Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 15/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well. Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court — High Court quashed FIR and proceedings at a nascent stage when Magistrate had merely directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC — Sale deeds relied upon by accused were examined by High Court, treating them as determinative of the dispute, and criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and sale deeds were not cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Such exercise by High Court was beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a petition under Section 482 CrPC, as it involved delving into defence material and adjudicating disputed questions of fact, which is the domain of investigation and trial — This approach stifled the investigative process and ran contrary to well-settled principles — High Court fell into error.
Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.
Corruption
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself.
State Laws
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.
Matrimonial
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
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. )…

Cheque Dishonour

The question before the High Court was whether the remand order of the Appellate Court was legal or not. Second, instead of deciding the aforementioned question, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself on its merits and while allowing the complaint, sentenced the appellant (accused) with simple imprisonment for 2 months along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to respondent No.1 (complainant). It was not legally permissible.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSANTA DEY — Appellant Vs. BABLI MAJUMDAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

I P C

–The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code–HELD –On going through the evidence of PW1 in its entirety, we concur with the opinion rendered by the courts below that her evidence appears to be natural, consistent, probable and reliable. Her evidence remains unimpeached on material particulars. PW1 has given the details of the incident in question and we do not find any major contradiction in her evidence so as to disbelieve her testimony.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJAGOPAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee,…

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 170, 395 and 412 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Dacoity –While maintaining the conviction, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the accused are sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. is hereby modified and both the accused are sentenced to undergo five years R.I. for the offences for which they are convicted – Appeals partly allowed.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAHANGIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

You missed

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw