Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 164 — Recording of confession — Duty of Magistrate — Magistrate must inform the accused of their right to legal assistance before recording confession — Failure to do so can render the confession suspect — In this case, Magistrate failed to inform the accused of their right to a lawyer, contributing to the unreliability of the confession.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Bail Granted
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Labour Cases
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Cr P C

Held; while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of evidence and elaborate documentation of merit is to be avoided–No party should have impression that his case has been pre-judged–Existence of prima facie case is only to be considered–No merit–Appeal dismissed

Jan 1, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 117 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 406…

Service Matters
Service

Service and Labour Law–Absence without leave–Dismissal from service–Misconduct–Proportionality of punishment–Appellant claimed that punishment of termination is disproportionate to gravity of offence charged–No mitigating circumstances could be shown–Similar offence committed earlier–Punishment of simplicitor dismissed not disproportionate to gravity of offence–Appeal dismissed

Jan 1, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 93 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2008…

Dowry Death

Dowry Death–Soon before death–Words “Soon before her death” occurring in section 304-B of Penal Code, are to be understood in relative and flexible sense–Those words cannot be construed as lying down a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each case–Whether or not the cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim for or in connection with the demand of dowry was soon before her death and the proximate cause of her death, under abnormal circumstances, would depend upon the facts of each case–There can be no fixed period of time in this regard–Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B.  

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 88 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2006…

Arbitration

Territorial Jurisdiction–Ouster clause–Agreement between parties that only Courts at Jaipur alone would have jurisdiction–Even though Courts at Calcutta would have jurisdiction but in view of ouster clause it would only the Courts at Jaipur which would have jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 81 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal Nos. 5430-5431 of…

Accident

Accident–Owner of vehicle already dead–Vehicle not transferred in the name of his heirs–Insurance renewed in the name deceased owner–Accident took place and driver died–No witnesses examined by insurance company that they were not aware about death of original owner–Compensation rightly granted to wife of deceased driver.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 74 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7009 of 2008…

Bail Declined

COMPLAINANT HAS NOT TO WAIT FOR MISUSE OF BAIL ORDER CAN STRAIGHTWAY CHALLENGE IT–Cancellation of Bail–Complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed–It is not as if once a bail is granted by any Court, the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse–Bail order can be tested on merits also–Complainant could question the merits of order granting bail– Penal Code, 1860, Section 302–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439(2).         

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 72   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Criminal Appeal No. 2087 of…

Matrimonial

Marriage–Nullity of–A Christian married to a Hindu in a temple and subsequently marriage  was registered under Section 8 of Hindu Marriage Act–Marriage was a nullity and its registration could not validate the same. Marriage–Conditions for–Usage of expression “may” in the opening line of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act does not make the provision optional.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 68 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 2005…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of Cheque–Breach of trust–Loan advanced by appellant to respondent–Respondent issued cheques–Loan amount not repaid and cheques presented got bounced–Complaint under Section 138 by appellant against respondent pending–Respondent does not dispute issuance of cheques–Ingredients of section 406 IPC not made out against appellant.

Dec 31, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 64 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.1966 Of…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw