Supreme Court of India Judgements

47020 Judgements hosted as on 04/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias. The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2) Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)
Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.
Education
Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.
The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.
State Laws
The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)
Evidence Act
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)
State Laws

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 28(4) – Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Sections 4A(1), 15, 15(2) and 15(4) – Permission for development of building or land – Appellants had permitted the Project Proponents to construct housing complex at a location outside the demarcated area for five Townships HELD Project Proponents are also obliged to ensure compliance of ODP/Master Plan and if so complied, the Planning Authority cannot create any impediment – If the State accords approval to the deviation in terms of the FWA itself, the Project Proponents may be competent to carry on such a work – To put it differently, prior approval of the State for deviation from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA is the quintessence. Appeal allowed. d/19.05.2020

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Contempt

HELD “Suffice it to observe that to constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom” – It is well­-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable”.

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION — Appellant Vs. RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 63, 81,89, 268 and 276 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Grant of probate of Will – Prayer of the appellant for grant of probate in relation to the Will in question has been declined concurrently by the Trial Court and by the High Court essentially after finding several unexplained suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in question. HELD mere proof of signatures are not sufficient to prove will. Will in question is required to be considered void as per Section 89 of the Succession Act, when the principal bequeathing stipulation in the Will suffers from uncertainty to the hilt.

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAVITA KANWAR — Appellant Vs. MRS. PAMELA MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Constitution

 ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI CASE :: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Quashing of FIR – There can be no quashing of FIR under Article 32 – Transfer of Investigation to CBI – Accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for court-monitored investigation. HELD accused “does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency” Investigating agency is entitled to decide “the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions” during the course of the investigation.

May 19, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R…

Will & Succession

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 and 66 – Secondary evidence – Will – Prove of – It is a settled position of law that for secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be given being the reasons as to why the original Evidence has not been furnished. HELD Needless to observe that merely the admission in evidence and making exhibit of a document does not prove it automatically unless the same has been proved in accordance with the law – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KARAMJIT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Constitution

Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 – Rule 2(2) – Restoration of 4G speed internet services in Jammu and Kashmir – Rejection of – Committee comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State, level formed to decide the contentions of parties.

May 12, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 27, 34 and 37 – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 56 and 65 – Arbitral award – Interpretation of contract – High Court held that the interpretation of the terms of the contract by the Arbitral Tribunal is erroneous and is against the public policy of India HELD The interpretation of the Arbitral Tribunal to expand the meaning of Clause 23 to include change in rate of HSD is not a possible interpretation of this contract, as the appellant did not introduce any evidence which proves the same.

May 12, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SOUTH EAST ASIA MARINE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. (SEAMEC LTD.) — Appellant Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…

Environment

Environment Law – Sisodia Rani ka Bagh (Monument) – Monument may be used for appropriate multi-purpose activities between 8.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. only – No activity to be permitted after 8.00 P.M. – Use of laser lights, loud music, and fireworks is ordered to be completely restrained – Musical and other fountains to be maintained and to be kept in working order. Environment Law – Sisodia Rani ka Bagh (Monument) – Monument may be used for appropriate multi-purpose activities between 8.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. only – No activity to be permitted after 8.00 P.M. – Use of laser lights, loud music, and fireworks is ordered to be completely restrained – Musical and other fountains to be maintained and to be kept in working order. SC To Monitor Beautification Of 18th Century Garden. n

May 12, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS, JAIPUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ASHISH GAUTAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun…

Constitution

Sabarimala Reference: SC Gives Reasons For Holding That Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In Review HELD(REASONS) Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India do not fall within the purview of civil and criminal proceedings. Therefore, the limitations in Order XLVII, Rule 1 do not apply to review petitions filed against judgments or orders passed in Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Court noted that the Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament or any rules made under Article 145

May 12, 2020 sclaw

Sabarimala Reference: SC Gives Reasons For Holding That Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In Review [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 11 May 2020 4:38 PM The…

You missed

Education

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw