Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments, in short

Headnotes of recent Supreme Court judgments: the issues, the provisions the Court applied, what it held and the result, each point tied to the judgment's paragraph numbers. The headnotes are AI-generated; read the judgment before relying on them.

Latest judgments

• MAGEBA BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S TRADE CENTRE

  12/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 480

  The Supreme Court agreed with the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff firm's registration was proved, so Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act did not bar the suit. It nevertheless dismissed the money suit as time-barred: the defendant's reply was not an acknowledgment of the debt, the suit rested on individual bills rather than a running account, and time spent on a winding-up petition could not extend limitation for a recovery suit.

• KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED versus REKHA & ORS

  12/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 489

  In two electrocution compensation claims brought by writ petition against the State transmission utility, the Supreme Court held that the governing standard is strict liability, subject to its recognised exceptions, not absolute liability. Since facts bearing on negligence and those exceptions were disputed, the writ petitions were not maintainable; the Court also held that the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier method cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases. The High Court's awards were set aside, leaving the claimants to pursue alternative remedies.

• M/S CARESTREAM HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  12/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 564

  Imported dry laser imagers, which print films from inputs received from diagnostic machines and have no diagnostic capability of their own, are accessories and not diagnostic apparatus. Because they are compatible with machines under two different headings (9018 and 9022), Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 does not apply and they fall under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 by Note 2(c). The importer's appeal was dismissed.

• SHATRUGHN YADAV versus THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (F.A.C.T.) AND OTHERS

  11/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 550

  The Supreme Court set aside the termination of a probationary technician for declaring no pending criminal case when a non-cognizable report under Sections 323 and 504 IPC had been registered against him. Suppression presupposes knowledge; the employee proved by police certificates that he was never summoned, arrested or questioned, and the employer had treated the antecedent as automatically disqualifying without considering its nature, the post or his later deletion from the accused.

• HARPREET SAWHNEY versus PUNEET SHARMA

  10/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 472

  In a maintenance dispute pending a divorce petition, the Supreme Court enhanced child maintenance to Rs. 1,50,000 per month and the wife's interim maintenance to Rs. 30,000 per month, holding that Provident Fund and ESPP contributions are not compulsory deductions to be subtracted from the husband's income because they accrue to his own benefit, and taking account of the wife's cancer treatment.

• COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI versus M/S DIEBOLD SYSTEMS (P) LTD

  06/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 453

  The Supreme Court held that indivisible turnkey contracts to supply, install and commission ATMs for a single composite price could not be split so as to levy service tax on a notional 33% of the price under the 'commissioning or installation' entry for July 2003 to April 2006. Following Larsen and Toubro, it held that before the works contract entry came in on 01.06.2007 the Finance Act, 1994 had neither the charge nor the machinery to tax composite contracts, and it upheld CESTAT's order setting aside the demands.

• NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. THUNGALA DHANA LAXMI & ORS.

  04/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 284

  Treating an insurer's appeal as an occasion to address widespread non-compliance with compulsory third-party insurance, the Supreme Court issued directions to MoRTH and IRDA on technology-based detection of uninsured vehicles, a four-layer private-vehicle policy structure with a customer option form, longer mandatory third-party cover for new vehicles, and police assistance in pending pre-2022 claims. On the individual appeal it upheld the insurer's liability for the owner-occupant under a comprehensive policy.

• AMRAVATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus GANESH DADARAO ANASANE & ORS.

  04/08/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 307

  In continuing proceedings on solid waste management, the Supreme Court recorded the constitution of the Central Implementation Committee under Rule 18 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, held that the Committee's functioning has the force of law, and distilled eight principles from precedent for determining environmental compensation. It directed MoEF&CC to frame guidelines under Rule 17(2) using those principles and existing rules.

• SAGAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 254

  A child aged about 16 and a half at the time of a murder was, after the Juvenile Justice Board's preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, tried as an adult and convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Children's Court without that Court passing any order under Section 19(1). Holding Section 19(1) mandatory and its non-compliance fatal to the whole trial, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, declined to remit given the appellant's present age and six years' incarceration, and acquitted him.

• STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus M/S JAI DURGAA FINVEST P. LTD.

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 88

  The Supreme Court held that Clause 19 of the statutory Form-L mining contract, which provides that the contractor's security deposit carries no interest, is a valid and binding term, and that the High Court erred in striking it down as against public policy. Reading both limbs of the clause together, the State must refund the deposit within three months of the contract ending, so interest at 9% runs only from the expiry of that period until the deposit is appropriated or refunded.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus BALI RAM NO. 850808321

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 218

  A CRPF constable-driver who lost his sight in service was medically invalidated in 1998, while Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 still applied to the CRPF. His invalidation breached the employer's mandatory duty to give him an alternate or supernumerary post. The 2002 notification exempting combatant personnel is prospective and could not validate the earlier invalidation. No waiver was shown, and the High Court could grant Section 47 relief though it was not pleaded. As reinstatement was no longer possible, the Court awarded Rs. 1.25 crore.

• H.D.F.C. BANK LIMITED versus KISHORE K. MEHTA (DEAD) THR. LRS.

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 204

  A recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal before the 2016 insertion of Section 19(22A) in the RDB Act is not a 'decree or order' on which an insolvency notice can be issued under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. Following Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., and holding that the prospective 2016 amendment confirms the earlier position, the Court dismissed the bank's appeal.

• KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 104

  The Supreme Court upheld the Explanations to Rule 38 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, which bar deducting royalty, DMF and NMET payments when computing the sale value used for the average sale price of iron ore. It held that the Explanations prescribe only the measure of the levy, are a legitimate measure against evidenced manipulation of the average sale price, and do not breach Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) or Section 9 of the MMDR Act.

• A.K. GHOSH & COMPANY AND OTHERS versus BIMAN BOSE AND OTHERS

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 185

  The Supreme Court held that in a commercial suit the plaintiff's written statement to the defendant's counter-claim is governed, through Order VIII Rule 6G CPC, by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, so it cannot be filed beyond 120 days even where the court fixed no time under Rule 6A(3). It also held that an order refusing leave to file it is not appealable under Section 13(1A), not being listed in Order XLIII.

• MR. NILESH SHAH & ORS. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR.

  13/07/2026 · [2026] 8 S.C.R. 160

  Kotak AMC, its trustee company and senior executives extended the maturity of Essel group debentures beyond the maturity of six close-ended fixed maturity plans and paid unitholders partly after maturity, without a roll-over or disclosure to SEBI. The Supreme Court held that Regulations 33(4) and 39 of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 were breached, that absence of investor loss or eventual gain is no defence, and that penalty follows once contravention is established. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

• BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1939) LTD. versus M/S HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. SINCE HAS BEEN MERGED INTO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.

  09/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 581

  The Supreme Court held that when a tenant bank was amalgamated into Punjab National Bank under a scheme framed under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the tenancy and possession passed to PNB without the landlord's written consent, the ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was made out. The provision does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers, and a Section 45 scheme is administrative, not legislative, so it cannot override Section 14(1)(b).

• POOJA RAMESH SINGH versus JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. & ANR.

  02/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 571

  The NCLT admitted a Section 7 IBC application relying on judgments that were non-existent or carried fabricated paragraphs, apparently generated by AI, and the NCLAT affirmed without noticing. The Supreme Court held that a decision resting on fake or hallucinated precedents is no decision in law, set aside both orders, restored the Section 7 application for fresh decision, and directed the Bar Council of India to frame norms on advocates citing such material.

• PARVEEN KUMAR @ PARVEEN CHAUHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  01/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 554

  Haryana's 2002 premature-release policy, which required cases to be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161, is a constitutional policy. The later statutory policy of 2008, framed under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, cannot override it. State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, which treated the 2002 policy as statutory, was held per incuriam in view of the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish. The life convict was held entitled to be considered under the 2002 policy.

• CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  01/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 518

  A municipal councillor candidate was summoned under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for not disclosing land held by her husband. The Supreme Court held that the Gujarat municipal election rules required disclosure of the spouse's sole property, and that cognizance under an inapplicable statute was a curable irregularity under Section 465 CrPC because a false electoral affidavit attracts the IPC. It remanded the matter to the Magistrate to take cognizance afresh.

• NEERAJ GUPTA versus PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL & ORS.

  01/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 481

  In a complaint case involving an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session (including Section 302 IPC), the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committal; Section 244 applies to warrant cases triable by the Magistrate. The High Court's order remanding the case to the Magistrate for pre-charge evidence was set aside and the revision petitions were remitted for fresh decision.

• KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA & ORS. versus JITENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS.

