Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 24/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision. Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order. Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside. National Green Tribunal (NGT) — Adjudicatory Function — NGT cannot abdicate its powers and entrust its adjudicatory functions to a committee, even an expert committee — The role of such a committee is only to assist the NGT, not to decide the case.
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.
Arbitration
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.
I B C
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.
Service
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.
Arbitration

Arbitrator–Appointment of the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement is not a must, but while making the appointment the twin requirements of sub-section (8) of Section 11 have to be kept in view, considered and taken into Account–If it is not done, the appointment becomes vulnerable.

Jan 28, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 329 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam…

Accident

Accident—Claim Petition—A procedural lapse, could not be made basis to reject the claim petition Accident—Claim Petition—If the Court did not exhibit the documents despite the appellants referring them at the time of recording evidence then in such event, the appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim the compensation on the ground that requisite documents were not on record

Jan 27, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3137 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1851 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.I66–Accident-Claim Petition-Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the report of the accident on its receipt as if it is an application made by the claimant for award of the compensation to him under the Act by virtue of Section 166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction to decide such application on merits in accordance with law.

Jan 27, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3137 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1851 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Death Sentence converted into life imprisonment-Duty is on the State to show that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the accused—When the offence is not gruesome, not coldblooded murder, nor is committed in a diabolical manner, the court will impose life imprisonment

Jan 27, 2019 sclaw

2018(4} Law Herald (SC) 3132 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1855 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Hon’ble Mr.…

Corporate

Theft of electricity by a company–Prosecution of directors of company– It was obligatory on the part of the complainant not only to make requisite averments in the complaint petition but also to prove that any of the Directors who had been prosecuted for alleged commission of the aforementioned offence was incharge of and was otherwise responsible for the conduct or the affairs of the Company– Conviction set aside

Jan 26, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 314 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. 1962 of 2008…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Service

Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw