jul 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SWAMI SAMARTH SUGARS AND AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. LOKNETE MARUTRAO GHULE PATIL DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Service

Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw