Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 12/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 64(d) — Investment of funds by Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) — Permitted investments are in subsidiary institutions or institutions in the same line of business — Amendment aimed at preventing misuse of funds and ensuring financial discipline — “Same line of business” requires substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, determined by MSCS’s bye-laws — Not to be construed expansively. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47 — Execution of Decree — Executing Court’s Jurisdiction — An executing court must strictly adhere to the terms of the decree and cannot modify or alter it. Its role is limited to giving effect to the decree as it stands, unless the decree is a nullity. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 468, 469, 470, 472, 473 and 341 — Limitation for taking cognizance of offence — Relevant date for computation of period of limitation is date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of criminal proceedings, not date on which Magistrate takes cognizance — Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases [(2014) 2 SCC 62] holds good law.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.
Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 64(d) — Investment of funds by Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) — Permitted investments are in subsidiary institutions or institutions in the same line of business — Amendment aimed at preventing misuse of funds and ensuring financial discipline — “Same line of business” requires substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, determined by MSCS’s bye-laws — Not to be construed expansively.
Constitution Cooperative Societies
Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 64(d) — Investment of funds by Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) — Permitted investments are in subsidiary institutions or institutions in the same line of business — Amendment aimed at preventing misuse of funds and ensuring financial discipline — “Same line of business” requires substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, determined by MSCS’s bye-laws — Not to be construed expansively.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47 — Execution of Decree — Executing Court’s Jurisdiction — An executing court must strictly adhere to the terms of the decree and cannot modify or alter it. Its role is limited to giving effect to the decree as it stands, unless the decree is a nullity.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47 — Execution of Decree — Executing Court’s Jurisdiction — An executing court must strictly adhere to the terms of the decree and cannot modify or alter it. Its role is limited to giving effect to the decree as it stands, unless the decree is a nullity.
Acquittal

Common intention–Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any overt act to the appellant–The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC–Appellant cannot be held guilty by application of Section 34 IPC–His conviction is accordingly set aside. Common intention–Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself–For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 606 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. of…

Murder

Murder–Appeal against acquittal–Evidence clearly established that the accused caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased–PWs. 3 & 16 corroborated the prosecution version–High Court erroneously observed that there was no injury–Farsa injury caused on the head has not been noticed–Matter remitted to the High Court for detailed analysis.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

  2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 600   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 661…

Consumer

Malaria is most commonly transmitted to humans through malaria virus infested mosquito bites, and when a virus is contracted through normal means brought about by everyday life it cannot be deemed to be an unexpected or unforeseen accident — HELD the illness of encephalitis malaria through a mosquito bite cannot be considered as an accident. It was neither unexpected nor unforeseen. It was not a peril insured against in the policy of accident insurance

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SMT. MOUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

Labour Cases

Since we have formed an opinion to dispose of this appeal by awarding to the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. one Lakh in lieu of his all claims arising out of this case, we do not consider it necessary to examine any legal issue arising in the case though argued by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE REGIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Arbitration

High Court has committed a manifest error in passing the impugned order and adopting a mechanical process in appointing the Arbitrator without any supportive evidence on record to prima facie substantiate that an arbitral dispute subsisted under the agreement which needed to be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication – Appeals allowed

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. ANTIQUE ART EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi,…

C P C

Civil Suit – Decree for permanent injunction – Application for re­-hearing of the second appeal –It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose favour the decision in the trial may go – Appeal allowed.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER TIWARI — Appellant Vs. KEDAR NATH(DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Cooperative Societies

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 64(d) — Investment of funds by Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) — Permitted investments are in subsidiary institutions or institutions in the same line of business — Amendment aimed at preventing misuse of funds and ensuring financial discipline — “Same line of business” requires substantial or predominant sameness in core business activities, determined by MSCS’s bye-laws — Not to be construed expansively.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47 — Execution of Decree — Executing Court’s Jurisdiction — An executing court must strictly adhere to the terms of the decree and cannot modify or alter it. Its role is limited to giving effect to the decree as it stands, unless the decree is a nullity.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw