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
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 22 – Mutawalliship – The word “putro” means son and grandson. In reading and interpreting the term “putro poutradi krome”, the meaning of the individual words must also be considered and accounted for. A combined reading of these terms lends support to the view that “putro poutradi krome” means son and grandson, generation after generation, and therefore does not include any female descendants

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  SYEDA NAZIRA KHATOON (D) BY LR. — Appellant Vs. SYED ZAHIRUDDIN AHMED BAGHDADI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M.…

Property Matters

Thus, there can be no manner of dispute that a plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession – Plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offence and as a defence i.e. both as sword and as a shield. Appeal allowed.Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. Followed

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. O. V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20(2)(c) – Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – To take benefit of clause (c) of sub­section (2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the defendant in a suit for specific performance must show that he entered into the contract under the circumstances which though rendering the contract voidable, make it inequitable

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEELADHAR (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

State Laws

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 27(1) – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Sections 21 and 48-A – Grant of occupancy rights – Cultivatory possession – Will is not hit by the embargo, whether that contained in Section 27(1) of the Act of 1948 or in Section 21 of the Act of 1961.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAYA HEGDE (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…

Property Matters

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 22, 91 and 97 – Allotment of plot -Allotment of Plot No.2 in favour of the Appellant was illegal and that the Resolution passed by the Society in its meeting dated 25.03.1990 and the sale deed executed by the Society on 25.04.1989 were required to be quashed, are absolutely correct and fully justified – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  SHIVKISHAN — Appellant Vs. SUJATA TARACHAND MAKHIJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) – Sections 8, 15, 42 and 52 – Non-production of contraband – Appeal against acquittal – If the seizure of the material is proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed the entire contraband material need not be placed before this Court.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. SAHI RAM — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 18 and 130E – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Section 16 – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rule, 1988 – Rules 9 and 9(1)(b) – Import activity – The value of the software and the concerned services were therefore rightly included and taken as part of the importation. Appeal dismissed.

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…

Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 323 and 324 – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – accused should have known that hitting the deceased on the head with a sickle with great force causing fracture of the skull, is dangerous & would have imminently caused death. Appeal dismissed

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  GURU @ GURUBARAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

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