Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Bail Granted
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Cr P C

Decided on : 05-12-2019 – [Section 197 CrPC] No Protection Of Sanction Where The Acts Are Performed Using The Public Office As A Mere Cloak For Unlawful Gains HELD “The High Court was also not justified in observing ‘that the protection available to a public servant while in service, should also be available after his retirement’.”

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

[Section 197 CrPC] No Protection Of Sanction Where The Acts Are Performed Using The Public Office As A Mere Cloak For Unlawful Gains [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI8 Dec 2019…

Murder

Decided on : 05-12-2019 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 302, 201, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 223, 227, 228 and 391 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 10 – After the commission of the crime, accused absconded and did not join the investigation – Prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case and the materials on record are sufficient to frame charges against accused.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy,…

Bail Declined

Decided on : 05-12-2019 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 161 and 439 – Penal Code, 1908 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 397 – Murder – Common intention – Bail granted by High Court – Appeal against – Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHIPAL — Appellant Vs. RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Decided on : 05-12-2019 – Denial of voluntary retirement does not mitigate the legal consequences that flow from resignation – Denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked before this Court to claim pensionary benefits when the first respondent has admittedly resigned. Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.— Appellant Vs. SH. GHANSHYAM CHAND SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Service Matters
Service

Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978 – Regulations 16(2), 17, 18, 20 and 23 – Appointment – Determination of Seniority – Method of giving appointment to the senior most person of each category is only a fortuitus circumstance as such appointments were made dehors the merit.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Service law – Dismissal – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification -It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’ – Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHULPARI KUMARI — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

Decided on : 06-12-2019 After having accepted the appointment in FCI as per the Office Order dated 18.09.1973, it is not open to the Appellant-Union to take up the cause of the work charge employees and claim on their behalf benefits similar to those granted to the regular employees. – Appeals dismissed.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANDLA PORT WORKERS UNION @APPELANT Vs. FCI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – There is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Appellants cannot, as a matter of right, claim appointment on the basis of two ineligible persons being given the benefit and no direction can be given to the Respondents to perpetuate illegality

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAV (OFC) RWMWI BORGOYARY AND OTHER ETC. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process.

Feb 10, 2026 sclaw
Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw