Supreme Court of India Judgements

47040 Judgements hosted as on 17/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation. Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Information as to the commission of cognizable offence — Mandatory registration of FIR — Court reiterates the mandatory duty to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence and reminds educational institutions of their civic and legal obligation to promptly lodge an FIR in case of a student suicide on campus. (Para 1)
Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation.
Stamp Act
Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.
C P C
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)
I B C
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)
Bail Granted

Activities of appellant fall under Section 24 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 for which maximum punishment is three years – Appellant has already been in prison for 2 years and 9 months – Having regard to nature of involvement alleged and role attributed to appellant in charge-sheet, it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant – Appellant directed to be released on bail.

May 28, 2017 sclaw

AIR 2006 SC 3403 : (2006) 12 JT 508 : (2006) 9 SCALE 384 : (2006) AIRSCW 5151 : (2006) 7 Supreme 533 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MOHAMMAD CHAND MULANI…

C P C

Although, Court has requisite jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law at a subsequent stage which was not formulated at the time of admission of second appeal but requirements laid down in Proviso appended to Section 100 are required to be met – High Court did not deal with substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission at all – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

May 28, 2017 sclaw

  AIR 2009 SC 1481 : (2009) 1 CTC 376 : (2009) 1 JT 244 : (2009) 1 SCALE 89 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA U.R. VIRUPAKSHAIAH — Appellant Vs. SARVAMMA…

You missed

Stamp Act

Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw