Supreme Court of India Judgements

47280 Judgements hosted as on 09/07/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Top Tags

Latest Post

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference with concurrent findings on genuineness of a Will — Whether suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will exist, and stand explained, is essentially a question of fact; a second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible — Interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, based on circumstances that are mere “figments of a doubting mind,” or is vitiated by an erroneous placement of onus — High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 100 CPC in reversing well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court discarding the Will.
Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence —

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected
Rent
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence —
Evidence Act
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence —
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on.
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on.
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25-O — Procedure for closing down an undertaking — Right to close down business is integral to right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) but subject to reasonable restrictions — Section 25-O provides a detailed procedure for obtaining prior permission for closure — Appropriate Government must conduct an enquiry and grant a hearing before passing a reasoned order — If no order is communicated within 60 days, permission is deemed to be granted.

Jun 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 801 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (BISCUIT DIVISION) AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant…

Evidence Act

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Admitted Facts — Cause of death by gunshot from a specific weapon in appellant’s home undisputed — Appellant admitted removing the body and cleaning the scene — Discovery of articles linked to the incident from appellant’s disclosure relevant for Section 201 IPC.

Jun 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 800 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAIBHAV Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1643…

I P C

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 793 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHETAN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1568…

State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 791 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLA NEHRU MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and…

Environment Municipal Laws

Environmental Law — Public Trust Doctrine — MCGM’s mandate to develop recreational spaces providing legal foundation for project — Prior condition of water body suggested degradation, not functional lake — Completed park providing substantial public benefit, including green space and recreational amenities utilized by community — Post facto sanction restricting land use to recreational purposes providing legal safeguard — Delay in filing petition undermining challenge — Direction to maintain park in perpetuity for public use, explore alternative water body, and restore other deteriorated water bodies by MCGM.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 792 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS Vs. PANKAJ BABULAL KOTECHA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

You missed

Rent

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 48 — Proof of custom — Essential attributes and standard of proof — Custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuous, and proved by clear and cogent evidence of long and uniform usage, ordinarily through testimony of persons familiar with its practice — Onus lies on the party asserting the custom — A custom cannot be held established on the solitary, unsupported testimony of one witness, particularly where such testimony is confined to the facts of the case rather than a general and consistent practice — Held, on facts, while the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in his father-in-law’s property stood proved, the specific claim that an uncle-in-law could similarly adopt a ghardamad was not established, being unsupported by consistent evidence —

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of “reasonable cause” — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between “reasonable cause” (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and “sufficient cause” reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of “reasonable cause”, application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant’s possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Jul 12, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Maintainability — Inclusion of advocate’s name in IBA “Caution List” — High Court dismissing writ petition on ground that Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is not “State” under Art. 12 — Held, focus of maintainability has shifted from formal character of respondent body to nature of function performed and effect of impugned action on legally protected rights — Caution List operates as sector-wide adverse accreditation mechanism with public law element, having direct bearing on advocate’s right to practise profession under Art. 19(1)(g) — Writ petition against IBA held maintainable notwithstanding IBA not being “State” — Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Banks’ Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857, distinguished — Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649; S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, relied on.

Jul 9, 2026 sclaw