Supreme Court of India Judgements

47090 Judgements hosted as on 17/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — The Supreme Court has approved and directed implementation of an SOP to streamline the process of translation, digitization, and filing of records in legal aid cases, with specific timelines and responsibilities for various stakeholders to ensure timely access to justice. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(3)(b) — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3(1), 8(c), 8(e) — Right to legal representation before Advisory Board — A detenu does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board — This right only arises if the detaining authority or government uses a legal practitioner, in which case the detenu must also be allowed legal representation — Mere assistance by officials in producing records does not grant this right Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — For a charge under Section 306, the prosecution must prove that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement — This act must reveal a clear intention (mens rea) to abet suicide and leave the victim with no other option — The act of instigation must be in close proximity to the suicide and form a direct nexus, indicating the suicide was a direct result of the instigation. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3 and Section 7(3) — Prosecution for ‘giving’ dowry — Protection to ‘person aggrieved’ — Wife and her family members made statements alleging ‘giving’ of dowry in a dowry harassment case against husband — Held, these statements, being made by ‘persons aggrieved’, cannot be the sole basis for prosecuting them for the offence of ‘giving’ dowry under Section 3 of the Act, due to the protection under Section 7(3) which states that their statements shall not subject them to prosecution.
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — The Supreme Court has approved and directed implementation of an SOP to streamline the process of translation, digitization, and filing of records in legal aid cases, with specific timelines and responsibilities for various stakeholders to ensure timely access to justice.
Constitution
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — The Supreme Court has approved and directed implementation of an SOP to streamline the process of translation, digitization, and filing of records in legal aid cases, with specific timelines and responsibilities for various stakeholders to ensure timely access to justice.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(3)(b) — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3(1), 8(c), 8(e) — Right to legal representation before Advisory Board — A detenu does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board — This right only arises if the detaining authority or government uses a legal practitioner, in which case the detenu must also be allowed legal representation — Mere assistance by officials in producing records does not grant this right
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(3)(b) — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3(1), 8(c), 8(e) — Right to legal representation before Advisory Board — A detenu does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board — This right only arises if the detaining authority or government uses a legal practitioner, in which case the detenu must also be allowed legal representation — Mere assistance by officials in producing records does not grant this right
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — For a charge under Section 306, the prosecution must prove that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement — This act must reveal a clear intention (mens rea) to abet suicide and leave the victim with no other option — The act of instigation must be in close proximity to the suicide and form a direct nexus, indicating the suicide was a direct result of the instigation.
Cr P C
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — For a charge under Section 306, the prosecution must prove that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement — This act must reveal a clear intention (mens rea) to abet suicide and leave the victim with no other option — The act of instigation must be in close proximity to the suicide and form a direct nexus, indicating the suicide was a direct result of the instigation.
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 47 – Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 42(c) – Respondents were not parties to the partnership deed and that the partnership stands dissolved, in view of death of one of the partners, the respondents have not derived the benefit of assets of the partnership firm, the decree obtained by the predecessor of the appellants, is not executable against the respondents

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.P. MISRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MOHD. LAIQUDDIN KHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

….it is observed that while deciding the appeals, this Court has made no observations with respect to the right of the IPS Officers for deputation, in terms of the recruitment rules, if any, as the same was not the controversy and/or issue before this Court and the decision of this Court shall be construed with respect to grant of Organised Group ‘A’ Central Services only.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SRI HARANANDA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

State Laws

It is clear that even encumbered area shall be declared as a rehabilitation area provided the Slum Rehabilitation Authority requires the said area for implementation of the Scheme. Admittedly, the disputed area of 1045.50 sq. mts. implementation of the Scheme. The contention of the Appellant that the declaration of 1045.50 sq. mts. under Section 3C of the Act is in colourable exercise of power is not acceptable. – Appeal dismissed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH   KANTABAI VASANT AHIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…

State Laws

The High Court failed to notice that there is no prior adjudication in favour of the Respondent and the Respondent was given an opportunity to show cause as to why the premises should not be sealed. After considering the explanation submitted by the Respondent, the penalty was imposed on the Respondent and due to the failure of the payment of the amount of penalty, the premises were sealed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S RIGA SUGAR CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…

Property Matters

Revenue records – Title – name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property – since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value.

Oct 18, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAHLAD PRADHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SONU KUMHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 2 Rule 2 — Rejection of Plaint — Bar by Law — Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is based on the suit being barred by law, where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself — A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 requires evidence to establish the bar, and therefore cannot typically be a basis for rejecting a plaint at the initial stage.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) — The Supreme Court has approved and directed implementation of an SOP to streamline the process of translation, digitization, and filing of records in legal aid cases, with specific timelines and responsibilities for various stakeholders to ensure timely access to justice.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 22(3)(b) — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3(1), 8(c), 8(e) — Right to legal representation before Advisory Board — A detenu does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board — This right only arises if the detaining authority or government uses a legal practitioner, in which case the detenu must also be allowed legal representation — Mere assistance by officials in producing records does not grant this right

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients — For a charge under Section 306, the prosecution must prove that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement — This act must reveal a clear intention (mens rea) to abet suicide and leave the victim with no other option — The act of instigation must be in close proximity to the suicide and form a direct nexus, indicating the suicide was a direct result of the instigation.

Apr 17, 2026 sclaw