Supreme Court of India Judgements

37270 Judgements hosted as on 24/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period. Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 140 — Compensation for death in motor vehicular accident — Negligence — Truck stationed on road at night without warning lights or indicators — Wagon-R car collided from behind — Held, truck driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures, which was the proximate cause of the accident. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Enhancement — High Court enhanced compensation, but calculation of future prospects and omission of certain awarded amounts were infirmities — Supreme Court addressed these infirmities. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 — Forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings — Appeal confined to quantum of sentence, conviction upheld — Occurrence of offence in 2014, appellant facing proceedings for over a decade, no prior or subsequent criminal antecedents, forged document detected at early stage, no irreversible consequences — These factors warrant reconsideration of substantive sentence on grounds of proportionality and mitigating circumstances.
State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period.

Jun 24, 2026 sclaw
Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later.

Jun 24, 2026 sclaw
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period.
State Laws
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later.
Specific Performance
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 140 — Compensation for death in motor vehicular accident — Negligence — Truck stationed on road at night without warning lights or indicators — Wagon-R car collided from behind — Held, truck driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 140 — Compensation for death in motor vehicular accident — Negligence — Truck stationed on road at night without warning lights or indicators — Wagon-R car collided from behind — Held, truck driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Enhancement — High Court enhanced compensation, but calculation of future prospects and omission of certain awarded amounts were infirmities — Supreme Court addressed these infirmities.
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Enhancement — High Court enhanced compensation, but calculation of future prospects and omission of certain awarded amounts were infirmities — Supreme Court addressed these infirmities.
Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148, 120-B, 302 read with Section 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439(2) – Murder – Tampering with evidence – Bail Cancelled – Appeal against -Order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the Appellant tampering with the evidence

Jan 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 39 – Temporary injunction – Jurisdiction – Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere – Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Punjab Civil Services Rules – Rules 4.22 and 4.23 – Grant of pension by adding interruption of service – It is clear that the case of the appellant was not covered by Rule 4.23 and further the request for granting relaxation by the Government from Rule 4.23 was not acceded to – When the State has refused to grant relaxation in the rule, the refusal by the respondent for adding the period of interruption for pensionary benefit cannot be faulted

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURINDER NATH KESAR — Appellant Vs. BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 18 and 50 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Possession of 1kg 750 grams of opium – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Merely because prosecution has not examined any independent witness, same would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the appellant has been falsely implicated.

Jan 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURINDER KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal…

Consumer

H E L D – The respondents had paid 85% of the agreed consideration, together with the agreement to sell, and even the balance at the time when the sale deed was executed on 11 February 2013. Having paid the consideration, it was evidently not in their interest to delay the receipt of possession. Though the sale deed records that possession was handed over, it is clear from the contemporaneous record that it was only on 28 August 2014 that all the sets of keys of the apartment were handed over to the respondents. Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay reasonable compensation to the respondents for the period between 9 February 2013 and 28 August 2014, in addition to the contractual payment due for the period between 8 August 2012 and 8 February 2013.

Dec 25, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANISHA BALKRISHNA KULKARNI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

C P C

INJUNCTION – The division bench held that there is no documentary evidence to prima facie show that the Appellant – Developer is in physical possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the issue whether the Appellant – Developer has paid part consideration for the entire suit property was required to be determined in the trial. The division bench took the view that the Appellant – Developer had not made out a prima facie case for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Respondents being the lawful owners of the suit property, granting such an injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them.

Dec 25, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAKETA VAKSANA LLP AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KAUKUTLA SARALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna…

You missed

State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period.

Jun 24, 2026 sclaw
Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later.

Jun 24, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 140 — Compensation for death in motor vehicular accident — Negligence — Truck stationed on road at night without warning lights or indicators — Wagon-R car collided from behind — Held, truck driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures, which was the proximate cause of the accident.

Jun 24, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Enhancement — High Court enhanced compensation, but calculation of future prospects and omission of certain awarded amounts were infirmities — Supreme Court addressed these infirmities.

Jun 24, 2026 sclaw