Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 28/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.
Direct Taxation Income Tax

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court.

May 28, 2026 sclaw
the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I
Direct Taxation Income Tax
the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court.
Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed.
Cheque Dishonour
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34.
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34.
Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 326 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 301, 301(2), 225 and 24(8) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 165 – Murder – Cross­examination of witnesses -‘Victim’s counsel has a limited right of assisting the prosecution, which may extend to suggesting questions to the Court or the prosecution, but not putting them by himself.’

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

Private Counsel Engaged By Victim To Assist Public Prosecutor Cannot Make Oral Argument/Cross Examine Witnesses: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI20 Nov 2019 5:59 PM ‘Victim’s counsel has a limited…

Service Matters
Service

Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court could at the most have issued a direction to the State Screening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevant documents………….. it was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening Committee. Appeal Allowed

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAIDYANATH YADAV — Appellant Vs. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil…

Corruption

Having regard to the material on record and since large amounts of money belonging to innocent investors have been siphoned off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have released the Respondent on bail………the impugned order granting interim bail to the Respondent stands set aside.

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

C P C

Section 100 CPC – The order of the High Court interfering with concurrent findings of facts by two courts is, therefore, held to be unsustainable in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order of the High Court is consequently set aside. The orders dated 06.03.1998 and 13.06.2002 of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are restored. The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. The present appeal is allowed.

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Consumer

There was no reason for the National Commission to hold that there was any violation of the requisite conditions on part of the appellant and there was no justification to reduce the claim to the extent of 60% of the IDV of the vehicle. The conclusions drawn and the directions issued by the State Commission, in our view, were quite correct and did not call for any interference.

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLESH — Appellant Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 – Rules 28, 28(i) and Rule 28(iii) – Seniority – Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service – In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits

Nov 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S.Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 250, 263, 268, 276, 278, 283, 283(1)C and 283(1) – Probate of Will – Revocation of – If it is accepted that in probate proceedings persons who have been dis-inherited in the Will on mere no objection certificates by them without either being called by probate court to appear and certify their no objections or to file any pleading will lead to unsatisfactory result and may cause prejudice to persons who were not aware of the proceedings and are yet claimed to have submitted no objections

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJU PURI — Appellant Vs. RAJIV SINGH HANSPAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8455…

You missed

Direct Taxation Income Tax

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court.

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed.

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34.

May 28, 2026 sclaw