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. [
Corporate

IBC – – Held, Exclusion under the first proviso to Section 21(2) is related not to the debt itself but to the relationship existing between a related party financial creditor and the corporate debtor – As such, the financial creditor who in praesenti is not a related party, would not be debarred from being a member of the Committee of Creditors

Feb 14, 2021 sclaw

1/37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SPADE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu…

Will & Succession

Succession certificate – Transfer of proceedings – Parties shall produce the copy of the Settlement Agreement and the copy of this order before the Court where the proceedings are pending or before the Authorities who hold the properties of the deceased or the companies which owe money or in which shares are held by the deceased, so that they act accordingly to the satisfaction of both the parties

Feb 13, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH KRITI AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. VEENA RASTOGI — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 166 of 2019 Decided…

C P C

Suit for injunction – Trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction – – rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.

Feb 9, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A. SUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. R. PANNERSELVAM — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Arbitration

Arb and C Act, 1996 – Ss 11 & 11(6) – Appointment – if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the Arbitrator has been appointed and has entered reference, the contentions could be urged before the Arbitrator by way of objection or in such other proceedings – A petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of the Arbitrator in this situation, is not sustainable.

Feb 7, 2021 sclaw

1/3 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EUROBEARINGS INDIA PRIVATE. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EUROBEARINGS R.I. — Respondent ( Before : S.A Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

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