Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 21/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406 and 420 — Criminal breach of trust and cheating — For an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, a fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the time of making the promise or representation — Mere failure to keep a promise subsequently does not automatically prove dishonest intention from the beginning — Every breach of contract does not amount to cheating, unless there was deception at the inception.
Service

Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment
Service
Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.
Specific Performance

Clever ploys cannot always pay dividends. HELD a short-cut was found by the petitioner/plaintiff to retain the plaint as such, but to seek permission to pay deficit court fee, as though what was filed in the first instance was actually a suit for specific performance. Such a dubious approach should not be allowed .

Feb 10, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATMA RAM — Appellant Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special Leave Petition (C) No.27598…

Cr P C

Held, In view of the conclusive opinion of the appellate court that the agreement was not a forged document, the very substratum of the criminal complaint vanishes – In the circumstances to allow the appellants to be prosecuted will only be a complete abuse of the process of law – The proceedings are therefore quashed and the appeal is allowed.

Feb 10, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKUL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

You missed

Service

Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw