Supreme Court of India Judgements

46940 Judgements hosted as on 30/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1)) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17) Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — Section 3(1)(d) — Right to property given at marriage — Divorced Muslim Woman — The Act allows a divorced woman to claim all properties given to her before, at the time of, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, the husband, or his relatives/friends — The objective of the Act is to secure the financial protection and dignity of a Muslim woman post-divorce. (Paras 3, 7, 9)
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))
Property Matters
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Customs & Excise
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Rent

Eviction–Amendment of Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Act restricting the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from non-residential premises held, as unconstitutional–Correct interpretation of bonafide requirement of a landlord of a residential building must include a non-residential building

Nov 15, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 299 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Civil Appeal No. 8417 of 2009…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 319 –Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 244–Cross-examination–Right of cross-examination of the witnesses before the framing of the charge–If right to cross-examine under Section 244, CrPC not given to the newly joined accused then there would be a complete denial to such accused of an important right of cross-examination–Under Section 244, Cr.P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry afresh–Again, the witnesses would have to be re-heard and then there would be such a right–Merely presenting such witnesses for cross-examination would be of no consequence.

Nov 15, 2018 sclaw

  2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 294 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 28 of…

Acquittal

Once it is proved that the FIR itself was given with the consultation of the legal advisors and in the guidance of the local Member of Legislative Assembly who was inimical towards the appellant on account of the party factions, the whole story and more particularly, the part played by (PW-1) becomes suspicious–Evidences of prosecution witnesses No. 2 to 5 full of contradiction and omissions–High Court nowhere considered that there was no explosive substance found at the place where allegedly the bombs were exploded –Once the benefit of kiosk has been given to the other accused the same advantage should have been given even to the appellant–Impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside and that of the trial Court restored.

Nov 14, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 277 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2007…

Matrimonial

Custody and Guardianship–Question of custody distinct from guardianship–In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the minor–Custody–Merely because the father has love and affection for his children and is not otherwise shown unfit to take care of the children, it cannot be necessarily concluded that welfare of the children will be taken care of once their custody is given to him Custody –Prima facie case lies in favour of the father as under Section 19 of the GWC Act, unless the father is not fit to be a guardian, the Court has no jurisdiction to appoint another guardian–

Nov 14, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 218, 323 and 342–Public servant–Voluntary causing hurt and wrongful confinement–Police atrocities–Case has a long history as well as political overtones–Illegal detention of appellant’s father by the police–Appellant was beaten up by the respondent with other 6 accused and a false case u/s 107/151 CrPC was registered against him–High Court had not taken into consideration any of the evidences of prosecution witnesses–Once it is found that the High Court had not taken into consideration any of vital pieces of evidence, difficult to uphold the order of the High Court–Impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside–Matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 257 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003…

I P C

Common intention–Existence of common intention is a question of fact–Since intention is a state of mind, it very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention–Courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case. Murder–Appellant was present at the scene of occurrence and simply watched A1 throwing acid on the deceased without preventing A1 from doing so clearly establishes that the appellant had intended to cause injury to and also disfigurement of the deceased and as such is liable to be punished under Section 326 IPC.

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 236 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2004 Bengai…

C P C

Amendment of written statement–Petitioners were fully aware of the Will in question, but had not even mentioned the same in their written statement–Petitioners attempted to introduce a new story by way of defence in order to prolong the disposal of the appeal–Amendment of pleadings not allowed.

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 232 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3592…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(f) (prior to amendment by Act 18 of 2017) — Manufacture — Exemption Notification No.5/98-CE, Entry No.106 — Eligibility for exemption — Manufacture includes series of processes; entire chain of activities must be considered — Where multiple units undertake distinct processes which are ‘integrally connected’ and form a ‘continuous chain’ to convert raw material (grey fabrics) into final excisable product (cotton fabrics), the entire activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ — Distinct ownership or separate bills between the units is irrelevant if the processes are interconnected and essential for producing the final product — Use of power in any intermediate, integrally connected process denies the exemption under Entry 106 (cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam). (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw