Latest Post

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. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 209, 244 — Commitment of case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Whether Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing such a case, where the complaint is one instituted otherwise than on a police report — Held, no — Section 244 CrPC, which mandates the Magistrate to hear the prosecution and take evidence, occurs in Chapter XIX (Part B — “Cases instituted otherwise than on a police report”) and governs warrant-case trials before a Magistrate; it has no application where the offence (here, under Section 302 IPC) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, which is governed instead by Section 209 CrPC — Under the scheme of the 1973 Code (unlike the erstwhile 1898 Code, which mandated a full committal inquiry with recording of evidence under Section 207-A), the Magistrate’s role at the pre-commitment stage is confined to ascertaining whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and no evidence need be taken or evaluated by the Magistrate at that stage — Requiring witnesses to depose twice, once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court, would serve no purpose and is not the mandate of law — High Court’s contrary view, requiring compliance with Section 244 CrPC even in a Sessions-triable case, proceeds on an erroneous reading of law and is unsustainable. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (wholesale grocery business) — Two ITRs filed after the death of the deceased excluded by the High Court altogether from the assessment of income — Held, following the principles in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], ITRs filed post-death call for closer scrutiny with reference to surrounding financial statements, since income may be inflated in such returns, but such returns are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death — In the absence of the benefit of such surrounding financial statements on record, and it being inexpedient at this stage to remand the matter, annual income fixed with reference to the nature of the deceased’s wholesale grocery business at Rs.3,25,000 — Compensation recomputed applying 40% addition for future prospects (age 28 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 17, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.60,79,550 (as against Rs.15,36,560 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.38,40,850 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of a self-employed deceased (Insurance Agent) from Income Tax Returns — High Court had averaged the last four ITRs on record — Held, erroneous — Following the principles laid down in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. [C.A. @ SLP(C) No.27220 of 2024, 2026 INSC 661], for a self-employed person the average of up to the previous three years’ ITRs, not four, is the appropriate reference point — A performance-linked spike in the income of an Insurance Agent in a particular year does not justify reaching back to an additional, earlier ITR to dilute that spike — On the facts, taking the average of the income for AY 2015-16 (Rs.4,03,180), AY 2016-17 (Rs.9,59,665) and AY 2017-18 (Rs.7,00,559), annual income assessed at Rs.6,87,802 — Compensation recomputed applying 25% addition for future prospects (age 49 years), 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13, together with conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) — Total compensation enhanced to Rs.87,09,282 (as against Rs.49,77,000 awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.76,09,500 awarded by the High Court), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal — Appeal allowed.

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.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 & 37 — Scope of Interference — Court’s jurisdiction under Section 34 is narrowly circumscribed and confined to specific grounds enumerated — Court cannot act as an appellate forum to correct factual errors or review merits — Arbitral Tribunal is master of evidence and interpretation of contracts — Interference is not warranted merely because an alternative view is possible, if the tribunal’s conclusion is plausible and can be arrived at by a reasonable person.

2026 INSC 590 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. M/S JABALPUR CORRIDOR PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (…

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 21 — Arbitration in suits — Mandatory requirement of court order of reference — For arbitration proceedings to be validly initiated or continued during pendency of a suit, parties must obtain an order of reference from the court under Section 21 — Failure to comply renders the award legally ineffective as a bar to the suit.

2026 INSC 591 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK AND OTHERS Vs. PADAM CHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 and 6 — Compensation for acquired land — Challenge to compensation awarded by High Court — Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision based on a previous judgment dealing with the same acquisition and village — Appellant denied further enhancement.

2026 INSC 593 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOPALA AGRI FARMS PVT. LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

Service Matters

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) — Section 23 — Applicability to in-service teachers — Sub-section (1) governs eligibility for future appointments (prospective), while the first proviso to sub-section (2) specifically addresses teachers already in service, allowing them time to acquire qualifications — The second proviso, added by the 2017 Amendment Act, further extends this window for teachers appointed or in service as of March 31, 2015 — The legislative intent is to recognize existing appointments while providing a time-bound mechanism for qualification, not to invalidate past appointments retrospectively or impose immediate disqualification

2026 INSC 597 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. Vs. ANJUMAN ISHAAT-E-TALEEM TRUST AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ. ) Review Petition (Civil)…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 — Accomplice Testimony — Testimony of an approver/accomplice is not illegal merely because it is uncorroborated, but as a rule of prudence, it is unsafe to convict solely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony — Corroboration must be in material particulars and should come from independent sources.

  2026 INSC 598 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOPI CHAND @ PAPPU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 263 — Revocation of probate — Limitation — No specific period of limitation prescribed for application for revocation of probate — Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 applies — Right to apply accrues when applicant has knowledge of the facts justifying revocation.

2026 INSC 602 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHIRAJ DUTTA Vs. ANIRBAN SEN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 112 — Presumption of legitimacy — DNA test can be directed to determine paternity only when there is sufficient prima facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112.– Section 114(h) — Adverse inference — Not applicable at the stage where the Court is considering the need for a DNA test.

2026 INSC 600 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHATURBHUJ PRADHAN Vs. AMAR PRADHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 226 — Illegal detention — Definition — Illegal detention may be defined as the deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution — It involves actual custody such that the individual is not free to leave — The detention must lack a valid legal basis, including situations where authority is void or expired — Even where a law permits detention, it becomes illegal if the procedure followed is not just, fair and reasonable, including failure to observe essential safeguards — Also covers situations where the power to detain is exercised arbitrarily, for an improper purpose, or in bad faith.

2026 INSC 599 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAUDAYAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (1987 Act) — Section 51(2) — Principles of Natural Justice — Failure to supply charge memo and supporting documents to the appellant — Enquiry conducted ex-parte — Order of removal vitiated — High Court erred in holding that opportunity at show cause stage cured the defects — Supreme Court set aside the removal order, confirmation order, and enquiry report.

  2026 INSC 592 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARJUN DASS Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

You missed