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
Direct Taxation

The subject-matter of the aforementioned Appeals is the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 07.11.2013 as well as a subsequent decision of the Delhi High Court dated 08.09.2014, which ruled on the issue of interest under Section 234B in favour of the Revenue, relying on the Division Bench judgement dated 07.11.2013. The point that arises for consideration in these Appeals is covered by our judgement in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 2016.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANIL KANWARIYA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Acquittal

(IPC) – Sections 107 and 306 – ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  KANCHAN SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

I P C

(IPC) – Sections 299, 302 and 304 – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence -it is held that the accused conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate – Section 304 IPC  Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section 299 IPC). In the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC, as he had the intention of causing such bodily harm, to the deceased, as was likely to result in his death, as it did.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

C P C

C P C – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN — Appellant Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Environment

N G T – It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares – Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained – Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHRUVA ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12A – Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10 – Adjudicating Authority is entitled to withdraw the application admitted under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of 90% voting share of the CoC.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.N. RAJAKUMAR — Appellant Vs. V. NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – HELD if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGENDRA SAH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal

Abetment of Suicide – Harassment -Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC – High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VELLADURAI — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Municipal Laws

Demolition of building – Damages – Finding of the High Court that the building was demolished without giving clear three days’ notice is partly correct – Once the order was passed by the Corporation on 5.1.1995 and was put on the means of communication, the date of actual receipt of notice is insignificant as the receipt could be delayed by the recipient, though there is no such attempt or finding. Rupees 5 Lakhs as compensation granted.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL KHUDDUS — Appellant Vs. H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

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