Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Top Tags

Latest Post

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31). Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a)) Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g), 10 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2), 352 — Cancellation of Bail — Allegations of repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault (gang rape) of a minor victim aged 14, committed under armed threat (katta), and recording the act for blackmail — High Court granting bail set aside by Supreme Court — Bail order found to suffer from serious infirmities as it failed to consider the heinous nature and gravity of the offence, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, and prima facie material (victim’s statement and medico-legal report) establishing the commission of the offence — Omission to notice the filing of the chargesheet prior to the bail order rendered the exercise of discretion erroneous. (Paras 4, 8.1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16)
Service

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31).

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)
Service
Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31).
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31).
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a))
Cheque Dishonour
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a))
Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)
Companies Act Corporate
Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)
Acquittal I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 378 – Appeal – Acquittal – Interference with possible reasonable view – Sole testimony of complainant alleged to have been beaten by the accused persons – The complainant reaching the place of occurrence by chance – Improbability of prosecution case – Order of acquittal, restored.

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 1977 SC 1213 : (1977) 4 SCC 598(1) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JIMMY HOMI BHARUCHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : S. Murtaza…

Rent

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section – 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) – Possession of the suit premises – Predecessor in interest of the respondents instituted a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act) for possession of the suit premises against the appellants-tenants.

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  (1995) 7 JT 400 : (1995) 5 SCALE 481 : (1995) 6 SCC 576 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI…

Property Matters

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 76(c) – Mortgage – Redemption of – Mortgagee claiming himself to be in occupation of land as tenant – No consent of mortgagor for creation of tenancy by mortgagee – In terms of mortgage deed – Mortgagee neither managed property as a tenant nor inherited tenancy rights under Tenancy Act – Mortgagee cannot claim any tenancy right in respect of land.

Jul 16, 2017 sclaw

  (2001) 1 JT 401 : (2000) 8 SCALE 463 : (2000) 5 SCR 756 Supp : (2001) AIRSCW 9 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PURAN CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of Cheque–Notice–An omnibus notice without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque would not subserve the requirement of law. Dishonour of Cheque–Notice–Demand of payment within 10 days–Whether notice valid ? YES. Dishonour of Cheque–Notice–Unless a notice is served in conformity with Proviso (b) appended to Section 138 of the Act, the complaint petition would not be maintainable.

Jul 13, 2017 sclaw

2007(5) LH (SC) 3404  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2005…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31).

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a))

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Companies Act Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw