Recruitment Rules and Advertisement — Essential Qualifications — Work Experience — In absence of a specific rule or advertisement provision, a recruiting agency cannot relax essential eligibility criteria by treating a higher qualification as a replacement for a mandatory essential qualification — A preference for a higher qualification operates only for eligible and meritorious candidates and does not override or supplant the primary requirement of essential eligibility.
2026 INSC 391 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIMAKSHI Vs. RAHUL VERMA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5942…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Relief of back wages and regularisation — Employee illegally terminated, ordered reinstatement with back wages by Labour Commissioner and Industrial Court — Employer challenged, but interim order for back wages deposit was made and employee reinstated as daily wager — Employee sought regularisation after completing 180 days of service, granted by Industrial Court from the date of 180 days completion as per settlement clause — Employer failed to comply timely, only regularising employee on a sanctioned post after many years, imposing new conditions contrary to prior orders — Supreme Court held that employer cannot impose new conditions limiting regularisation contrary to earlier unchallenged orders and settlement terms, and reversed High Court’s decision setting aside back wages order.
2026 INSC 392 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI MADHUKAR KONKANWAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATTION ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Challenge to Arbitral Award — Legal Representatives — The Arbitration Act is a complete code for dispute resolution — Legal representatives of a deceased party are entitled to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, as the Act envisions continuity of proceedings after a party’s death and makes awards enforceable by or against legal representatives — Denying this right would render legal representatives remediless while making them liable to fulfill the award, contradicting the Act’s purpose.
2026 INSC 393 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.K. JOHN Vs. S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUF (DIED) REPRESENTED BY LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul…
Public Employment — Recruitment — Medical Unfitness — Suppression of Material Facts — A candidate found medically unfit for a post, specifically for knock knees, cannot retain an appointment if this vital fact was suppressed, especially when the initial appointment and subsequent reinstatement were based on either flawed processes or non-disclosure of disqualifying conditions — The principle of “fraud unravels everything” applies, and an appointment vitiated by the suppression of a disqualifying medical condition cannot be sustained.
2026 INSC 394 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. AJAY KUMAR MALIK ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N. V. Anjaria, JJ. )…
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 132 — Prohibition of Bhumidhari rights — Land originally recorded as Category-6 (barren/non-agricultural) that was later purportedly re-categorised to Category-5 (cultivable) on the basis of an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer, was found to be public utility land (khalihan and pasture) falling under Section 132, meaning no Bhumidhari rights could be conferred and any patta (lease) granted would be void ab initio.
2026 INSC 395 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABU SINGH Vs. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 112 — Presumption of legitimacy — Birth during marriage being conclusive proof of legitimacy — While Section 112 raises a conclusive presumption, it is rebuttable — Modern scientific advancements like DNA testing, where conclusive and undisputed, can override this presumption, especially when the child’s legitimacy is not the sole issue and the test is conducted with consent.
2026 INSC 399 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIKHAT PARVEEN @ KHUSBOO KHATOON Vs. RAFIQUE@SHILLU ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Prisoners with Disabilities — This case concerns the rights and conditions of prisoners with disabilities, focusing on the effective implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination within prison systems.
2026 INSC 397 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATHYAN NARAVOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil)…
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 263 — Revocation of probate — Just cause — Fraudulent grant by concealing material facts or false suggestions — Failure to cite necessary parties — Grant of probate is a judgment in rem and binds the world — Persons with even a slight interest, including subsequent transferees from heirs, are entitled to citation before probate is granted — Failure to implead appellants and legal heirs of deceased sons, and to issue citations, constitutes just cause for revocation.
2026 INSC 400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. LEOREX SEBASTIAN AND ANOTHER Vs. SAROJINI AND OTHERS ( Before : Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 13 — Conclusiveness of foreign judgment — Enforceability in India — Summary judgment granted by foreign court without full trial despite existence of triable issues and crucial documentary evidence like Balance Sheets and Board Minutes, particularly when the respondent was denied leave to defend — Such procedure prevents a fair adjudication and is not rendered “on the merits” as required by Section 13(b) — Foreign judgment is therefore not enforceable in India.
2026 INSC 401 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH) Vs. GOYAL MG GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Valuation and Court Fees — The Supreme Court reiterated that Order 7 Rule 11 allows rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action, is undervalued, insufficiently stamped, or barred by law — It clarified that a plaint should not be rejected at the threshold if it contains averments that, taken at face value, set out a dispute requiring adjudication — The Court emphasized that assessing the sufficiency of evidence or the probability of success is impermissible at this stage and constitutes a premature mini-trial.
2026 INSC 402 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. MARG LIMITED Vs. SUSHIL LALWANI AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…