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
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Execution of unprivileged Wills — The person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well as the two attesting witnesses deposed to support the case of the original plaintiff, but both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieved their testimony. The thumb impression of ‘K’ was not matched. There was contradiction in the evidences of attesting witnesses as regards the place of execution. The requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be said to have been fulfilled by mechanical compliance of the stipulations – – An enquiry of such nature was impermissible while hearing an appeal under S 100 of the CPC

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose,…

I P C

Even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by the Court, can be the foundation of the order of conviction – HELD Order of conviction and sentence recorded against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 by the Trial Court is thus restored – Appeals partly allowed.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal…

Corporate

Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 30 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer – Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 149, 302, 325, 324 and 323 – Murder – Voluntarily causing hurt – Reduction of sentence – There is a contradiction between the oral testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence – HELD This Court convert the conviction under Sections 302/149 to 326/149 and sentence from life imprisonment to seven years.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIRAM @ VIRMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value/Compensation – HELD The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in that case determining the market value/compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has accepted the same by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award – Therefore, in the present circumstances, the appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre – Appeal allowed.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR SOTI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (U.P.) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

Constitution

Division Bench of the High Court has not at all considered and/or given any specific findings on the possession being taken over by the Tehsildar on 25.04.1988. There is no discussion at all on the aspect whether the possession taken over by the Tehsildar. It appears that solely on the ground that the payment of compensation has not been made and ad interim order was operating, the High Court has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as the First Appellate Court. HELD Remanded to High Court

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Charge of causing loss – Recovery – Whether the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer – Held, It is required to be noted that in so far as the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

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