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

HELD Our answer with respect to the first prayer in Miscellaneous Application No. 1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to take care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated 27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however, calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, as referred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this order.

Sep 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

Service Matters
Service

HELD direct the respondent(s) to give effect to the judgment of the High Court dated 04.11.2011 which had affirmed the order of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2010 by recalling orders of reversion, if any, and extending monetary benefits to the appellants herein and thereafter, to consider their cases under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) if they have so applied and if their applications are in order. No costs.

Sep 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  MEDINI. C AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

I P C

IPC Section 302/34 – no contra evidence on behalf of the defence to explain as to why they all went together to the spot with fire-arms and shot at the deceased – On the other hand, the antecedent enmity between the accused and the victims as narrated in detail by PW-1 clearly brings out the fact that there existed a common intention on the part of the accused inasmuch as they went together armed with guns in broad day light to the land where the victims were engaged in irrigation – Also the manner in which the crime was executed clearly establishes a concerted action on part of the accused – Conviction under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC uphold – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 26, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDRAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 – Educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. HELD Separate eligibility conditions for promotion to supernumerary Assistant Engineers posts on the basis of educational qualification is in line with the past promotion practices of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and is not an unreasonable classification.

Sep 26, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  CHANDAN BANERJEE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and…

Customs & Excise

Tribunal has not looked into the merits of the appeals at all on the facetious ground that the show cause notice did not contain any basis to doubt the classification of the goods and that while issuing the notice, the adjudicating authority had not examined the classification based on the report of the laboratory – Findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the record and cannot therefore be sustained – The goods were leviable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 – The goods were chargeable to anti-dumping duty; and respondent was liable to pay interest under Section 28AB and penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 118(a) of the Customs Act 1962.

Sep 26, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE — Appellant Vs. M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli,…

I P C

High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part­I IPC – In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, It is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part­II IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. HELD converting conviction from the one under Section 304 Part­I IPC to the one under Section 304 Part­II IPC – Appeals are allowed in part and conviction of the appellant is modified from the one under Section 304 Part­ I /34 IPC to the one under Section 304 Part ­II /34 IPC

Sep 26, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  KALA SINGH @ GURNAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

C P C

Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – High Court erred in not recording a finding on the question of law formulated later, to account for the Court Surveyor’s report, vis-à-vis the legal battle over the suit land. Without the decision on the relevant aspect which goes to the root of the dispute, the impugned judgment in our assessment, fails the scrutiny of law.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATADIN SURAJMAL RAJORIA (DECEASED) THROUGH SOLE LEGATEE LALITA SATYANARAYAN KHANDELAWAL — Appellant Vs. RAMDWAR MAHAVIR PANDE (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Uncategorized

(CPC) – Rejection of plaint – Underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Corporate

Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – Section 11 – Discharge or adoption of third party contracts with prior allottees – Successful allottee or bidder has complete freedom to decide as to whether he desires to continue or adopt any such existing contracts in relation to coal mining operation – If the successful bidder or allottee elects not to adopt or continue with the existing contracts, all such contracts shall cease to be enforceable against the successful bidder or allottee in relation to Schedule I coal mines.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. EMTA COAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…

Property Matters

Execution of lease deed – Determination of market value plot – In order, it has been specifically observed that so far as the dispute of the balance enhanced amount is concerned, the same shall be settled and disposed of after exchange of affidavits – In that view of the matter the High Court has erred in observing that the rate of Rs.5900/­ per sq.meter mentioned in the lease deed shall be conclusive and final and binding between the parties.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. 24 ORANGES LAB LLP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah 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