Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 18/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14) Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16) Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Nature of right — Appointment on compassionate bases is a concession, not a matter of right, and serves as an exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — Core objective is to enable the dependent family to tide over sudden financial crisis following the death of the employee, providing relief against destitution — It is not intended to provide a post much less a post held by the deceased or a higher post based on educational qualification. (Paras 3, 7, 7.1, 7.3, 11)
Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)
Evidence Act I P C
Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29
Will & Succession
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16)
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16)
C P C

The instant suit by the legal heirs of “G” was filed more than 30 years later on 11.11.1987 after his death – Plaintiffs failed to established or lead any evidence with regard to availability of funds with “G” so as to make an endeavour to purchase his own property in the auction sale through Govindan. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 66(1) – Auction sale

Mar 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALANIAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMALAKANNAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C

Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 14 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale – Setting aside of – Extension of time – Section 5 of the Act which deals with extension of time or condonation of delay is not applicable to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC

Mar 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 433-A – Army Act, 1950 – Section 69 – Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 302 – Civil offence of murder – Benefit of remission – Section 433­A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would also be applicable to a case tried for offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 and a person who has been imposed with a life sentence cannot be released unless he has actually served 14 years’ of imprisonment, without taking into consideration the remissions earned by him in jail

Mar 20, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EX-GUNNER VIRENDER PRASAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Culpable homicide – Appellant aimed the gun towards the roof and then fired. It was an unfortunate case of mis­firing. HELD The appellant is, thus, guilty of an act, the likely consequences of which including causing fatal injuries to the persons being in a close circuit, are attributable to him. The offence committed by the appellant, thus, would amount to ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299,

Mar 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHAGWAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant., JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 311 – Misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial functions were received during the probation period. HELD If the genesis of the order of termination of service lies in a specific act of misconduct, regardless of over all satisfactory performance of duties during the probation period, the Court will be well within its reach to unmask the hidden cause and hold that the simplicitor order of termination

Mar 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT — Appellant Vs. VED PRIYA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.,…

Bail Granted

High Court ought to have kept in view that ‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’ – There is no gain saying that bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns the liberty of a person . Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200, 120­B, 498­A, 323 and 506 – Bail application

Mar 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JEETENDRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1984 – Sections 4, 6 and 11 – Deduction – Since the land was acquired for the construction of Hiwra Dam project, much of the development like in the case of a layout for housing colony is not required – 40% deduction made by the High Court appears to be on the higher side

Mar 18, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Constitution

Public Interest Also Shall Be Demonstrated Before Writ Remedy Is Sought In Tender Matters: SC HELD “In addition to arbitrariness, illegality or discrimination under Article 14 or encroachment of freedom under Article 19(1)(g), public interest too is demonstrated before remedy is sought.”

Mar 18, 2020 sclaw

Public Interest Also Shall Be Demonstrated Before Writ Remedy Is Sought In Tender Matters: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 18 March 2020 5:38 PM “In addition to arbitrariness, illegality…

You missed

Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw