Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Top Tags

Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19) 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)
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
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
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)
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
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…

Service Matters
Service

Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976 – Rules 3(e), 3(g) and 3(h) – Punishment of dismissal – Corporation is aggrieved to the extent the impugned order sets aside the order of punishment on the ground that the chargesheet had not been issued by the disciplinary authority. The employee is aggrieved by the grant of liberty to the Corporation for issuance of fresh chargesheet, and denial of back wages while granting reinstatement. In the interregnum, the employee has attained the age of superannuation HELD The term Competent Authority will include a disciplinary authority so authorised in the manner prescribed in 3(h) under the delegation of authority manual. Appeal Allowed

Mar 18, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ANIL PADEGAONKAR — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ ) Civil…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(d) and 2(1)(d) – Registered workers – Beneficiaries of service – Whether a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a ‘consumer’ HELD YES a ‘consumer’ includes not only   a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service. The registered workers are clearly beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in a statutory capacity –

Mar 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND REGISTERING OFFICER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KESAR LAL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Property Matters

A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other. Possession is adverse in the sense that it is contrary to the acknowledged title in the other person against whom it is claimed. HELD To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse.

Mar 16, 2020 sclaw

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16321 OF 2011) SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
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