Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 30/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25) Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30) Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)
Constitution

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)

Dec 30, 2025 sclaw
Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)
Constitution
Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)
Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2
Service
Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)
Acquittal I P C
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)
Constitution
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)
Will & Succession

Will–Will is required to be attested and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one of attesting witness is called for the purpose of providing its executions provided such attesting witness is alive and subject to the process of Court and capable of giving evidence. Pleading–Non filing of Replication–Mere non filing of a replication does not and could not mean that there has been admission of facts pleaded in written statement.

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 434 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 7082 of…

Evidence Act

Evidence Law–May presume and shall presume–Difference between–In the former case the Court has an option to raise the presumption or not, but in the latter case, the Court must necessarily raise the presumption–If in a case the Court has an option to raise the presumption and raises the presumption, the distinction between the two categories of presumptions ceases and the fact is presumed, unless and until it is disproved–Evidence Act, 1872, Section 4.     

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 428 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Criminal Appeal No. 2045 of 2008…

Corporate

Infringement of Trademark-Passing of-Division Bench of High Court held that substitution of letter ‘T’ for letter ‘O’ would create confusion on the ground of deceptive similarity—Reputation of plaintiffs Trademark has been established and there is likelihood of its damage—Findings of Division bench upheld

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3198 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1929 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No. 9844…

C P C

Remand of Case—After allowing the application for additional evidence in appeal High Court not justified in remanding the case to trial court for recording of the evidence—It can be done by competently by first Appellate Court Additional evidence of appellate stage—Allowing of application does not mean that document are to be directly exhibited as record on file—Such documents are required to be proved as per law before being considered

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3186 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1927 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.…

Rent

High Court gave finding that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant’s (landlady’s) appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need—However, High Court neither remanded the case nor decided the appeal on merits—This approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant (landlady) because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide need—Matter remanded back to Rent Appellate Tribunal

Feb 16, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3230 : 2018 LawHerald.org 1797 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

Cr P C

Quashing—Remand of Case—High Court dismissed the petition for quashing without referring to facts of the case with a view to appreciate factual controversy and to appreciates why such grounds are not made out under S.482 Cr.P.C-Matter remanded hack to High Court to be decided afresh—Impugned order set aside

Feb 16, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3228 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1934 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Indu Malhotra Criminal Appeal No.…

C P C

Execution of decree—Objections—Revisionary Court is under legal obligation to decide the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the executing court on its merits rather than remanding it to executing court Execution of Decree—Objections—Revision—Additional evidence by way of documents not to be placed in revision against dismissal of objections by executing court

Feb 16, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3205 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1930 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal…

You missed

Constitution

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)

Dec 30, 2025 sclaw
Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw