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)
Service Matters
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 142 and 226 – Service Law – Recruitment – BSSC is directed to evaluate and publish the results afresh, in the light of the recommendations and report of the experts (constituted by this court) subject to care being taken by the BSSC and the Govt. of Bihar, not to disturb appointments made previously pursuant to the directions of the single judge

May 8, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and S.…

Cr P C

Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC HELD The accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Chhagna Ram) is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction under Section 326/148, IPC recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State, assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court.

May 7, 2020 sclaw

Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 7 May 2020 11:09 AM…

C P C

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC HELD Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC HELD Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC put a specific bar that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. D/ MAY 06, 2020

May 6, 2020 sclaw

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 6 May 2020 5:54 PM The Supreme Court…

Contempt

Sentence Order :: “Three Contemnors have no iota of Remorse & want to virtually hold Judiciary to Ransom”: SC sentences 3 lawyers to 3 Months Simple Imprisonment. Held “Keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions we direct that this sentence shall come into force after 16 weeks from today when the contemnors should surrender before the Secretary General of this Court to undergo the imprisonment.Otherwise, warrants for their arrest shall be issued,”

May 6, 2020 sclaw

“Three Contemnors have no iota of Remorse & want to virtually hold Judiciary to Ransom”: SC sentences 3 lawyers to 3 Months Imprisonment The Court has sentenced Vijay Kurle, Rashid…

SARFAESI

Constitution Bench : SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC  HELD “The co­operative banks under the State legislation and multi­ State co­operative banks are ‘banks’ under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002”, 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 by which co­operative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, VALID. Decided/May 05, 2020

May 5, 2020 sclaw

SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC  LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 5 May 2020 3:58 PM The Supreme Court has held that the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 17 and 38A – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 25 – First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Chapters 57 and 87 – Tariff entry – Whether “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof” Held:- Subject-goods come under the chapter-heading 570390.90, There is no necessity to import the “common parlance” test or any other similar device of construction for identifying the position of these goods against the relevant tariff entries – Appeal dismissed

May 2, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III — Appellant Vs. M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Direct Taxation

Tax Authorities Can’t Give Their Own Interpretations To Legislative Provisions On Perception Of Trade Practices : SC HELD There is no concept of ‘constructive delivery’ of goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and inter-state movement of goods will terminate only when physical delivery is taken.

May 1, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER — Appellant Vs. M/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

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