Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

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)
C P C

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.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw
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.
C P C
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.
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
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15(1), 341 and 342 – Promotion – SC/ST Category -An obligation on the part of Parliament, to provide clarity about the kind of protection, regarding the status of such individuals forced to chose one among the newly reorganized states, and ensure that they are not worse off as a result of reorganization –

May 1, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AKHILESH PRASAD — Appellant Vs. JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and S.…

Service Matters
Service

HELD there appears no reason for withholding the names of the present appellants and merely because they were appointed at a later point of time, would not deprive them from claiming to become a member of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is applicable to the employees who were appointed on or before 1st April, 2003.

Apr 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. RANJITHARAJ — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

Cheque Dishonour

Cheque – Quashing of complaint at a pre-trial stage – the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process – –when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant – the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption

Apr 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh…

Cr P C

(CrPC) – S 482 – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – S 2 and 3 – Quashing of proceedings – Appellant-accused contended that solely on the basis of a single FIR/charge sheet and that too with respect to a single murder, the appellant cannot be said to be a ‘Gangster’ and/or a member of the ‘Gang’ – HELD Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang

Apr 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRADDHA GUPTA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Specific Performance

Specific performance of agreement – Agreement to sell – Three Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of facts in favour of the respondent-plaintiff with regard to the respondent having proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, – Appeal dismissed

Apr 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATNAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. SATNAM SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8037…

Service Matters
Service

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Sections 1(3)(c), 2(a) and 3(1)(b) – Anganwadi centres – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 11 – The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) – Anganwadi centres are establishments contemplated by clause (b) of sub­section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act

Apr 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIBEN MAGANBHAI BHARIYA — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DAHOD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Corporate

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Section 5 – Date of loading goods onto the vessel, which commenced one day prior to the effective date of the policy, is not as significant as the date on which the foreign buyer failed to pay for the goods exported, which was well within the coverage period of the Policy

Apr 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS — Appellant Vs. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION (ECGC) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and…

State Laws

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 – Section 2(c) – Deposit – If the financial establishment is obligated to return the deposit without any increments, it shall still fall within the purview of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, provided that the deposit does not fall within any of the exceptions –

Apr 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Appellant Vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela…

You missed

C P C

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.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw
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