Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 02/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Top Tags

Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Requirement of signature/voluntary authorisation — Compromise petition in a partition suit signed on behalf of defendant not personally but through counsel, absent express authorisation or exigent circumstance — Held, invalid — A compromise, to be lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3, must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves; a counsel or authorised representative may sign on a party’s behalf only where there is express authorisation in the vakalatnama or an exigency of circumstance justifying such action — In the absence of either, and there being nothing on record to show that defendant no.5 had authorised his counsel to compromise away his substantial rights in the suit property, the mandatory requirement of a voluntary, party-signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 was not satisfied — The resultant compromise decree was accordingly contrary to law and rightly set aside. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed. Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 — Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 — Rule 7A(1) — Election affidavit — Non-disclosure of immovable property — Construction of Rule requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents” — Held, the comma after “myself” is a mere listing comma and does not create any distinction or exclusion — the word “of” governs all three categories collectively — a candidate is required to disclose immovable property held by the candidate, the spouse, and dependents, including property held solely by the spouse — The appellant’s failure to disclose property standing solely in her husband’s name accordingly amounted to non-disclosure in breach of the Rule.
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Requirement of signature/voluntary authorisation — Compromise petition in a partition suit signed on behalf of defendant not personally but through counsel, absent express authorisation or exigent circumstance — Held, invalid — A compromise, to be lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3, must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves; a counsel or authorised representative may sign on a party’s behalf only where there is express authorisation in the vakalatnama or an exigency of circumstance justifying such action — In the absence of either, and there being nothing on record to show that defendant no.5 had authorised his counsel to compromise away his substantial rights in the suit property, the mandatory requirement of a voluntary, party-signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 was not satisfied — The resultant compromise decree was accordingly contrary to law and rightly set aside.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Requirement of signature/voluntary authorisation — Compromise petition in a partition suit signed on behalf of defendant not personally but through counsel, absent express authorisation or exigent circumstance — Held, invalid — A compromise, to be lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3, must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves; a counsel or authorised representative may sign on a party’s behalf only where there is express authorisation in the vakalatnama or an exigency of circumstance justifying such action — In the absence of either, and there being nothing on record to show that defendant no.5 had authorised his counsel to compromise away his substantial rights in the suit property, the mandatory requirement of a voluntary, party-signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 was not satisfied — The resultant compromise decree was accordingly contrary to law and rightly set aside.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.
Land Acquisition

Looking to the location and the potentiality of the lands acquired and as the acquired lands were required to be used for Liquified Petroleum Gas Plant, not much development was required HELD the original landowners shall be entitled to Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the lands acquired against 7,00,000 lakh per acre granted by HC.

Oct 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Environment

Environment – Establishment of new wood-based industries – Appeals challenges the order passed by NGT HELD Forest Survey of India (FSI), undisputedly an expert body, arrived at its estimation based on the scientific method – NGT could not have sat in appeal over the opinion of the expert. NGT order set aside

Oct 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. UDAY EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent (…

I P C POCSO

HELD modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing the appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences.

Oct 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. FIROZ — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M.…

C P C

Held Trial court directions restored whereby temporary injunction granted – defendants to maintain status quo with respect to the Will property till final disposal of the suit and, the defendants would furnish the details and account of the movable property of the deceased-Ishwarbhai Madhavbhai Patel from the date of his death within 30 days from the date of the order – Suit be expedited

Oct 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH ISHWARBHAI PATEL — Appellant Vs. JATIN ISHWARBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Just Compensation – Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard – claimants cannot expect a wind fall but compensation so granted cannot be PITTANCE

Oct 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ BALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAKEJA BEGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Requirement of signature/voluntary authorisation — Compromise petition in a partition suit signed on behalf of defendant not personally but through counsel, absent express authorisation or exigent circumstance — Held, invalid — A compromise, to be lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3, must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves; a counsel or authorised representative may sign on a party’s behalf only where there is express authorisation in the vakalatnama or an exigency of circumstance justifying such action — In the absence of either, and there being nothing on record to show that defendant no.5 had authorised his counsel to compromise away his substantial rights in the suit property, the mandatory requirement of a voluntary, party-signed compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 was not satisfied — The resultant compromise decree was accordingly contrary to law and rightly set aside.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw