Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 — Section 47 — Non-discrimination in government employment — Employee acquiring disability during service — Mandatory obligation on employer to shift employee to alternate post with same pay and service benefits, or, failing that, to accommodate on supernumerary post till superannuation — Respondent, a CRPF Constable (Driver), rendered blind/partially blind in 1996 and medically invalidated from service in 1998 without consideration of alternate posting — Held, S. 47 casts a positive and mandatory obligation on employer to protect disabled employee and not await a request for accommodation — Order of medical invalidation dated 11-3-1998 held ultra vires S. 47 and Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution — Single Judge’s direction reinstating respondent, upheld by Division Bench, affirmed in principle, though relief modified in view of respondent’s superannuation — Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524; Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, relied on.
2026 INSC 689 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BALI RAM NO. 850808321 ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )…
State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Sections 29 & 30 — Auction sale of mortgaged property by Financial Corporation for recovery of dues — Judicial review of, scope — Borrowers persistently defaulting over eight years despite multiple opportunities, repayment schedules fixed by High Court, and statutory notices — Financial Corporation auctioning mortgaged property after affording repeated chances including a final 21-day matching offer, which borrowers ignored — Held, fairness required of a Financial Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it; fairness is not a one-way street — Courts have no say in matters between the Corporation and its debtor except where there is (a) statutory violation, or (b) the Corporation has acted unfairly/unreasonably — Writ court/civil court does not sit as an appellate authority over commercial decisions of the Corporation — Absence of prior valuation report, by itself, held insufficient to vitiate auction where borrowers never objected to the basis of sale (BOS — balance outstanding as on date of possession/sale deed) and themselves sought to retain the property on the very same terms — Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court setting aside auction sale, reversed.
2026 INSC 673 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. BHUSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 19(1) & 21 — “Knowledge that such an offence has been committed” — Meaning and scope — Held, not confined to direct/personal knowledge of commission of offence based on person’s own senses — Includes awareness founded on receipt of credible information regarding commission of offence punishable under the Act — Where such information is received directly from the victim, capable of communicating/reporting/informing, the same is deemed credible — Restrictive construction confining “knowledge” to direct, sensory knowledge would render sub-sections (5) & (6) of S. 19 and R. 4 of POCSO Rules, 2012 non-functional, and defeat the protective purpose of the Act — Person receiving report from victim not obliged to independently verify or investigate truth of allegation before reporting — Conducting a prior “verification exercise” to ascertain correctness of the child’s complaint, and reporting only if own assessment finds signs of assault, is impermissible and defeats the very purpose of the Act, since it may result in disappearance of evidence and delay —
2026 INSC 675 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AAA Vs. LINDA SEMA AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….. of…
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected
2026 INSC 671 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1939) LTD. Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. SINCE HAS BEEN MERGED INTO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND…
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence —
2026 INSC 672 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BEJLA ORAON Vs. KALI DAS ORAON AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015
2026 INSC 674 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY VIJH Vs. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. ….of 2026…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.
2026 INSC 669 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARDARI LAL Vs. BISHAN DASS AND OTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.10990 of…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable.
2026 INSC 660 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ GUPTA Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles 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], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. REKHA AND OTHERS Vs. DINESH PORWAL AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2026…