Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 21/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406 and 420 — Criminal breach of trust and cheating — For an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, a fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the time of making the promise or representation — Mere failure to keep a promise subsequently does not automatically prove dishonest intention from the beginning — Every breach of contract does not amount to cheating, unless there was deception at the inception.
Service

Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment
Service
Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.
Constitution

RIGHT TO PRIVACY – LANDMARK JUDGEMENT – 9 JUDGES BENCH -Right to Privacy—It is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable limitations. Constitution of India,1950, Article 21–Right to Privacy-It is a fundamental right-Right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guarded by part III of the Constitution-All the 9 judges of Constitution Bench were of same view-Earlier view in Kharak Singh case (6 judges bench in 1964) and M.P. Sharma (8 judges bench in 1954) overruled.

Nov 12, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (SC) 1803 (LB) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1337 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’bte Mr. Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar Hon’ble…

Constitution

Letter Patent Appeal—An order passed by the single judge in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution relating to criminal jurisdiction, cannot be made the subject matter of intra-court appeal—It is not provided for and it would be legally inappropriate to think so. Quashing—Letter Patent Appeal against order of single judge under criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable.

Nov 11, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2079 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1214 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Service Matters
Service

Pension–Benefit of running allowance has to be taken into consideration for computing pension only once. Pension–Respondents are retired employees and getting excess pension on account of some clerical mistake w.e.f. 1-1-1986–Held a mistake does not confer any right to any party and can be corrected.

Nov 9, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 262 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Transfer Case (civil) 106 of 2006…

You missed

Service

Gratuity — Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of company-allotted accommodation — SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, Rule 3.2.1(c) expressly empowers management to withhold gratuity for non-compliance with company rules, including non-vacation of accommodation — No interest payable on gratuity withheld for period of unauthorized occupation — Management is entitled to adjust penal rent accrued for retention beyond permissible period from gratuity amount — Order of March 31, 2017 in Ram Naresh Singh’s case was a concession based on specific facts and not binding precedent, unlike the order of December 15, 2020 in S.L.P — (C) No — 11025 of 2020 which clarified principles of penal rent adjustment

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 221 and 222 — Conviction for offence not charged — High Court rightly reversed the conviction under Section 364 of IPC when the charge was for Section 302 of IPC, as Section 364 is not a minor or cognate offence to Section 302, making conviction without specific charge or notice prejudicial to fair trial

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw