Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 11A(1) proviso — Extended period of limitation — Invocation of extended period of limitation for recovery of excise duty on Naphtha — Requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty — Revenue failed to establish any deliberate act of suppression or evasion by the appellant, a public sector undertaking — Any duty evaded would be revenue neutral due to subsidy mechanism — Extended period of limitation held not applicable.
2026 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX (LTU) ( Before : Manoj Misra and…
Army Pension Regulations, 1961 — Condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for second pension for Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel — The Union of India’s contention that condonation for shortfall in qualifying service for a second pension is not applicable to DSC personnel is rejected— The court finds that the Pension Regulations for the Army, specifically Paragraphs 125 (1961) and 44 (2008), which allow for condonation of service deficiency, are applicable to DSC personnel by incorporation by reference, unless there is an explicit inconsistency with DSC-specific provisions— The court finds no such inconsistency— Letters issued by the Ministry of Defence attempting to exclude DSC personnel from this condonation are ineffective as they cannot override statutory regulations.
2026 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BALAKRISHNAN MULLIKOTE (EX HAV 256812 M) ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. )…
Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 2(a), Sections 30 & 33 — Arbitration agreement — Validity — Held, a clause in a contract that refers disputes to the Collector for a final decision and allows for appeals within the government hierarchy does not constitute an arbitration agreement — For a valid arbitration agreement, there must be mutual consent between parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.
2026 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BHARAT UDYOG LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S JAI HIND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.) Vs. AMBERNATH MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 — Offences Against Women — Sexual Assault — Trial Court convicted accused for sexual assault based on victim’s testimony corroborated by parents, medical witnesses, and others — High Court acquitted accused, citing improbabilities like distance traveled by victim and family animosity, and contradictions in witness testimonies — Supreme Court, while acknowledging the scope of interference in acquittals, analyzed the evidence — Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies should not lead to rejection of credible testimony and that medical evidence corroborated victim’s testimony — Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and upheld the conviction, stating the victim’s sole testimony was sufficient to establish the offense.
2026 INSC 290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HUKUM CHAND ALIAS MONU ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.
2026 INSC 274 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ABS MARINE SERVICES Vs. THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.
2026 INSC 275 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S.LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S.DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.
2026 INSC 276 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SANTHOSH KUMAR C ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
2026 INSC 277 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAYA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…
National Green Tribunal (NGT) — Adjudicatory Function — NGT cannot abdicate its powers and entrust its adjudicatory functions to a committee, even an expert committee — The role of such a committee is only to assist the NGT, not to decide the case.
2026 INSC 278 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs. DEEPAK SHARMA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 2(30), 173, 174 — Compensation — Liability for accident during requisition of vehicle — Bus owned by a school was requisitioned by the appellant (District Magistrate) for election purposes — Accident occurred while the bus was under the control of the appellant — Issue of shifting of liability from the insurance company to the requisitioning authority — Held, when a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle for public purposes, the nature of possession and control changes entirely, and the requisitioning authority assumes responsibility for consequences arising from such compelled use — The owner is divested of custody and decision-making power, and the vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for governmental functions — During this period, the owner neither directs its use nor derives any benefit from it — It only stands to reason that in such circumstances, if an untoward incident occurs, responsibility would properly to rest with the requisitioning authority and not with the insurer engaged by the owner for ordinary, private or commercial use — The requisitioning authority, by assuming control and deploying the vehicle for its own purposes, assumes with that control the corresponding responsibility — Appeal dismissed.
2026 INSC 279 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND COLLECTOR, GWALIOR, M.P. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay…