Supreme Court of India Judgements

47250 Judgements hosted as on 17/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.
State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.
State Laws
[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.
[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.
Constitution
[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [
Matrimonial

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 9 – Guardianship and custody – Jurisdiction – Court where the child ‘ordinarily resides’ would have jurisdiction to decide the issues of guardianship and custody.As a consequence, the courts in Delhi would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition u/S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Dec 12, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JASMEET KAUR — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B – Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules – Rule 56(C) – Compulsory retirement-A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions – Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter – Standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. HELD But a conduct which creates a perception beyond the ordinary cannot be countenanced

Dec 11, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM MURTI YADAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. )…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 323 – Murder – Acquittal – It appears from the records that the respondent as under trial had undergone 2 years 8 months 11 days of custody and after his conviction on 24.01.1995 by the Sessions Judge he remained in custody till 18.11.2006 completing 11 years 9 months 26 days. Thus, he has undergone total custody of 14 years 6 months 7 days – Not consider the present a fit case to interfere – Appeal dismissed.

Dec 11, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. AMARLAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 251…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 173, 319, 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 103 and 114 – Abetment of suicide – Summoning Order – Section 319 empowers the court to proceed against a person appearing to be guilty of an offence where, in the course of any enquiry into or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person, not being the accused, has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused

Dec 11, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 452 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 157 and 173(2) – Murder – Appeal against conviction and Sentence – Medical evidence fully supports the ocular evidence and there is virtually no contradiction – Version of the two eye witnesses with regard to the injuries caused by the fire arms and sharp edged weapons, find corroboration from the medical report- Appeal dismissed Dt 11.12.2019

Dec 11, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMJI SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Deepak Gupta, JJ.…

Housing

Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026 – Regulation 36 – Premium FSI Charges – Division Bench did not keep in view the well settled principle that no right accrued to the applicant-builder by mere filing of application for approval and the right accrues only after approval is granted by the Government/concerned authorities

Dec 11, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THREE JUDGES BENCH CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.…

Constitution

State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court: SC Constitution Bench HELD “Presidential assent cannot and does not validate an enactment in excess of the legislative powers of the State Legislature, nor validate a statutory provision, which would render express provisions of the Constitution otiose.”

Dec 10, 2019 sclaw

State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court: SC Constitution Bench [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI10 Dec 2019 6:21 PM “Presidential assent cannot and does not validate…

You missed

State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

[Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales.

May 17, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [

May 17, 2026 sclaw