Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16. Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306 and 309 — Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide — Suicide pact — Mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together — Survivor’s participation acts as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s actions — Psychological assurance or instigation, if intentional and directly related to the commission of offence, constitutes abetment — Each participant’s resolve to commit suicide is reinforced and strengthened due to the other’s participation — Suicide in a pact is conditional upon mutual participation — Assisting in ending life is a crime against the state.

2026 INSC 160 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUDIPALLI SIDDHARTHA REDDY Vs. STATE C.B.I. ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 8 — Conduct of accused leading to discovery of facts — Even if statements leading to discovery are not admissible under Section 27 due to lack of custody, they can be admitted under Section 8 as conduct, serving as a link in the chain of evidence, but cannot alone result in conviction.

2026 INSC 162 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROHIT JANGDE Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.689…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 — Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery — Bail — High Court order granting bail to accused set aside — Accused is a habitual offender with multiple aliases, fake IDs, and a history of absconding and non-cooperation with trial — Bail was granted on parity with co-accused, but this principle was misapplied without considering the accused’s individual conduct and criminal antecedents — Grant of bail poses a risk to society — Trial to be expedited.

2026 INSC 161 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAKESH MITTAL Vs. AJAY PAL GUPTA @ SONU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…

Societies Registration Act, 1860 — Societies formed for charitable purposes — Members of government service entitled to housing facilities through transparent allotment — The society, HEWO, formed for welfare of HUDA employees, not subject to Article 12 of the Constitution, but must adhere to principles of fairness and transparency in allotments as it enjoys privilege of land allotted by government.

2026 INSC 163 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 307, 326, 324 — Conviction for causing life-threatening injuries — High Court reducing sentence to period already undergone and enhancing fine — Supreme Court held High Court acted in defiance of law and created a travesty of established criminal jurisprudence by relying on irrelevant factors like time elapsed and death of victim by other persons, without proper reasoning — Such reduction undermines the deterrent effect of punishment and erodes public confidence in the justice system.

2026 INSC 164 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARAMESHWARI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Admission of application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Rejection of settlement proposal — Court must ascertain existence of default in financial debt when a financial creditor triggers insolvency under Section 7 — No scope for inquiry into disputes regarding existence of debt or inability to pay at admission stage — Rejects arguments based on financial viability and settlement proposals.

2026 INSC 166 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POWER TRUST (PROMOTER OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LTD.) Vs. BHUVAN MADAN (INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LTD.) AND OTHERS ( Before…

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 32(2) and 36-A — Trial of offences — Section 32(2) mandates that no court inferior to the Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV — Section 36-A provides for summary trial by Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences not exceeding three years, but specifically excludes offences triable by Special Court or Court of Sessions — Therefore, Section 36-A is not applicable to offences triable by Court of Session, and commitment of case to Sessions Court by JMFC is not illegal.

2026 INSC 171 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SBS BIOTECH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Contract Law — Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Interpretation — The JDA and GPA clearly indicate that the developer is authorized to enter sale agreements, construct, receive consideration, and transfer possession and title for flats within the developer’s share — The JDA also contains indemnity clauses where the developer indemnifies the landowners against any liabilities arising from construction and sale agreements, and landowners indemnify the developer against title defects or delays caused by landowners — The court interpreted these clauses to mean that while landowners are responsible for ensuring title transfer, the actual construction and timely delivery of flats within the developer’s share is the developer’s sole responsibility

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed