Supreme Court of India Judgements

47020 Judgements hosted as on 04/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias. The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2) Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)
Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.
Education
Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.
The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.
State Laws
The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)
Evidence Act
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482—Inherent Power—Stay of proceedings–Presence of parties–When the proceedings are stayed, there is no need for the parties to be in lower court till the stay is vacated or modified by the higher court, which granted the stay.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2828 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1743 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302~Murder—Premature Release—Petitioner has been in jail for over 29 years and with remission total sentence undergone is 36 years—Petitioner has also crossed the age of 60 years—As per rules a person who has crossed 60 years of age and served 16 years of sentence, without remission, is entitled to be considered for premature release- Directed accordingly.   

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2827 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1742 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Writ Petition (Criminal)…

C P C

Pecuniary Jurisdiction—Objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be taken for the first time before the appellate court —Section 21 CPC contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and purpose—The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basis of technical objections

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2800 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1741 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Civil Appeal Nos. 9051…

Will & Succession

Family Settlement—Gift deed—A reversioner who consents to an alienation by a widow or other limited right heir made without legal necessity or to an invalid surrender and transferees from him are precluded from disputing the validity of the alienation though he may have received no consideration for his consent.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2789 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1614 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal No.…

Consumer

Medical Negligence—Post surgery ailments—Patient was not able to prove that the ailments which she suffered after she returned from the hospital were result of faulty surgery (removal of Gall Bladder) by the doctor and such aliments were not normal post surgery effect-Complaint dismissed.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2772 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1611 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Civil Appeal No.3971…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 and S.3(c)–Issuance of Notification-­Delegation of authority—State is empowered to appoint any officer other than a Collector or Deputy Commissioner to act as Collector—Such officer is empowered to extent of purpose mentioned in notification designating him as Collector—But relying upon same notification the designated officer cannot act as Collector in respect of other acquisition proceedings-Impugned notification u/s 4 issued by designated officer without being empowered for that is set aside.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2767 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1610 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta Civil Appeal…

Bail Granted

In present case, investigation was not conducted by rank of police officer as directed by High Court-On this ground charge  sheet was returned—Since, on 90th day there was no charge sheet before Magistrate to assess the situation and subsequent filing of charge sheet even after two days would be of no consequence-­Accused held entitled to default bail—Bail granted.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2758 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre                            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Education

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw