Supreme Court of India Judgements

47250 Judgements hosted as on 17/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.
State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.
State Laws
[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.
[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.
Constitution
[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [
Service Matters
Service

Held, Selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State, (2018) 17 SCC 398, State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation with the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEENA ANEJA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 2B – Companies Act, 2013 – Section 230 – Compromise or arrangement – A person who is not eligible under the IBC to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA — Appellant Vs. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…

Arbitration

A & C Act – Obviously, once time has started running, any final rejection by the Appellant by its letter dated 10.11.2010 would not give any fresh start to a limitation period which has already begun running, following the mandate of Section 9 of the Limitation Act – This being the case, the High Court was clearly in error in stating that since the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 06.11.2013, they were within the limitation period of three years starting from 10.11.2020.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND SONS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

Bail Declined

BAIL – Even otherwise in a case like this, where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant. accused to surrender forthwith as a consequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court, if not surrendered.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVEEN SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R.…

I P C

Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193 IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation – This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case under Section 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial court

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMA RAZU PRASAD — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet…

Arbitration

A & C Act, 1996 – S 11 – Period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Period of limitation will begin to run from the date when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator.

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay…

I P C

Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI SARAF AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi,…

You missed

State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw