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
Civil Cases

Respondents have taken up wholly untenable ground that the documents were signed under duress – Large number of documents such as invoices, debit notes and ST-1 Form spread over 3 months is unbelievable to be an exercise of duress – Stand of the respondents is wholly untenable and unjustifiable in law and is only to defeat the legitimate claim raised by the appellant – Appeal allowed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S BEHARILAL MADANLAL JAIPURIA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…

SARFAESI

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Non-Performing Asset – Recovery of loan by auction of mortgaged property – Appeal against order of high court granting benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme – No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme to a borrower

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – At the same time when an order is passed without recourse to arbitration and in utter disregard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 of the Act will not apply.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and R. Subhash…

Contempt

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 129 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the respondents – However, it is always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money as mentioned in the report in accordance with law – Contempt petitions disposed of in terms.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BORDEURI SAMAJ OF SRI SRI MAA KAMAKHYA — Appellant Vs. RIJU PRASAD SARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Acquittal

(IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Arms Act, 1878 – Sections 25 and 4 – Murder – Death penalty – Acquittal – Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt –A greater degree of care and caution would be required and a corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, would be necessary to pass an order of conviction – Criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasy – Conviction and death sentence imposed on the accused is totally unsustainable in law – Accused persons acquitted.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAIKAM KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 13(2) – Consumer Complaint – Limitation period – While entertaining Consumer Complaint, the NCDRC has condoned the delay of 100 days in filing a written statement – Appeal against – No case for interference is made in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIAMOND EXPORTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 – Insolvency Resolution – A requirement only needs to be assessed at the threshold while admitting the petition. Hence, if subsequent to the admission, withdrawal applications are preferred and the 10 per cent threshold is reduced, it shall not affect the maintainability of the original petition.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH E S KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S BHARATH HI TECH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

I P C

(IPC) – Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Conduct of the appellant in the prison has been found to be satisfactory – There are no criminal antecedents – It is the first offence committed by the appellant – No doubt, a heinous one – Appellant is not a hardened criminal – It therefore cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative – the death penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is commuted to life imprisonment

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOCHAN SHRIVAS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989 – Clause 5(i) – Casual workers – Temporary Status and Regularization – Respondent has completed maximum 38 days in 12 calendar months during 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1995 and as such the applicant is not entitled to grant of temporary status as per the provisions of the Scheme

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Cr P C

A large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified – No external injuries noticed in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia – No specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged – Chargesheet quashed – Appeal allowed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

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