Supreme Court of India Judgements

47270 Judgements hosted as on 02/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Top Tags

Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed. Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 — Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 — Rule 7A(1) — Election affidavit — Non-disclosure of immovable property — Construction of Rule requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents” — Held, the comma after “myself” is a mere listing comma and does not create any distinction or exclusion — the word “of” governs all three categories collectively — a candidate is required to disclose immovable property held by the candidate, the spouse, and dependents, including property held solely by the spouse — The appellant’s failure to disclose property standing solely in her husband’s name accordingly amounted to non-disclosure in breach of the Rule. Remission — Premature release of life convicts — Applicable policy — Conflict between Haryana’s 2002 Policy (dated 12.4.2002) and 2008 Policy (dated 13.8.2008) — Source of power — Held, the 2002 Policy, being in substance and effect referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India (papers to be routed to the Governor for orders), is constitutional in origin, notwithstanding that it does not expressly recite the source of power — The 2008 Policy, by contrast, expressly invokes Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and makes the Chief Minister the deciding authority, and is thus statutory in character — A policy traceable to a statute cannot override or supersede the exercise of the constitutional power under Article 161, that power being distinct, independent and uninfluenced by any statutory power — The purported “supersession” of the 2002 Policy by the 2008 Policy is accordingly untenable in law qua convicts governed by the 2002 Policy — Appellant held entitled to the benefit of the more liberal 2002 Policy. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Notional income of skilled worker — Carpenter — Assessment — The appellant, a carpenter aged 38 years, suffered amputation of his right leg below the knee in a road accident in November 2004 — The Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 5,000/- relying on minimum wages. Held — A carpenter is a skilled artisan who works with precision and manual dexterity — His income cannot be equated with that of an unskilled worker — Where the appellant’s unrefuted evidence showed earnings of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, and a skilled job always has the potentiality to fetch higher income, the High Court erred in restricting the figure to Rs. 5,000/- — Considering the date of accident, decisions in comparable cases and the fact of the appellant being a skilled worker, his notional monthly income is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per month.
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Election Laws Municipal Laws

Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 — Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 — Rule 7A(1) — Election affidavit — Non-disclosure of immovable property — Construction of Rule requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents” — Held, the comma after “myself” is a mere listing comma and does not create any distinction or exclusion — the word “of” governs all three categories collectively — a candidate is required to disclose immovable property held by the candidate, the spouse, and dependents, including property held solely by the spouse — The appellant’s failure to disclose property standing solely in her husband’s name accordingly amounted to non-disclosure in breach of the Rule.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.
Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 — Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 — Rule 7A(1) — Election affidavit — Non-disclosure of immovable property — Construction of Rule requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents” — Held, the comma after “myself” is a mere listing comma and does not create any distinction or exclusion — the word “of” governs all three categories collectively — a candidate is required to disclose immovable property held by the candidate, the spouse, and dependents, including property held solely by the spouse — The appellant’s failure to disclose property standing solely in her husband’s name accordingly amounted to non-disclosure in breach of the Rule.
Election Laws Municipal Laws
Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 — Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 — Rule 7A(1) — Election affidavit — Non-disclosure of immovable property — Construction of Rule requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents” — Held, the comma after “myself” is a mere listing comma and does not create any distinction or exclusion — the word “of” governs all three categories collectively — a candidate is required to disclose immovable property held by the candidate, the spouse, and dependents, including property held solely by the spouse — The appellant’s failure to disclose property standing solely in her husband’s name accordingly amounted to non-disclosure in breach of the Rule.
Constitution
Remission — Premature release of life convicts — Applicable policy — Conflict between Haryana’s 2002 Policy (dated 12.4.2002) and 2008 Policy (dated 13.8.2008) — Source of power — Held, the 2002 Policy, being in substance and effect referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India (papers to be routed to the Governor for orders), is constitutional in origin, notwithstanding that it does not expressly recite the source of power — The 2008 Policy, by contrast, expressly invokes Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and makes the Chief Minister the deciding authority, and is thus statutory in character — A policy traceable to a statute cannot override or supersede the exercise of the constitutional power under Article 161, that power being distinct, independent and uninfluenced by any statutory power — The purported “supersession” of the 2002 Policy by the 2008 Policy is accordingly untenable in law qua convicts governed by the 2002 Policy — Appellant held entitled to the benefit of the more liberal 2002 Policy.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum.
I B C
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum.
Property Matters

Once agricultural land loses its basic character and has been converted into authorized/unauthorized colonies by dividing it into plots, disputes of plot holders cannot be decided by the revenue authorities and would have to be resolved by the civil court. The bar under Section 185 of Specific Relief Act would not be attracted – Appeal Dismmissed

Apr 8, 2018 sclaw

(2017) AIR(SCW) 5852 : (2017) AIR(SC) 5852 : (2018) AllSCR 145 : (2017) 245 DLT 355 : (2017) 12 JT 272 : (2018) 1 LawHerald 177 : (2018) 1 LawHerald(SC) 1 : (2018) 1…

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Suit for specific performance filed 38 years after an unregistered agreement to sell, seeking to enforce it — Held, plaint liable to be rejected — On a complete reading of the plaint, its foundation was the agreement to sell dated 21.08.1984, and no explanation was forthcoming for the respondents’ failure to institute a suit for execution of the conveyance deed for over three decades — Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years — A litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to file such a suit as an afterthought in disregard of the law of limitation — Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Suit held to be an abuse of the process of court and barred by law — Orders of the Courts below set aside; appeal allowed.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Election Laws Municipal Laws

Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 — Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 — Rule 7A(1) — Election affidavit — Non-disclosure of immovable property — Construction of Rule requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents” — Held, the comma after “myself” is a mere listing comma and does not create any distinction or exclusion — the word “of” governs all three categories collectively — a candidate is required to disclose immovable property held by the candidate, the spouse, and dependents, including property held solely by the spouse — The appellant’s failure to disclose property standing solely in her husband’s name accordingly amounted to non-disclosure in breach of the Rule.

Jul 5, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Remission — Premature release of life convicts — Applicable policy — Conflict between Haryana’s 2002 Policy (dated 12.4.2002) and 2008 Policy (dated 13.8.2008) — Source of power — Held, the 2002 Policy, being in substance and effect referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India (papers to be routed to the Governor for orders), is constitutional in origin, notwithstanding that it does not expressly recite the source of power — The 2008 Policy, by contrast, expressly invokes Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and makes the Chief Minister the deciding authority, and is thus statutory in character — A policy traceable to a statute cannot override or supersede the exercise of the constitutional power under Article 161, that power being distinct, independent and uninfluenced by any statutory power — The purported “supersession” of the 2002 Policy by the 2008 Policy is accordingly untenable in law qua convicts governed by the 2002 Policy — Appellant held entitled to the benefit of the more liberal 2002 Policy.

Jul 2, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum.

Jul 2, 2026 sclaw