  01/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 504

  The Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of a 1994 compromise decree in a partition suit. Defendant No. 5 never signed the compromise, and his counsel's endorsement of no objection was not backed by express authority or any exigency, so the voluntary, signed compromise that Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires was not shown. Given the disputed basic facts and the illegality of the decree, the 25-year delay was overlooked and the partition suit was left to go to full trial.

• RASHMIREKHA TRIPATHY AND ANR. versus THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL CLAIMS), SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.

  01/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 494

  In a motor accident death claim, the Supreme Court held that a salaried person's income is ordinarily assessed on the ITR of the preceding year, while a self-employed person's business income is assessed on the average of up to three previous ITRs read with the surrounding circumstances of the business. On the facts it fixed the deceased contractor's annual income at Rs. 14,00,000 and enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court.

• SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  01/07/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 538

  The Supreme Court held that the investigating agency's failure to file additional copies of the chargesheet for supply to the accused under Section 193(8) BNSS does not vitiate the police report and does not give rise to default bail under Section 187(3). The right to default bail arises only when no chargesheet in the form required by Section 193(3) is filed within the 60 or 90 days allowed, and it ends once such a chargesheet is filed.

• SHANKAR DUTT versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

  24/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 379

  In a motor accident claim by a 38-year-old carpenter whose right leg was amputated, the Supreme Court held that carpentry is skilled work and assessed notional income at Rs. 9,000 per month. It took functional disability at 100%, against the 70% medical figure, because he could no longer sit or stand unaided to do his work, and awarded Rs. 10,00,000 for a prosthetic leg and its upkeep over his life. Compensation was enhanced from Rs. 11,51,423 to Rs. 35,95,923 with 6% interest.

• THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus KALU RAM AND OTHERS

  23/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 195

  In cross-appeals over the death of a 20-year-old CA Final student whose car hit a truck left unlit on the road at night, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent finding that the truck driver alone was negligent. It declined either to reduce or to enhance the loss-of-dependency award, despite the overlap of a forward-looking income assessment with a further 50% for future prospects, but added Rs. 40,000 to each parent for filial consortium.

• MANIYAR ILIYAZ @ SHAIK RIYAZ & ANR. versus P. AYYAPPAN & ORS.

  19/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 175

  While restoring and enhancing compensation for the death of a five-year-old boy struck by a tanker on a road without a footpath, the Supreme Court declared that the right to walk, including the right to demarcated footpaths, is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. It held that urban bodies and panchayats owe a correlative duty to provide footpaths, enforceable through remedies independent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compensation was fixed at Rs. 11,44,628.

• RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERS versus S D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS

  19/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 187

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment in second appeals that had reversed concurrent decrees of mandatory injunction for removal of a wall and a lintel and instead directed the Executing Court to value the construction so that the plaintiffs' heirs could be compensated in money. No such relief had been sought, the heirs had not consented, no substantial question of law had been framed, and the second appeals were remitted for fresh decision under Section 100 CPC.

• SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT versus KAMTA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS

  15/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 113

  The Supreme Court struck down the Madhya Pradesh notification of 25.08.2011, issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, to the extent it excluded the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation from the Act. The SPE can investigate only corruption-related offences and is not an 'intelligence and security' organisation. The Court upheld the High Court's direction to supply a public servant with information on the grant of sanction for his prosecution.

• MAKARDHWAJ RAM versus JAGDISH RAI (DEAD) TH. LRS. & ANR.

  11/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 240

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment that had dismissed, as barred by constructive res judicata, a suit for declaration of title and possession decreed by the courts below. The earlier suits, filed while the plaintiff was a minor, only challenged two specific sales by a power-of-attorney holder; the plaintiff had no occasion then to assert title to the remaining land under a 1960 deed, which was undisputed until the defendant sought mutation over the whole property.

• SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL

  11/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 255

  An MSEDCL clerk was dismissed after her misconduct, first found in a defective domestic enquiry, was proved afresh before the Labour Court on remand; the employer relied on the old show-cause notice and also treated her eleven-year suspension as punishment. Leaving the finding of misconduct and the Executive Engineer's competence undisturbed, the Supreme Court held that a fresh notice on penalty under Regulation 88(j) was required, set aside dismissal as wholly disproportionate and the added suspension penalty, and directed payment of subsistence allowance after the first six months.