Supreme Court of India Judgements

46960 Judgements hosted as on 08/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34) Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44) Contempt of Court — Initiating contempt proceedings — Clear and unequivocal terms of the underlying order — A Contempt Petition can be dismissed summarily only if the underlying order, the non-compliance of which is alleged, is genuinely unclear, ambiguous, or susceptible to two equally reasonable interpretations — Where the High Court dismissed a Contempt Petition holding that the underlying order was capable of two interpretations, but the Supreme Court found, upon reading the order as a whole, that there were clear and categorical directions and recorded statements regarding handing over of possession and payment of compensation, the dismissal of the Contempt Petition was erroneous. (Paras 1, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)
Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)
Service
Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. (Paras 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI STEEL TRADE Vs. FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Tenders

Government Contracts and Tenders — Letter of Intent (LoI) — Legal Nature — An LoI is ordinarily a precursor to a contract, indicating intent to enter into a future agreement, but does not itself create a concluded contract or vested, enforceable rights unless the necessary preconditions are satisfied — A bidder’s commercial expectation that a contract will follow an LoI is not a juridical entitlement — If the LoI explicitly stipulates conditions precedent (like compatibility testing, live demonstration, and cost disclosure) before execution of an agreement/final award letter, the LoI remains provisional and conditional until such prerequisites are met. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1355 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S OASYS CYBERNATICS PVT. LTD. ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI., Ujjal Bhuyan and…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application by Financial Creditor — Rejection for technical defects — Affidavit Verification — Whether an application under Section 7 of the IBC, verified later than the date of the supporting affidavit, is liable to be rejected at the threshold — Mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit (e.g., dated before application verification) does not render the Section 7 application non est and liable to be rejected; such a defect is curable and not fundamental. (Paras 1, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIVEIN AQUA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Scope — Principles for quashing FIR or complaint under Section 482 CrPC, including where allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive (referring to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal) — High Court error in refusing to quash proceedings despite clear absence of ingredients for the alleged offences. (Paras 12, 17, 25, 26, 27)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1350 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDER CHAND BAGRI Vs. JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bail Granted Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 — Allegation of rape based on false promise of marriage — Relationship continued for three years; physical relations established multiple times — Complainant, an educated and married woman, engaged in the relationship voluntarily and without protest or complaint until the break-up — Lodging of FIR three months after the last physical contact, subsequent to the appellant refusing a demand for money — Held, the relationship was consensual; physical intimacy in a long-standing, functioning relationship, which later turns acrimonious, cannot be retrospectively branded as rape — Refusal to fulfill a monetary demand led to the institution of criminal proceedings, amounting to an abuse of the court machinery — FIR and Charge-sheet quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 16, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 40, 41)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMADHAN S/O SITATRAM MANMOTHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTHRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 90(3) — Execution Sale — Setting aside sale on ground of irregularity — Statutory bar against judgment debtor — Scope and application of Order 21 Rule 90(3) CPC (inserted w.e.f. 01.02.1977) — No application to set aside sale shall be entertained on any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date the proclamation of sale was drawn up — Mandates vigilance by judgment debtor regarding pre-sale illegalities or material irregularities. (Paras 10, 15, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.R. SELVARAJ (DEAD), THROUGH LRS. Vs. K.J. PRAKASH KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

Environment

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 38H(6) — Captive Animal Management and Translocation — Cancellation of Zoo Recognition and Translocation — Controversy surrounding the proposed translocation of deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park (New Delhi) to wildlife sanctuaries in Rajasthan and Delhi on pretext of overcrowding, following cancellation of the Park’s recognition by Central Zoo Authority (CZA) due to persistent non-compliance with zoo management norms. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1358 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW DELHI NATURE SOCIETY THROUGH VERHAEN KHANNA Vs. DIRECTOR HOTRICULTURE DDA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,…

Bail Granted

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Cancellation of Bail — Murder trial (Section 302 IPC) — Accused granted bail by Supreme Court subject to stringent conditions (confinement to Kolkata, daily attendance at Police Station) — Application for cancellation of bail moved by victim’s relative alleging breach of conditions, witness intimidation, and resultant unfair trial — Background of trial characterized by State bias favoring accused, witnesses turning hostile, and failed attempt by State to withdraw prosecution (U/S 321 Cr. PC) — Court acknowledges serious concerns regarding fairness of trial and State’s conduct (acting as “real facilitator” for the accused) — However, specific breach of bail conditions by the accused influencing witnesses not conclusively established — Bail granted partially based on long incarceration (5 years) and delay in trial conclusion — Given the advanced stage of trial, no useful purpose served by cancelling bail now — Application for cancellation of bail rejected.

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1360 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK. MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138, Section 142(2), Section 142A — Territorial Jurisdiction for cheque dishonour cases (post-2015 Amendment) — Account Payee Cheques — Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 concerning cheques ‘delivered for collection through an account’ (Account Payee Cheques) lies exclusively with the court having local jurisdiction over the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account (payee’s home branch) — This position is anchored in Section 142(2)(a) read with its Explanation — The legal fiction in the Explanation deems a cheque delivered at any branch of the payee’s bank to have been delivered at the payee’s home branch for jurisdictional purposes, overriding the actual place of delivery. (Paras 39, 54, 58, 59, 76)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1362 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. M/S HEG LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Transfer…

Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Locus Standi — An aggrieved party, including the complainant or father of the deceased, has the requisite locus standi to seek cancellation/annulment of bail granted to the accused, as the power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. may be invoked not only by the State but also by any aggrieved party. (Paras 10, 10.1, 10.3)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. RAGHVENDRA SINGH ALIAS PRINCE AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw