Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2026

214 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• 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.

• DR. RAMESH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  11/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 75

  The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's cognizance and issue of process against a doctor running a sonography centre for violations of the PCPNDT Act arising from errors and blanks in Form F records. Under the proviso to Section 4(3), incomplete or inaccurate records amount to a contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved, and complete Form F is mandatory. Such lapses are not mere technical errors, and the provisions cannot be diluted.

• THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE versus K.K. UMESH KUMAR & ORS.

  11/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 101

  A branch of an old roadside tree fell on an autorickshaw parked during heavy rain and injured a passenger. The Supreme Court held that it would be unfair to fasten liability on the municipal corporation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and that a claim under Section 166 may not be appropriate because the vehicle played no active role in the accident. Even so, given the claimant's total paraplegia, it used Article 142 to enhance compensation to Rs. 25,00,000 and left the High Court's apportionment of liability undisturbed.

• THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAVI SHANKAR SINGH & ORS.

  10/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 297

  Although the State's appeal had become infructuous after the accused was acquitted, the Supreme Court examined and set aside guidelines framed by the High Court requiring trial courts in Prevention of Corruption Act cases to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC before framing charge, holding that a High Court under Article 226 cannot create a new stage of trial unknown to the CrPC.

• BAKSISH AHMAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  09/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 220

  The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) over a writ petition by a BSF (or other CAPF) member challenging termination of service, because the Union of India and the Director General have their offices in Delhi. Where a petitioner invokes clause (1) and chooses the forum convenient to the respondents, the doctrine of forum non conveniens should rarely be applied. The Delhi High Court's refusal to entertain the petition was set aside and the petition revived.

• SAHIL ABDULSATTAR MANSURI & ORS. versus SAFIMAHAMAD FAFIRBHAI MANSURI & ORS.

  04/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 67

  A private complaint of forgery filed in 2007 remained under investigation for nearly two decades, with case papers lost in police custody. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have intervened under Article 226 instead of relegating the complainant to the Magistrate, directed the police to conclude the investigation within six weeks, required an explanatory affidavit from the State, and kept the matter part-heard.

• KULSUM NISHA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  02/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 21

  Excluding married daughters from the definition of 'family' used for allotting a fair price shop under the dependent quota after a dealer's death rests solely on marital status and gender stereotype, and so violates Articles 14 and 15(1). On a purposive reading, 'daughters' in Clause 2(p) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 includes a dependent married daughter who meets the other conditions. The appellant was directed to be allotted the shop.

• NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus T. YOUNIS & ANR.

  02/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 11

  Where a party has formally applied to the arbitral tribunal under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the three-month limitation under Section 34(3) for challenging the award runs from the date that application is disposed of. It does not matter whether the application was allowed, dismissed or found not maintainable. The High Court's order refusing to exclude that period was set aside and the condonation of delay restored.

• STATE OF PUNJAB versus BALRAJ SINGH @ BILLA

  02/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 39

  The Supreme Court set aside regular bail granted by the High Court to an accused alleged to have directed, from jail, the collection of a commercial quantity of heroin, because the High Court did not consider the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Applying those conditions itself, the Court found no case for bail given the accused's similar antecedents and his 1 year 7 months' custody against a possible twenty-year sentence.

• SONAL TALPADA versus VEERBHAN SINGH

  02/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 49

  The Supreme Court upheld the divorce granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It found that the wife's persistent denial of conjugal relations, and some 15 years of separation without any attempt to reconcile, amounted to mental cruelty, and that an appellate court may consider such prolonged separation. It also dissolved the marriage under Article 142 as irretrievably broken down.

• DARUBAI & ANR. versus KAMALABAI & ORS.

  01/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 1

  Heirs who succeed under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 take the property as tenants-in-common with definite shares, not as joint tenants. The widow, who held only a one-fifth share in her husband's separate property alongside four step-daughters, could not sell part of it as 'karta' on the ground of legal necessity. The High Court's restoration of the partition decree was upheld.

• BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  01/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 142

  The Supreme Court held that casual labourers in the Department of Posts who were granted temporary status under the 1991 Scheme, and who completed three years in that status, are entitled to all benefits of temporary Group 'D' employees, including pension under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 once they have ten years' qualifying service, even without formal regularisation. Pension is a continuing cause of action, but arrears were limited to three years and two months before the Original Applications were filed.

• CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY versus ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

  01/06/2026 · [2026] 7 S.C.R. 208

  An appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be filed free of defects within the 45-day period plus the 15-day grace period. Defects in such an appeal must be cured within the 28 days allowed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Court has no power to condone re-filing delay beyond that. The liquidator's appeal, filed 7 days late and re-filed after a further 82 days, was dismissed as time-barred.

• GOUR ACHARJE versus THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.

  25/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 604

  The Supreme Court upheld the husband's conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC for the death of his wife at the matrimonial home. The medical evidence showed ante-mortem head injuries and a staged hanging, and there was consistent evidence of dowry harassment. The husband was present in the house but gave no explanation under Section 313 CrPC, and that silence, read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, completed the case against him.

• PAPAN SARKAR @ PRANAB versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

  22/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 592

  The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. The last-seen theory failed for want of proximity between the sighting and the death, the alleged extra-judicial confession was unproved, exculpatory and made under mob pressure, the recoveries did not qualify under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining witnesses were unreliable; legal aid was directed for the non-appealing co-accused.

• SUKHENDU BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

  21/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 539

  The Supreme Court held that Assam Muster Roll and Work Charged workers engaged before 1 April 1993, left out by clerical lapses from the Cabinet decision of 22 July 2005 under which about 30,000 identical workers were regularised, could not be denied regularisation by relying on Umadevi. Their claim rested on parity under Article 14, and the State's 2012 O.M. reversed undertakings given to the High Court. It also clarified that Work Charged employees form a distinct class and set aside a related pension ruling.

• PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. versus LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

  21/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 521

  The Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings upholding a Will by which the testator left his lands to his sister, excluding his wife and children. Execution was proved by an attesting witness; mutation entries confer no title; non-registration does not detract from a Will; exclusion of natural heirs is not by itself a suspicious circumstance, especially where the Will gives reasons; substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC suffices; and untested affidavits of attesting witnesses are not evidence.

• VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL AVIATION UNIVERSITY versus JITENDRA SINGH & ORS.

  21/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 509

  The Supreme Court held that the Visitor, having appointed the First Registrar of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University under the transitional provision in Section 46(b) of the 2013 Act, was also competent to terminate his services for misconduct, reading Statute 28(1) with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act. It disagreed with the High Court's view that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary action. Because the Registrar's term had expired and there had been repeated litigation, it did not disturb the High Court's operative directions.

• SRI versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU

  20/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 458

  A Sri Lankan refugee convicted as the absconding accused 'Sri' in a 2015 conspiracy to revive the LTTE was acquitted. His identity as 'Sri' rested only on the belated, improved testimony of two witnesses of doubtful conduct, who named him 'Ranjan' for the first time after his arrest, without a test identification parade or any documentary link. His open residence at a registered address and his visa application were inconsistent with absconding, and the Court found that he had been falsely implicated.

• PARVINDER SINGH versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  19/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 486

  Where a PMLA prosecution complaint was filed before the BNSS came into force but cognizance was taken afterwards, the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS applied, because merely numbering the complaint and listing it for cognizance is not an 'inquiry' saved by Section 531(2)(a). The right to be heard before cognizance is substantive and mandatory, so cognizance taken without hearing the accused was void and was set aside without any need to show prejudice.

• RAMBALAK versus STATE OF U.P.

  19/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 446

  While rejecting a second bail application, the Allahabad High Court had directed trial courts and State authorities to follow earlier bail orders that adopted government and police directions on serving summons and coercive processes. The Supreme Court set aside those directions, holding that a court exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 483 BNSS can only decide whether the accused should be released or stay in custody pending trial and cannot issue such wider systemic directions.

• DR. MANOJ KUMAR RAWAT versus STATE OF UP & ORS.

  19/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 424

  The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of orders moving a waitlisted candidate, who had been recommended for one college but never joined, to the Principal's post at Meerut College. It held that his self-chosen non-joining is not a vacancy arising 'otherwise' under Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. Once the 2023 Act repealed that Act, the old select list lapsed and could not be used for fresh postings.

• JENNIFER MESSIAS versus LEONARD G LOBO

  18/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 410

  The High Court erred in ending the execution proceedings simply because the 13.04.2012 decree was called a preliminary decree. Read as a whole, the decree settled the shares, possession, mesne profits and the course to follow if partition by metes and bounds failed. The Commissioner reported the flat could not be divided, so the trial court rightly moved to sale. The execution case was restored, with directions for auction and apportionment within two months.

• ROHIT CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

  15/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 263

  The Ministry of Home Affairs' refusal to concur in Uttarakhand's recommendation for premature release of a life convict in a CBI-investigated murder case was quashed as cryptic and non-speaking. Rather than remand, the Court decided the matter itself: denial of remission cannot rest solely on the heinousness of the crime, and given the State's recommendation, over 22 years in custody, good conduct and the release of a co-accused, the petitioner was treated as prematurely released.

• SOUMYA RANJAN PANDA & ORS. versus SUBHALAXMI DASH & ORS.

  14/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 241

  After MBBS students of a derecognised private medical college (SRMCH) were relocated under Supreme Court orders to three private colleges and completed their course paying only Government-rate fees, the Court apportioned the resulting fee shortfall. It placed the primary liability on the defaulting college's trust and released the trust's bank guarantee with the MCI/NMC and its deposit in Court to the transferee colleges. It held the students could not keep the windfall of interim Government-rate fees and allowed the colleges to recover the balance, at SRMCH rates, through the NMC.

• TALARI NARESH versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA

  13/05/2026 · [2026] 6 S.C.R. 294

  The appellant's conviction for murder and for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was set aside and he was acquitted. The sole supporting eyewitness was the deceased's mother, an interested witness. She was contradicted by the hostile witnesses on the occurrence and on the motive. The medical evidence had unexplained inconsistencies, and no independent witness was examined although the incident happened on a busy main road.

• ANGELWOODS APARTMENT ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION versus M LALITHA AND ANOTHER

  12/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 577

  An appeal under Section 61 of the IBC filed on the last day of limitation without a certified copy of the NCLT order, without any application for one and without seeking exemption, was not merely defective but incompetent; the NCLAT erred in condoning the delays in filing and refiling without first examining whether the appeal was validly instituted.

• NARAYANA HEALTH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

  12/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 584

  A complaint against a hospital, its operating company, its Chairman and staff over a Rs. 2,500 charge for a test not performed (which the hospital offered to refund), delay in supplying medical records and alleged threats disclosed no criminal offence; billing and records grievances fall under the remedial scheme of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017. The complaint was quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

• PADAM MEHTA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

  12/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 597

  In a PIL seeking inclusion of Rajasthani in the REET-2021 teacher recruitment syllabus and its use in school education, the Supreme Court held the recruitment relief infructuous as that process had concluded. It found the State's inaction on mother-tongue-based education inconsistent with Articles 19(1)(a) and 21A, Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act and NEP 2020, and rejected as untenable the State's stance that only Eighth Schedule languages can be taught. It directed the State to frame a policy recognising Rajasthani for educational purposes and to introduce it as a school subject in a phased manner.

• GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

  11/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 550

  Charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside and the FIR and chargesheet quashed, because the FIR and chargesheet showed the alleged caste abuse occurred inside the family's residential house with no member of the public present, so the essential ingredient 'in any place within public view' was absent, and no intent to cause alarm or common intention was disclosed.

• ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLA versus JAGAT DHARI

  08/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 453

  The Supreme Court held that a trial court decree for specific performance does not merge in an appellate order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Permitting a belated deposit does not take away the judgment-debtor's right to seek rescission under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. Since the decree fixed time but no consequence for default, there was no automatic rescission, and the execution was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 28.

• INDIAN RAILWAYS versus WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

  08/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 479

  Indian Railways is not a deemed distribution licensee under the third proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, because it does not supply electricity to consumers in an area of supply; it buys power for its own use and is therefore a consumer liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge when it takes open access. APTEL's judgment was upheld.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus RANJAN KUMAR & ORS.

  08/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 522

  The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of a Jharkhand Police constable found in a departmental enquiry to have absented himself and secured a second appointment in the Bihar Police under another name using forged credentials. It held that the High Court Division Bench exceeded the limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence and upsetting concurrent findings. A forensic enquiry ordered by the Court confirmed the two identities were one person. The Court directed the police to examine criminal action and, under Article 142, quashed the Bihar appointment.

• DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

  07/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 441

  A generating utility cannot recover depreciation from consumers over the full fifteen-year technical life of a plant that was approved to supply electricity, and did supply it, only for six years up to March 2018. Regulation 6.32 of the DERC Generation Tariff Regulations, 2011 must be read with Regulation 4.1 and Section 61(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. APTEL's judgment was set aside and the Commission's order restored.

• L.K. TRUST versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

  07/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 567

  The Supreme Court held that a trust carrying on a composite business, including investment in shares, was entitled to deduct under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the interest paid on a bank loan whose proceeds were routed through a group company to acquire shares, since the transfer of borrowed funds is to be tested by commercial expediency; it restored the Tribunal's view and set aside the High Court.

• HABBAN SHAH versus SHERUDDIN

  06/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 404

  A decree for specific performance conditioned on payment of the balance consideration within three months became inexecutable when the decree-holder neither deposited the amount nor sought extension within that time. A later court permission to deposit did not amount to deemed extension, and no application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was needed for the contract to be treated as rescinded. Refund of earnest money with 8% interest was ordered.

• NEETU SOLVENTS versus VINEET NAGAR & ORS.

  06/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 421

  NGT orders closing formaldehyde units for lack of prior Environmental Clearance were set aside. The orders rested only on the NGT's decision in Dastak NGO, which this Court had already set aside in Pahwa Plastics. The units had been set up under consents from the State Pollution Control Boards and had applied for EC when asked, so the Pahwa Plastics directions were applied to them.

• ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GNIDA) AND OTHERS

  05/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 364

  In the CIRP of Earth Infrastructures Ltd (EIL), the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's annulment of the approved resolution plans of Roma and Alpha for projects on land GNIDA had leased to EIL's subsidiaries and SPC. It lifted the corporate veil because EIL was the real developer and payer and the lessees were only a front. It held GNIDA's inaction, belated claims and inconsistent stand disentitled it to penal interest and penalties, and restored the plans on terms that the applicants pay GNIDA's principal dues over 24 months without burdening buyers. The NCLAT had also wrongly set aside the plan for a Gurugram project unconnected with GNIDA.

• KUMUD LALL versus SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

  04/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 301

  When a doctor accused of medical negligence dies while a consumer revision is pending and no decree subsists against him, his legal heirs can be brought on record, but only claims against his estate survive; purely personal-injury claims abate under the first exception to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs survival of the right to sue under Order XXII CPC. Disapproving the NCDRC's view in Balbir Singh Makol, the Court set aside the NCDRC orders and remitted the revision.

• RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus LAVANSHU SANKHLA & ORS.

  04/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 290

  For recruitment of Assistant Prosecution Officers in Rajasthan, eligibility, including possession of the law degree, is judged on the date of submission of the application. Candidates who obtained the degree after applying but before the examination were not eligible, because the proviso to Rule 12 that once allowed final-year candidates had been deleted.

• DR. BAIS SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTITUTE PVT. LTD & ORS. versus DHANANJAY PANDE

  04/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 347

  For maintaining a petition for oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, 'member' takes the wider meaning in Section 2(27) and is not confined to persons entered in the register of members under Section 41(2); a person whose proprietary interest the company recognised by its conduct may sue. The concurrent finding that the respondent, whose share application money the company accepted and used, was a member was upheld.

• SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  04/05/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 273

  The High Court should not have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR, or passed an interim order that led to the FIR, when the complainant had not used the remedies under the BNSS (approaching the Superintendent of Police and then the Magistrate) and there was no urgency or threat to life or liberty. The interim order was set aside and the FIR quashed, with liberty to pursue the statutory remedies.

• S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERS versus S. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

  16/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 238

  A plea that a later suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot ground rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). Order II Rule 2 does not make a suit 'barred by any law'; it only stops the plaintiff from suing for omitted or relinquished claims or reliefs, which the defendant must prove by evidence after comparing the two plaints. The High Court's rejection of the plaint in the second suit was set aside and the trial court's order restored.

• J&K ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY versus RASH BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

  15/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 210

  Where the arbitrator, with the parties' consent, fixed Srinagar as the seat and New Delhi as the venue, only the court at Srinagar had jurisdiction over the Section 34 challenge; holding hearings and rendering the award at New Delhi, or a recital in the award, did not shift the seat. The High Court's order returning the Section 34 petition was set aside.

• ANOSH EKKA versus STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  13/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 593

  The Supreme Court suspended the sentence of a former Jharkhand Minister convicted in a split disproportionate-assets prosecution and granted him bail pending his appeal, noting the overlapping allegations with an earlier case in which his sentence had already been suspended and his custody of over ten months in the present case.

• ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD. versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

  13/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 160

  The Supreme Court held that an amalgamated company cannot set off the accumulated agricultural-income losses of the amalgamating company under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, which has no provision like Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A scheme clause deeming the transferor's losses to be the transferee's does not bind the State, which had no right to notice and received none; Dalmia Power was distinguished. The losses were also beyond the eight-year carry-forward limit.

• DHANANJAY RATHI versus RUCHIKA RATHI

  13/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 175

  After a court-referred mediated settlement for divorce by mutual consent had been largely performed, the wife withdrew consent before the second motion and filed a DV Act complaint against the husband and his mother. The Court held that a party may resile from a mediated settlement only for fraud, force or undue influence or the other side's non-performance, and quashed the DV complaint as an afterthought with no specific allegations. It dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1) on the settlement terms.

• MILIND S/O ASHRUBA DHANVE AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  10/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 565

  Release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is available even where the offender is sentenced only to a fine, since 'punishment' includes fine and 'release' means freeing the offender from receiving sentence. With convictions for hurt under Sections 323/324 IPC upheld, three appellants were released on probation under Section 4 and one, convicted only under Section 323, after admonition under Section 3, with protection from disqualification under Section 12.

• KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

  10/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 135

  The Supreme Court restored a Single Judge's order directing relaxation of educational qualification for promotion of a long-serving cooperative society employee to Society Manager. The Registrar had, without reasons, rejected the society's recommendation while approving promotion of two similarly qualified employees, which was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16.

• NITENDRA KUMAR TOMER, SUSPENDED DIRECTOR, AMBRO ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus UNOX S.P.A. AND ANOTHER

  10/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 146

  An appeal to the NCLAT against an order admitting a Section 9 application, filed in the corporate debtor's name by its suspended director after an interim resolution professional had been appointed, was wholly incompetent and not merely defective; the NCLAT could not allow it to be converted, after the limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC had expired, into an appeal by the suspended director in his own name.

• THE STATE OF KERALA versus M. VIJAYAKUMAR & ORS.

  10/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 119

  The Supreme Court held that once KSRTC pensioners are entitled to dearness relief linked to inflation, enhancing it at a lower rate (11%) than dearness allowance for serving employees (14%) violates Article 14. Both benefits serve the common object of offsetting inflation, which affects both groups alike, so the differentiation has no rational nexus to that object. Financial constraint may justify deferring benefits but not unequal rates once the benefit is granted.

• MAMTA DEVI versus SANJAY KUMAR

  10/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 503

  The Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings of cruelty and desertion on which the Family Court granted, and the High Court affirmed, a decree of divorce to the husband, as they were findings of fact without perversity; but in the interest of complete justice it directed the husband to pay the wife Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance in place of reconsidering the lump sum awarded.

• SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS versus M/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

  10/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 508

  The Supreme Court restored an eviction order under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 by reappreciating evidence. The landlord had proved that strangers to the lease were in exclusive possession after the original tenant-partner left, and the tenant's unproved 'reconstitution' of the partnership was a cloak for unlawful sub-letting.

• STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus M/S B.B.M. ENTERPRISES

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 154

  An arbitration notice issued in 2022 for a money claim on works completed on 30.07.2000 raised an ex facie dead claim. The referral court should have rejected it at the Section 11 stage, and the Engineer-in-Charge's failure to issue a final certificate did not extend limitation. The High Court's order referring the dispute to arbitration was set aside.

• ROMA AHUJA versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 459

  Following the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew, the Supreme Court held that limitation under Section 468 CrPC runs to the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings, which includes lodging an FIR with the police, and not to the date of chargesheet or cognizance. The High Court's quashing of an FIR under Sections 323/341 IPC as time-barred was set aside.

• MALKIT SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 550

  In an appeal by a traders' association seeking removal of street-vendor encroachments in Manimajra, Chandigarh, the Court stressed that street vending is protected by Article 19(1)(g) subject to reasonable restrictions, and that the State must balance vendors' livelihood with other residents' rights. Noting the Municipal Corporation's removal of unauthorised vendors, it directed affidavits on steps to help displaced vendors move into vending zones and on pending applications, and listed the matter for further orders.

• MAURICE W. INNIS versus LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 494

  An Executing Court cannot vary a compromise decree that clearly identifies each party's share of land; it altered the allotted portions on grounds of impracticability, unauthorised construction and a sale to a third party, which exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 47 CPC, so its orders were set aside.

• SHUVENDU SAHA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 221

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court revisional order that, nearly eight years later, cancelled bail granted by a Magistrate in a Magistrate-triable case with civil overtones on hyper-technical grounds under Rule 183 of the Calcutta Criminal Rules. It also expunged adverse directions against the Magistrate and advised High Courts to use a confidential remark-slip mechanism instead of strictures in judicial orders.

• RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR. versus BHAVNA SETH & ORS.

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 479

  The Supreme Court upheld a decree for specific performance of a 1988 agreement to sell agricultural land. The first appellate court's findings on extension of time, cash payment and readiness and willingness were findings of fact, not perverse, and could not be reopened in second appeal. The plaintiff's absence from the witness box was cured by his Manager's first-hand evidence, and no price escalation was proved to make the decree inequitable. The defendants' transfers pending litigation were held non est.

• MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) & ORS. versus R Z MALPANI

  09/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 86

  The Supreme Court set aside an ex parte Section 11 appointment of an arbitrator. A letter of intent that only enabled preliminaries pending a work order and formal agreement did not create a concluded contract, and even otherwise its general reference to the tender documents did not incorporate their arbitration clause under Section 7(5). So no arbitration agreement existed even prima facie.

• HEM RAJ versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  08/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 67

  Offences under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act are independent offences that attract separate punishment, borrowed by reference from the principal offence, so a separate sentence alongside Section 20(b)(ii)(C) was lawful; but where the sentences run concurrently the fine, being part of the sentence, cannot be exacted twice. The appellant, having served about 11 years including default imprisonment, was ordered to be released.

• K.G. SESHADRI versus THE TRUSTEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  08/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 433

  A former clerk of the State Bank of India was held not entitled to pension. Under Rules 20 and 7 of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955, pensionable service runs from confirmation, which gave him less than twenty years. He had not reached fifty, so Rule 22(i)(a) did not apply. Rule 22(i)(c) did not apply because his service ended by voluntary abandonment, not voluntary retirement.

• M/S CHOPRA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS.

  08/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 444

  A hotel owner whose building plans and representations were rejected in reliance on a High Court interim order keeping the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 in abeyance was held to be at least a proper party to the writ petition challenging those Rules. The Supreme Court allowed its impleadment and directed that its separate appeal and revision be heard together, independently of the parent writ.

• UCO BANK & ORS. versus SK SHRIVASTAVA

  07/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 37

  Under the proviso to Regulation 29(2) of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, a notice of voluntary retirement takes effect on expiry of the notice period unless the appointing authority refuses it within that period. A show-cause notice that does not show an intention to start disciplinary proceedings does not stop this, so the later charge-sheet and dismissal were unsustainable and the bank's appeals were dismissed.

• THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD & ORS. versus DIPENDU BISWAS & ORS.

  07/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 600

  A post horizontally reserved for persons with low vision (PWD-LV) in the Unreserved category is open on merit to PWD-LV candidates of every social category. A more meritorious OBC-A candidate with low vision was therefore rightly appointed over a less meritorious unreserved PWD-LV candidate. The notification's clause allowing PWD candidates of other categories only if no qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate was available did not bar this; it merely stated the obvious.

• GAUTAM SATNAMI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  07/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 417

  A murder conviction resting only on circumstantial evidence was set aside. The 'last seen' witness was possibly interested and his identification at night was doubtful. The axe recovery was not linked to the deceased's injuries, and the co-accused had been acquitted on the same recovery evidence. The licence recovery, the prior threat and the motive were not established. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt.

• RENUKA versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

  07/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 26

  Where the drawer admitted issuing and signing the cheque and its dishonour, notice and the timely complaint were undisputed, the Sessions Court in revision could not set aside the summoning order under Section 138 of the NI Act by holding at the pre-trial stage that the cheque was not for a legally enforceable debt; the Section 139 presumption can be rebutted only at trial. The complaint was restored.

• SIVAKUMAR versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  06/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 368

  In a fatal assault arising from a boundary dispute between relatives, the Supreme Court set aside both appellants' convictions under Section 294(b) IPC, since calling a person 'bastard' is not obscene. It set aside A-1's conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC for want of shared common intention and kept his Section 324 conviction. It upheld A-2's conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC for a single blow with a log but cut his sentence from five to three years.

• DR. S. BALAGOPAL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

  06/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 381

  A paediatric surgeon was prosecuted for removing a child's undescended testicle (orchidectomy) allegedly without consent and for interpolating the procedure in the consent form. As the Medical Board found orchidectomy an appropriate alternative, the signed consent form listed both procedures separated by a slash, and there was no material of a different ink or handwriting, continuing the prosecution was an abuse of process and it was quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

• SAVE MON REGION FEDERATION & ANR. versus THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

  06/04/2026 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 1

  In a PIL under Article 32 alleging favouritism in the award of public works in Arunachal Pradesh to the Chief Minister, other respondents and related firms, the Court directed the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry for 2015 to 2025. The CAG report and the record showed repeated use of non-tender methods without recorded reasons and missing vouchers and tender records, and high public functionaries were implicated. The State's reliance on small aggregate percentages and on a statute allowing work orders without tender did not answer these concerns.

• SAJAL BOSE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

  06/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 398

  The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet under various IPC sections against three appellants in a dispute between neighbours in an apartment building. The FIR attributed no specific act of assault to them. The CCTV footage that formed part of the chargesheet showed they arrived after the altercation and tried to calm it down. The High Court had also given no reason for refusing them the relief it granted to two co-accused.

• PUNJAB & SIND BANK versus SH. RAJ KUMAR

  02/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 350

  The High Court had replaced the dismissal of a bank's senior manager with compulsory retirement because co-delinquents (a junior officer and a gunman) received lighter penalties. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal. It held that his higher rank and the greater trust placed in him justified a harsher penalty, so the differential punishment was neither shockingly disproportionate nor a breach of Article 14.

• SHANKAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  02/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 298

  The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of the appellant for murdering his wife by setting her on fire, resting on her dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate after a doctor certified her fit to speak and corroborated by medical evidence. Objections to the declaration's recording and an allegation of tutoring were rejected. The Court added a postscript on the persistence of violence against women despite laws and schemes.

• M/S A.K.G. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  02/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 331

  After a reservoir dome under construction collapsed, the Court upheld the termination of the appellant's contract but set aside the five-year blacklisting. Blacklisting is distinct from termination and not its automatic consequence. Rule 10.5 of the Contractor Registration Rules, 2012 requires a specific show-cause notice proposing it, which the general notice issued here did not satisfy. Given the time that had passed, the blacklisting was directed to cease immediately rather than be redone.

• SAMARENDRA NATH KUNDU & ANR. versus SADHANA DAS & ANR.

  01/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 273

  The two police officers who were appellants could be removed from service without the Government's sanction, so Section 197(1) CrPC did not protect them, and an earlier quashing for want of sanction in a co-accused senior officer's case did not benefit them. A later State notification under Section 197(3), extending Section 197(2) to subordinate police ranks, did not affect cognizance validly taken years before it. The High Court's direction to proceed against them was upheld.

• JAI PRAKASH SAINI versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. & ORS.

  01/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 286

  The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a cooperative federation employee and the recovery ordered against him because the department examined no witness in the disciplinary enquiry although he had denied the charges; an evasive reply to a charge-sheet is not an admission. The Federation was given liberty to hold a fresh enquiry.

• J. SRI NISHA versus THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR.

  01/04/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 313

  The Competent Authority under Section 37A(3) of FEMA refused to confirm a seizure of the appellants' assets because there was no 'reason to believe' that foreign securities were held in breach of Section 4, and the Directorate's appeal against that refusal was pending. The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly refused to entertain the writ against the show cause notice and wrongly treated the refusal as irrelevant. The Adjudicating Authority, relying on the High Court, had in effect overruled the Competent Authority while the appeal was pending. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and the adjudication order and directed that the appeal be decided first.

• SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus VIJAYA BANK

  19/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 221

  A State corporation's consumer complaint against a bank, which had adjusted its Rs. 9 crore fixed deposit against an overdraft the corporation said was fraudulently created on a pledge of that deposit, was held not maintainable before the NCDRC. Although merely earning interest on a deposit does not make banking service commercial, the complaint turned on allegations of fraud and forgery fit for a civil or criminal court.

• V. GANESAN versus STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

  19/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 239

  Quashing a cheating case against a film producer who took money for a movie on a promise of a share in profits, the Court held that the movie was in fact made and released, there was no allegation that it earned profits, and the dishonoured post-dated cheques were issued to discharge an existing liability; no dishonest intention at inception was shown and the dispute was civil.

• VIRINDER PAL SINGH versus PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS.

  19/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 249

  The Supreme Court upheld a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages imposed on a bank officer after he superannuated, in disciplinary proceedings begun before his retirement. Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations lets such proceedings continue as if he were in service, and the reduction can be implemented by recomputing pension. It also declined to reopen the finding that he failed to ensure end-use of a loan, a point not pressed before the High Court.

• R. HALLE versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

  18/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 202

  In a motor accident injury claim, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's unreasoned reduction of functional disability from 63% to 30% and, instead of remanding a decade-old case, assessed functional disability at 100% because the claimant's head injury left cognitive and other impairments that disabled him from working as a manager; compensation was enhanced to Rs.97,73,011 with 7.5% interest.

• CANARA BANK OVERSEAS BRANCH REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER versus ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

  17/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 151

  A charterer retained US $100,000 of freight and, in letters including a 'Corporate Guarantee', undertook to pay it to a Dubai ship-repairer for repairs owed by the vessel owner; its bank then remitted the money to the owner by mistake. The Court held the charterer liable to the repairer as surety under Sections 126-128 of the Contract Act, with its recovery rights preserved, and upheld the third-party decree making the bank indemnify the charterer for disregarding its customer's instructions. Both appeals were dismissed.

• MOHAMMAD KALEEM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  17/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 586

  The complainant in a murder case challenged the refusal of the Trial Court and High Court to summon two persons as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on an allegation of conspiracy. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court had applied too high a standard, conducting a near mini-trial on minor contradictions and taking a fragmented view, and that sworn testimony of three witnesses met the 'strong and cogent' threshold. The proposed persons were ordered to be summoned.

• VISHVJEET AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  17/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 184

  In a writ petition under Article 32 by toll-plaza employees who were in custody for over two months after a scuffle with an advocate, and whom no local lawyer would represent after the Barabanki Bar resolved to boycott them and burnt the furniture of the one advocate who filed their bail plea, the Court held the continued denial of bail violated Article 21, ordered their release and transferred the case to the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

• SUBRAMANI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

  17/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 576

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of the appellant's acquittal for murdering his wife by setting her on fire with kerosene, and for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The conviction rested on four things: the eyewitness account of the couple's daughter; a dying declaration recorded by a police officer after the doctor certified the deceased as fit; the medical evidence; and the recovery of a kerosene tin and matchbox from the scene.

• BHOLA MAHTO versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

  16/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 191

  A convict who was on bail heard nothing of his criminal appeal for two decades. When it was finally listed, the High Court appointed an amicus because his counsel was absent and altered his murder conviction to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Supreme Court refused to let him raise unargued grounds for the first time, but held that he should have been notified of the amicus's appointment. It remanded the appeal for a fresh hearing, restored his bail, and suggested a notice procedure for future cases where an amicus is appointed for an absent convict.

• MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  13/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 58

  The Mizo Chief Council's Article 32 petition, filed in 2014 against the 1955 vesting of the chiefs' Ram in the State under the Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief's Rights) Act, 1954, was not thrown out for delay. Under Article 32 the test is unexplained delay, and the State had repeatedly held out hope of a settlement. It failed on merits. The petitioner did not prove that the chiefs owned the land, and so showed no breach of the right to property under the former Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. Its claim to parity with the privy purses of Princely State rulers was not a legally enforceable right.

• MANOHAR LAL versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

  12/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 358

  The Court quashed the dismissal of a Delhi Police constable under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) without a departmental inquiry. The finding that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable rested on the presumption of the preliminary inquiry officer: none of the recorded witness statements showed any threat or intimidation, and the constable was in custody when dismissed. He was reinstated with 50% back wages, leaving the department free to hold a regular inquiry.

• RAVI KHOKHAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  12/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 112

  Employees of the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petitions on pay revision as not maintainable. The Supreme Court held AFGIS to be 'State' under Article 12. It relied on compulsory membership and pay deductions, administration entirely by serving IAF officers, Presidential sanction and IAF monitoring, its public function of insuring armed forces personnel, and its own claim to be 'Government' for tax purposes. The writ petition was restored to the High Court.

• M. THANIGIVELU AND ORS. versus TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

  11/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 432

  In a seniority dispute between Assistant Engineers recruited directly in 2000-2001 and internal candidates promoted in 2002, the Court held under the TNEB Service Regulations that training is part of duty and of appointment to the service. Seniority runs from the direct recruits' initial joining, not from the start of probation. The High Court's direction to treat all as appointed in 2002 and redraw the seniority list was set aside.

• SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  11/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 556

  Affirming the High Court's acquittal of a son and daughter-in-law accused of burning his parents to death in their thatched house, the Court restated the principles on dying declarations and found none of the written or oral declarations credible. The prosecution rested on motive and interested witnesses; independent witnesses were not examined, the cause of the fire was never investigated, and the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

• THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus RAJKUMAR YADAV

  11/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 448

  The Supreme Court restored a police screening committee's rejection of a candidate for constable (driver) who had been acquitted, on benefit of doubt, of kidnapping and rape charges. An acquittal on benefit of doubt is not an honourable acquittal, and the Division Bench of the High Court wrongly intruded into the screening committee's discretion to judge suitability.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER, ETC.

  11/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 1

  OBC candidates in the Civil Services Examination were treated as creamy layer because their parents, employed in PSUs, banks or private firms whose posts had no established equivalence with Government posts, earned salaries above the income limit. DoPT had applied paragraph 9 of its 2004 clarificatory letter. The Supreme Court held that the letter could not override the 1993 Office Memorandum, which makes exclusion status-based, and that salary income alone cannot decide creamy layer status. Treating wards of PSU or private employees differently from wards of similarly placed Government employees was hostile discrimination. The Union's appeals were dismissed and supernumerary posts directed.

• MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI versus M/S R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED

  11/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 525

  Upholding an arbitral award against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Court held that the arbitration clause allowing the ICSID Secretary General to appoint the presiding arbitrator if the co-arbitrators failed to do so within 30 days was only an enabling fallback, triggered on a party's request, and did not end the co-arbitrators' power to appoint. The Corporation's silence through three such appointments confirmed that reading.

• POORANMAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 314

  The appellant, convicted with the deceased's husband for her murder on circumstantial evidence, appealed through legal aid after long delay. The Supreme Court acquitted him: the recovery of currency notes was doubtful and not linked to the crime, the recovery of a blood-stained shirt was unnatural and the FSL report was worthless for want of an unbroken chain of custody, and the call detail records were inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate.

• RAMADEBI RAUTRAY versus STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 140

  The Court upheld the concurrent findings disqualifying the returned candidate under the two-child bar in Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, and held that, as she and the election petitioner were the only two contestants for Chairman, the Election Tribunal rightly declared the election petitioner duly elected under Sections 44-E and 44-J(2)(b); directing a fresh election after over three years of litigation was unwarranted.

• CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus BALJEET SINGH

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 415

  In a CBI trap case, the High Court acquitted an Income Tax Inspector (A2) and the Assessing Officer (A1) of conspiracy and bribery. The Supreme Court agreed that conspiracy and any demand by A1 were not proved. But a separate charge of demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act stood independently against A2, and it was proved by the complainant, the trap laying officer, partly hostile independent witnesses, the recovery of marked notes and the phenolphthalein test. A2's conviction under Section 7 was restored with a reduced sentence of one year.

• PANNALAL BHANSALI versus BHARTI TELECOM LIMITED & ORS.

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 493

  The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by minority shareholders of Bharti Telecom Limited against confirmation of a selective reduction of share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that the NCLAT bench composition was lawful, Section 66 does not require a valuation report so the notice was not a 'tricky notice', the valuer was not shown to be biased, and applying a discount for lack of marketability to unlisted, illiquid shares was not unreasonable; the price of Rs.196.80 per share fixed by the NCLT was fair.

• REGISTRAR CANE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS. versus GURDEEP SINGH NARVAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 301

  The Supreme Court held that the Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies at Bajpur and Gadarpur in Uttarakhand did not become Multi-State Cooperative Societies under Section 103 of the 2002 Act, because they had been reorganised under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, which has overriding effect, and their objects were confined to one State.

• RACHANA GANGU & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 393

  Families of persons who died or were injured after COVID-19 vaccination sought an inquiry, AEFI protocols and compensation. Without deciding causation or questioning vaccine approval, the Court held that Article 21 places a positive duty on the State: those suffering serious adverse events in a State-led mass immunisation programme should not be left only to fault-based remedies. It directed the Union to frame a no-fault compensation policy and declined to constitute an independent expert body.

• ANURAG KRISHNA SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

  10/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 465

  The Court struck down the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. The Act vested a century-old trust institution in the State and dissolved the trust without any inquiry or finding of mismanagement, with less drastic means available, compensation capped at one rupee, and the same outcome as a lapsed 1983 ordinance. The High Court also erred in deciding the case on the unpleaded footing that the trust was public.

• GOBIND SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  09/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 277

  The plaintiffs claimed title to land in Gwalior through an earlier ex parte decree obtained against the State without impleading the Union of India. The High Court in first appeal dismissed their suit without deciding their Order XLI Rule 27 CPC application, but later rejected it in review. The Supreme Court held that this caused no miscarriage of justice: the Rule permits additional evidence only in narrow circumstances, and the proposed General Land Register entries could not cure the foundational defect in the plaintiffs' title. The appeals were dismissed.

• ABHISHEK SHARMA versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

  09/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 335

  Paramedical staff engaged in Government Medical Colleges on an 'academic arrangement' basis under SRO 384 of 2009 were excluded by Section 3(b) of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 from regularisation available to ad hoc, contractual and consolidated appointees. The Supreme Court held that the academic-arrangement rules were in substance the same as the 2003 contractual rules. Because the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the Act's object, the Court declared it unconstitutional under Article 14 and directed that the appellants be considered for regularisation under Section 5.

• DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

  09/03/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 293

  The High Court quashed dowry-cruelty proceedings against the complainant's sister-in-law because the allegations were general and omnibus, but refused the same relief to her parents-in-law. The Supreme Court held that the allegations against the parents-in-law were materially identical, with no specific overt act attributed to them. Taken with the filing of the complaint about a year after the husband's divorce petition, this did not justify continuing the case, so the proceedings were quashed against them.

• PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

  18/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 266

  Librarians appointed by Bihar in 2010 were dismissed because their 2004 B.Lib degrees came from a Chhattisgarh private university whose enabling Act was struck down in 2005. The Court held that students who had studied and passed out before that judgment were not at fault and should not lose the benefit of their degrees, and ordered reinstatement with continuity but without back wages.

• ROHIT JANGDE versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  17/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 231

  The stepfather of a six-year-old girl was convicted of her murder on circumstantial evidence: last seen together, recovery of bone remnants at his instance, and a DNA match. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that the last-seen theory collapsed on the record, that the recovery statement was not admissible under Section 27 because he was not in police custody and was usable only as conduct under Section 8, and that the remaining circumstances did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• RAKESH MITTAL versus AJAY PAL GUPTA @ SONU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER

  17/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 220

  The complainant appealed against a High Court order granting bail on grounds of parity to an accused in a large foodgrain-supply cheating and forgery case. The Supreme Court set the bail aside. The High Court had ignored the accused's criminal antecedents, his many aliases and forged identity documents, his absconding after earlier bail, and the fact that the offences alleged, including those under Sections 409 and 467 IPC, were not necessarily triable by a Magistrate.

• PARAMESHWARI versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

  17/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 243

  In revision, the High Court upheld the convictions of two accused for stabbing the victim (Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC) but cut their three-year rigorous imprisonment to the two months already served, offsetting it with enhanced fines paid as compensation. On appeal by the victim's widow, the Supreme Court set that aside: compensation to the victim adds to the sentence and cannot replace it, lapse of time alone is not decisive, and the High Court gave no proper reasons. The trial court's sentence was restored and the Court set out factors for sentencing.

• MANOJ versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  13/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 144

  The appellants' conviction under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for storing diverted Government-quota cement was set aside because, by the date of the alleged offence in 1994, price and distribution controls on cement and the State's delegated licensing power had been withdrawn, and the prosecution proved no subsisting control order whose breach could be an offence.

• HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

  13/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 179

  The Court quashed a change of land use (CLU) granted for a cement grinding unit on land zoned rural agricultural under the Sangrur Master Plan. A CLU cannot override an operative Master Plan, and a later ex post facto Planning Board approval cannot cure that defect or amend the Plan without the statutory procedure; siting norms had also not been shown to be met before the pollution NOC was granted. In connected Article 32 petitions, it quashed the CPCB's 2025 reclassification of stand-alone grinding units from Red to Orange, and the related relaxation of siting safeguards, as violating Articles 14 and 21.

• ZUBAIR. P versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  13/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 125

  For appointment as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in a subject, the State Eligibility Test (SET) under Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules must be passed in that subject. The rule does not repeat the words 'in the concerned subject', but SET is itself a subject-wise test and the rule must be read purposively. The appellant, who had SET in Malayalam and less than ten years' approved high school service, was not qualified for HSST (Economics), and the High Court's decision in favour of respondent no. 4 was upheld.

• THE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION versus ANNA NAGAR CRICKET CLUB & ANR. ETC.

  13/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 160

  The Madras High Court required a district cricket association to follow the sports-governance directions issued in S. Nithya (an athletics case), including that office bearers be sportspersons and 75% of members be eminent sportspersons. The Supreme Court held those directions inapplicable to cricket, which is governed by the BCCI judgment, and held that the BCCI judgment does not require district associations to copy the BCCI Constitution. It urged State associations to drive governance reforms and left membership disputes to pending proceedings.

• R. SAVITHRI NAIDU versus M/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

  12/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 113

  A person who bought the judgment-debtor company's property in 2015, after an arbitral award for money had been passed against the company in 2001, is a transferee pendente lite. Order XXI Rule 102 CPC bars such a buyer from resisting execution, and lis pendens applies even to a money award. Because the buyer had not shown that she bought without notice, the dismissal of her claim petition against the attachment was upheld.

• UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. versus SGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

  12/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 615

  Arrears of disability pension, including broad banding, recognised by Union of India v. Ram Avtar (10.12.2014) and by the Union's own policy decisions, cannot be restricted to three years before the original application. The right to approach the Tribunal accrued only with that judgment, the Union had by its order of 18.04.2016 accepted payment from the specified cut-off dates, and curtailing accrued arrears would offend Article 300A.

• HEMLATA EKNATH PISE versus SHUBHAM BAHU-UDDESHIYA SANSTHA WADDHAMNA & ORS.

  11/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 610

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had remanded a teacher's dismissal dispute to the School Tribunal on a single point (the Secretary's authorisation to initiate proceedings) without examining the other issues, and sent the writ petition back to the High Court for a full decision on all claims and defences.

• N. MANOHARAN, ETC. versus THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHER

  11/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 596

  The Supreme Court held that retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant, Tuticorin, which is an adjunct of the Department of Atomic Energy and not a separate legal entity, fall within the exclusionary limb of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, so they cannot claim differential gratuity under that Act over what was paid under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

• K. RAJAIAH versus THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

  11/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 68

  The Court set aside the dismissal of a court attender charged with unauthorised absence and with submitting a fabricated medical certificate. A thirteen-day delay in explaining was not unreasonable, and the forgery finding was perverse: the doctor admitted treating him, owning the letterhead and not disputing the rubber stamp, yet the Inquiry Officer neither compared the handwritten certificate with the doctor's admitted signatures nor sought a handwriting expert. The appellant was reinstated with full back wages.

• DR. ANAND RAI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

  10/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 45

  The Court quashed charges under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act framed against the appellant over a scuffle at a public event, because nothing on record showed that he knew the victim's caste or that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. It also held that the High Court, as first appellate court under Section 14-A, had failed to examine the SC/ST charges independently.

• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NAMATARA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

  09/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 103

  The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Odisha's special leave petition as time-barred, holding that an explanation attributing delay to procedural approvals from higher authorities was a lame excuse and not sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, despite the latitude ordinarily shown to the State.

• SUMIT versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  09/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 87

  The High Court granted the appellant, the deceased's brother-in-law, anticipatory bail in a dowry-death case but limited it to the filing of the chargesheet, and later refused a fresh application without reasons. The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail ordinarily continues without a fixed expiry, that an expiry clause tied to the chargesheet cannot be imposed at the outset without special reasons, and it granted anticipatory bail. It also set out how bail is dealt with when graver offences are added after bail is granted.

• ITC LIMITED versus AASHNA ROY

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 455

  On remand for assessing only the quantum of compensation for a deficient hotel-salon haircut, the National Commission again awarded ₹2 crore on the strength of photocopied documents. The Supreme Court held that a claim running into crores must be proved by trustworthy evidence. Photocopies that the appellant denied, whose authors were never examined and whose discrepancies were unexplained, could not support it. Compensation was restricted to the ₹25 lakh already released.

• V. PATHMAVATHI & ORS. versus BHARTHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR.

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 436

  In a fatal motor accident claim, the Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 20,80,000: the victim's income had to be taken at Rs. 10,000 a month as proved by an unimpeached salary certificate and employer's affidavit, and a 40% addition for future prospects under Pranay Sethi was mandatory for a fixed-salary earner under 40. Loss of love and affection could not be awarded as a separate head, being subsumed in spousal, parental and filial consortium, although the Court voiced reservations about that exclusion.

• JANE KAUSHIK versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 176

  On a miscellaneous application by the Amicus Curiae, the Court added a Senior Associate of the Centre for Law and Policy Research to the Advisory Committee on transgender rights constituted by its judgment of 17.10.2025, while clarifying that the earlier member, who had left the Centre, would continue on the Committee.

• THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER versus T. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 576

  The Court upheld the High Court's second-appeal judgment restoring the decree that declared void the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff's brother under a disputed power of attorney. The defendant relied only on a notarised photocopy of the power of attorney, without laying the foundation for secondary evidence, so it was no evidence of a power to sell. The first appellate court had acted on inadmissible evidence, and correcting that was within Section 100 CPC.

• M/S. NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN SINGH versus THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA RANCHI, JHARKHAND

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 406

  The Court interpreted Section 8 of the PMLA and held that the Special Court cannot decide an application for confiscation under Section 8(7) while an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order under Section 8(3) is pending; the confirmation order must first become final. The confiscation order passed during the pendency of the appellant's appeal was set aside and the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was restored. The appellant's restoration claim under Section 8(8) was held not maintainable.

• STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus JAI HIND PVT. LTD.

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 497

  In 2008, on a State Government direction following a settlement proposal, a Revenue Officer reviewed a 1971 order under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act that had vested a company's agricultural land in the State; the High Court upheld the review. The Supreme Court held that the review was without jurisdiction and void: a quasi-judicial authority has no review power unless the statute expressly confers it, and Section 57A's grant of civil court powers does not include review. The review also failed on the Order XLVII Rule 1 grounds, and the 1971 vesting order was restored.

• AMIT KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  06/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 402

  On an interlocutory application in a pending criminal appeal, the Supreme Court directed that a former Chief Statistician of India be appointed Technical Consultant to the National Task Force to analyse survey data, with the Ministry of Education to issue the appointment and provide support and remuneration.

• REGINAMARY CHELLAMANI versus STATE REP BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

  05/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 398

  The Supreme Court granted regular bail to an NDPS accused who had been in custody for over four years and whose co-accused on the same flight had already been granted bail, and directed trial courts to inform accused persons of their right to legal representation and legal aid, and to record that offer, before witnesses are examined.

• SHASHIN PATEL AND ANR. versus UDAY DALAL AND ORS.

  05/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 381

  The Supreme Court recognised the legal heirs of a long-standing occupant of a flat as members of a co-operative housing society despite their very late payment of the membership contribution. The society had offered membership and resolved in 2005 to admit their predecessor, the heirs had pursued statutory remedies, and the general body later ratified their membership and the transfer to a purchaser. The High Court's contrary directions were set aside, leaving objecting members free to seek enhanced interest.

• DORAIRAJ versus DORAISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

  05/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 545

  In a family partition suit over agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's second-appeal judgment. The plaintiff had proved income-yielding ancestral property and acquisitions made while the family was joint, so the burden shifted to the appellant to prove self-acquisition, which he failed to do. Sales by the karta without proved legal necessity, and an unregistered Will made in suspicious circumstances, did not defeat the partition.

• MOHTASHEM BILLAH MALIK versus SANA AFTAB

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 352

  In a custody dispute over two minor sons, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order restoring custody to the mother and remanded the matter, because the High Court had treated factors such as the parties' conduct as irrelevant and ignored the revocation of the mother's custody by the Qatar court, the contempt finding against her, and the children's stated wishes.

• PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ORS.

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 481

  A closure report in a gang-rape FIR had been accepted by the Magistrate in 2015. Years later, on a State communication issued after NHRC directions, a Superintendent of Police directed further investigation without the Magistrate's leave. The Supreme Court held that only the Magistrate or a higher court can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, and that police wanting it must apply to the court. It quashed both the State communication and the Superintendent's order.

• ANKHIM HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus ZAVERI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 28

  A High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may only appoint a substitute arbitrator under the rules that governed the original appointment. It cannot declare the arbitral tribunal's earlier proceedings and orders a nullity, here on the ground that the corporate debtor was under an IBC moratorium. That part of the High Court's order was set aside, and under Article 142 the transactions made pursuant to the tribunal's orders were declared valid.

• VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER versus M/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 370

  The NCDRC dismissed a flat buyer's complaint on the ground that leasing the flat after possession made the purchase one for a commercial purpose. The Supreme Court held that the builder bore the onus of proving the exclusion and had not shown that the dominant purpose of the purchase was profit generation; mere leasing does not attract the exclusion. The complaint was restored to the NCDRC for decision on merits.

• U.P. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL COUNCIL INSTRUCTOR WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 323

  The Supreme Court held that instructors engaged since 2013 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/Samagra Shiksha scheme in U.P. upper primary schools, nominally part-time and contractual, are in substance full-time teachers on deemed substantive posts. Their honorarium cannot remain fixed and, once raised, cannot be cut. Since the Project Approval Board had approved Rs.17,000 a month for 2017-18, they are entitled to that rate from 2017-18 until revised. The State must pay first and recover the Centre's share.

• M/S EMINENT COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 3 S.C.R. 1

  Where an arbitrator was appointed under Section 11(6) before the 2015 amendments, in the SBP & Co. regime, and the appointment order went unchallenged, the Supreme Court held that the order impliedly decided the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and bound the parties as res judicata, so the Section 34 court and High Court erred in setting aside the awards on the ground that Clause 23 was not an arbitration clause; the matters were remitted for the other objections.

• RUPESH KUMAR MEENA versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

  04/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 362

  An IPS officer of the 2004 batch allocated to the Tamil Nadu cadre sought re-allocation, years later, to a Rajasthan 'insider' vacancy declined by the two candidates above him in merit. The Court refused, holding that cadre allocation must attain finality and cannot be reopened down the merit list after many years.

• P. SURESH versus D.KALAIVANI & ORS

  03/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 558

  The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot use its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject or strike off a plaint when Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides a specific remedy, and that Order VI Rule 16 CPC, which allows striking out parts of pleadings, cannot be used to strike out a whole plaint. The suit was restored, with liberty to the defendants to apply under Order VII Rule 11.

• C. VELUSAMY versus K INDHERA

  03/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 295

  The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator's mandate is maintainable even after the statutory and consensual periods have expired and even after the arbitrator has made an award in the meantime; such an award is unenforceable, but the arbitrator's indiscretion does not curtail the Court's power to extend. The High Court's dismissal of the extension application as not maintainable was set aside.

• RAJIA BEGUM versus BARNALI MUKHERJEE

  02/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 270

  Rajia Begum relied on a 2007 deed of admission and retirement, containing an arbitration clause, to claim a stake in a partnership firm; Barnali Mukherjee alleged the deed was forged. The Court held that where the very existence of the arbitration agreement is seriously disputed on allegations of forgery, the dispute is not arbitrable at that stage: it set aside the High Court's Article 227 order referring the civil suit to arbitration and upheld the refusal to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11.

• THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

  02/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 285

  In Tamil Nadu's original suit against Karnataka over check dams and diversion works on the inter-State Pennaiyar river, the Court found that the statutory negotiation process under the Central Government had failed. It directed the Centre to constitute an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal within one month and disposed of the suit, leaving all questions open for the Tribunal.

• SANDEEP SINGH BORA versus NARENDRA SINGH DEOPA & ORS.

  02/02/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 257

  A Division Bench of the High Court, on an intra-court appeal, had stayed the dismissal of a writ petition and directed that a candidate whose nomination for Zila Panchayat Member had been rejected be allotted a symbol and allowed to contest. The Supreme Court set that interim order aside. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and the remedy of an election petition under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 bar interference under Article 226 during the election process, and the appellant had already been declared elected unopposed without being heard.

• HT MEDIA LIMITED versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

  16/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 904

  The Supreme Court held that fees paid by HT Media through foreign booking agents to secure speakers for its Leadership Summit were not taxable as 'event management service' under Section 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act, 1994, because the contracts were for booking speakers, not for planning, promoting, organising or presenting the event; the CESTAT order confirming the demand was set aside.

• X versus O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF PEOPLE & ORS.

  16/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 200

  A High Court Judge challenged the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker alone, arguing that because removal notices were given in both Houses on the same day, the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 required a joint committee. The Court held that the proviso applies only where the motion is admitted in both Houses; the Deputy Chairman, performing the Chairman's duties under Article 91 while the office was vacant, validly refused admission in the Rajya Sabha, so the Speaker could act alone. The writ petition was dismissed.

• STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus CHAMAN LAL

  15/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 821

  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal of a husband charged with murdering his wife by setting her on fire and restored his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The wife's dying declaration was recorded by the Tehsildar after medical certification of fitness and was voluntary, truthful and reliable. The High Court had rejected it on minor discrepancies about the time of recording and on whether the Tehsildar wrote it himself, which were hyper-technical grounds, and had relied on hostile and defence witnesses who did not deserve credit.

• ELEGNA CO-OP. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL SOCIETY LTD. versus EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

  15/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 850

  The Supreme Court upheld the NCLAT's admission of a real estate developer into CIRP on a Section 7 IBC petition by an asset reconstruction company, holding that once financial debt and default are established, project viability, unsold inventory and parallel SARFAESI/DRT recovery are no grounds to refuse admission. It also upheld rejection of a homebuyers' maintenance society's intervention for want of locus at the pre-admission stage, and issued prospective directions to Committees of Creditors in real estate CIRPs.

• DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  13/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 168

  Although relief for the petitioner, whose children were denied admission under the 25% quota in 2016, was no longer possible, the Supreme Court used the petition to examine how Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act is implemented. It set out the duty bearers under the Act and the constitutional purpose of the quota. Holding that the NCPCR's admission SOP is only a set of guidelines, it directed the appropriate Governments to frame binding rules under Section 38 of the Act, impleaded the NCPCR to collate compliance, and kept the matter pending.

• SUJATA BORA versus COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

  13/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 590

  The Supreme Court held that a candidate who applied for Management Trainee at Coal India in the visually handicapped category, and was declared unfit because she also had partial hemiparesis, was wrongly denied employment; an AIIMS board assessed her disability at 57%, above the 40% benchmark. Relying on reasonable accommodation, Articles 14, 21 and 41 and Article 142, the Court directed creation of a supernumerary post for her.

• KANCHANA RAI versus GEETA SHARMA & ORS.

  13/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 191

  A daughter-in-law whose husband died after her father-in-law is a 'dependant' under Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and may claim maintenance from his estate under Section 22. The words 'any widow of his son' are not limited to the widow of a predeceased son. A narrower reading would also offend Articles 14 and 21. The High Court's finding that her petition was maintainable was upheld.

• KISHORILAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS. versus GOPAL & ORS.

  12/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 144

  The Supreme Court held that a first appeal against a decree of specific performance did not abate when one of the four substituted legal heirs of the deceased vendor-appellant died and his heirs were not substituted in time, because the vendor's estate remained sufficiently represented by the other heirs and the lis pendens purchasers on record; the High Court's later contrary finding was also barred by res judicata. Both first appeals were restored.

• ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) versus M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  12/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 580

  A flat buyers' association sought to execute NCDRC orders passed against a builder company (then under CIRP moratorium) against its directors/promoters. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's refusal: the complaints had been admitted and decided only against the company, execution cannot go beyond the order, and no basis for personal liability or veil-piercing had been pleaded or adjudicated.

• X versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

  09/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 484

  The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused charged with repeated armed sexual assault of a minor girl under the BNS and POCSO Act, holding that the High Court ignored the gravity of the offences, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, the filed chargesheet, the victim's statements and the risk of intimidation, and relied on inapposite precedents.

• THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus ANURUDH & ANR

  09/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 770

  The Court set aside general directions issued by the Allahabad High Court, while deciding a POCSO bail application, that police must obtain a medical age-determination report of every victim at the start of investigation and that bail courts may test the correctness of age documents. Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to granting or refusing bail, and a victim's age is decided at trial under the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy, where medical tests are a last resort.

• M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI

  09/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 517

  The Supreme Court held that when shares of an amalgamating company held as stock-in-trade are replaced by shares of the amalgamated company, the substitution gives rise to business income taxable under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act if the new shares are realisable in money and capable of definite valuation. The charge arises only on allotment of the new shares, not on the appointed date or on sanction of the scheme. The High Court's remand to the Tribunal to decide whether the shares were stock-in-trade or capital assets was affirmed.

• YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

  09/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 439

  The Court held that an offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, which is punishable only through Section 447, is an 'offence covered under section 447', so the Special Court cannot take cognizance of it on a private complaint without a complaint by the SFIO Director or an authorised Central Government officer. It quashed the Companies Act part of the complaint but sent the IPC offences to the court of territorial jurisdiction.

• THE JOINT DIRECTOR (RAYALASEEMA), ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P. & ANR. ETC. versus DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO ETC.

  08/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 740

  The High Court quashed a batch of Prevention of Corruption Act FIRs registered at the ACB Central Investigation Unit, Vijayawada, holding that the office had never been notified as a police station under Section 2(s) CrPC after Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that the 2003 Government Order declaring the ACB Central Investigation Unit a police station for the whole State was 'law' that continued to apply under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and that the 2022 Government Order was merely clarificatory. The investigations were revived.

• SUMIT BANSAL versus M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER

  08/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 107

  Under Section 138 of the NI Act each dishonour of a cheque, followed by its own notice and non-payment, gives a separate cause of action, even if several cheques arise from one transaction. The High Court was wrong to quash, under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint on the firm's cheques because a complaint on the proprietor's personal cheques for the same liability was already pending. Whether the cheques were alternative securities, and whether any debt still existed, are questions for trial given the presumption under Section 139. The complainant's appeal was allowed and the accused proprietor's appeals were dismissed.

• C.S. PRASAD versus C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS

  08/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 424

  The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order quashing a cheating and forgery prosecution concerning three family settlement deeds, holding that the civil court's upholding of the deeds (still under appeal), the complainant's conduct in the civil suit and delay in complaining were not grounds to quash under Section 482 CrPC where the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offences.

• ROSHNI DEVI versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

  08/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 128

  A detention order under the Telangana preventive detention Act of 1986 against an alleged ganja peddler was quashed. It rested only on three registered crimes and the apprehension that she would reoffend if released on bail, and did not show how public order, as opposed to law and order, was affected. Where bail conditions are thought inadequate, the remedy is cancellation of bail, not preventive detention.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus BHAWANA MISHRA

  08/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 409

  Candidates who completed the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course from a government institution in Uttar Pradesh claimed direct appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses, relying on the State's past practice of appointing every pass-out. The Court held that admission to the course conferred no right to appointment, the doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply after the policy changed (private institutions admitted, selection moved to UPSSSC, rules framed in 2021), and there was no discrimination under Article 14; the High Court's directions were set aside.

• ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  08/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 467

  Heavy earth-moving and construction equipment vehicles (dumpers, loaders, excavators, surface miners, dozers, drills, rock breakers) used only inside the appellants' factory or enclosed premises, and carried there on trailers, are special-type vehicles excluded by the second limb of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They are not taxable under the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, both because Entry 57 of List II permits taxing only vehicles suitable for use on roads and because the First Schedule prescribes no rate for construction equipment vehicles.

• REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS

  07/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 206

  The High Court held that a Section 9 ad-interim injunction lapsed because arbitration had not commenced within 90 days, treating the later filing of the Section 11 petition as the date of commencement. The Supreme Court held that arbitral proceedings commence under Section 21 when the respondent receives the notice invoking arbitration, and that this date governs Section 9(2) and Rule 9(4) of the Karnataka 2001 Rules; since the notice had been received within time, it restored the injunction.

• JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. versus TUTICORIN PORT TRUST

  07/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 86

  The Court restored an arbitral award of idle-time compensation for a backhoe dredger, holding that a Division Bench hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot reinterpret contract clauses on merits when the arbitral tribunal's plausible interpretation has been upheld under Section 34.

• MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDU versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

  07/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 139

  The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused who had been summoned and arrested under Section 319 CrPC in a murder trial, and declined the State's plea to cancel anticipatory bail granted to two other accused summoned in the same way, stating the standard for bail to a person added as accused under Section 319.

• THE PROPERTY COMPANY (P) LTD. versus ROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA

  07/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 227

  The Company Law Board condoned a 249-day delay in an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 against a company's refusal to register transmission of shares, and the Calcutta High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the CLB, a quasi-judicial body not expressly empowered to apply the Limitation Act, could not condone delay under Section 5 or its underlying principles, through Regulation 44 of the CLB Regulations, or by retrospective use of Section 433 of the 2013 Act; the remedy was in any event time-barred under the 1956 Act.

• MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI versus SAKEENA BEEVI

  07/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 395

  The Supreme Court decreed specific performance of the agreement to sell for the respondent's 1/11th share in land on which a school stood. The respondent had herself sworn an undisputed affidavit dated 30 April 2013 ratifying her brother's acts as power of attorney holder and consenting to the transfer, so limitation ran from that date. Her claim that the power of attorney stood revoked in 2002 was contrary to the record, and the buyer's readiness and willingness was shown by his payment to the other eight co-sharers and the sale deed they executed. A connected interim order putting the school's management with the District Education Officer was set aside as no longer needed.

• S. NAGESH versus SHOBHA S. ARADHYA

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 183

  A Magistrate cannot take cognisance of a time-barred cheque-dishonour complaint and condone the delay afterwards. Under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act, the complainant must first satisfy the Court of sufficient cause, and the condonation must come before cognisance. Because cognisance here was taken on the day of filing and the two-day delay was condoned only five years later, the Court quashed the complaint.

• DIVJOT SEKHON versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 372

  For session-2024, after applications for MBBS/BDS admission under the Punjab sports quota had been submitted, the State and Baba Farid University changed the policy to count sports achievements in Classes IX and X as well as Classes XI and XII. The Court quashed the change. Changing the criteria midstream was arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, and the change was vitiated because it was made on the representation of a coach who did not disclose that his own daughter would gain from it. The two appellants were moved into the government medical college seats of the two beneficiaries, and the session-2025 aspirants were given liberty to approach the High Court again.

• UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED versus ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 130

  The Supreme Court held that a promoter's undertaking to arrange infusion of funds into the borrower so that the borrower could comply with financial covenants is not a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Contract Act, and upheld the rejection of the assignee creditor's Section 7 IBC application against the promoter.

• THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT versus CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 191

  Setting aside a High Court order that quashed a bribery-trap prosecution because the employee had been exonerated in departmental proceedings, the Court held that the exoneration was not on merits. It rested on the trap Inspector not being examined. Disciplinary and criminal proceedings conducted by different entities are independent, and the case is governed by Ajay Kumar Tyagi, not Radheshyam Kejriwal. The prosecution will continue.

• THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI versus KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 167

  Setting aside the Delhi High Court's answers to a reference, the Supreme Court held that where a criminal conspiracy leads to cheating of many depositors, the police may register one FIR and treat the other complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC; whether the offences form the same transaction, permitting joint charges and trial under Sections 220(1) and 223(a) and (d) CrPC, is for the Magistrate after investigation.

• DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA & OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 332

  The Supreme Court held that ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for excess land in Surat abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, because the State never took de facto possession: the mandatory Section 10(5) notice went to the original landholder's family and not to the appellants, who were in actual possession of the sub-plots, and a panchnama and revenue entry showed only paper possession; the appellants were held entitled to consequential reliefs.

• GOLDEN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 47

  The Ghaziabad Development Authority cancelled the appellant's highest bid (15.23% above the reserve price) for a 3150 sq. m. industrial plot, without notice, because much smaller plots in the same scheme had fetched higher per-square-metre prices. The Court held the cancellation arbitrary and based on an irrelevant comparison, since an expectation of a higher price is no ground to cancel a valid auction free of fraud or collusion; it set aside the High Court's orders and directed allotment to the appellant on re-deposit of the earnest money.

• UNION OF INDIA versus G. KIRAN & ORS.

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 141

  An SC candidate who cleared the Indian Forest Service preliminary examination only by the relaxed SC cut-off, but ranked above a general candidate in the final list, claimed the General Insider vacancy in the Karnataka cadre. The Supreme Court held that the preliminary examination is an integral stage of the examination, so relaxation availed there is relaxation 'at any stage' under the Exam Rules, 2013; such a candidate is not selected on general standards and cannot be allocated an unreserved vacancy under paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy.

• ARVIND DHAM versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 119

  The Court granted regular bail to the appellant, a former promoter of the Amtek group, in a money-laundering prosecution, holding that about 16 months of custody with no cognizance yet taken, investigation against him concluded, largely documentary evidence and no early prospect of trial violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21, despite the twin conditions in Section 45 PMLA.

• KADIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN versus THE MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS.

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 31

  A Storage Superintendent of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation was charge-sheeted after superannuation, and recovery of alleged losses was ordered. The Court held that Regulation 110 of the 1992 Regulations does not apply the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 automatically: the Corporation must consciously decide to adopt them. Even if Rule 27 applied, its mandatory requirement of Government sanction for each post-retirement proceeding was not met. The proceedings were quashed and retiral benefits ordered to be released.

• ABHAY KUMAR PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  06/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 62

  Recruitment of Assistant Engineers under Bihar's 2019 Rules was by written examination alone. After the examination, the provisional merit lists and document verification, the State inserted Rule 8(5) with retrospective effect, giving up to 25 marks and age relaxation for contractual experience. The Supreme Court held that the rules of the game could not be changed once the selection had reached that stage, and directed that the process be completed under the unamended 2019 Rules.

• GULFISHA FATIMA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 609

  In bail appeals arising from the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots (FIR No. 59 of 2020, charged under the UAPA and IPC), the Court held that prolonged incarceration does not automatically override the embargo in Section 43D(5) UAPA but triggers a structured, accused-specific scrutiny. Bail was refused to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, against whom the material prima facie showed a central planning role, with liberty to renew the prayer later; bail was granted to five appellants whose attributed roles were local and executory.

• M/S BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 303

  The Court restored an arbitral award in the contractor's favour, which the High Court had set aside on the view that the tribunal, constituted on the State's notice about one dispute, could not decide the contractor's other disputes for want of its own Section 21 notice. Section 21 only fixes when arbitration commences for limitation purposes and does not confine the tribunal's jurisdiction. The arbitration clause was wide, and by its conduct the State had thrown all the disputes open before the tribunal.

• NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 91

  An Additional Sessions Judge with 27 years' service was removed for granting bail in four Excise Act cases without referring to the twin conditions in Section 59-A, while citing that section in fourteen orders refusing bail. The Court held that misconduct cannot be inferred merely from judicial orders that are allegedly wrong or omit a statutory reference, absent material showing extraneous considerations. Finding the inquiry findings perverse and unsupported by evidence, it set aside the removal with full back wages.

• BHADRA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 30

  The Court set aside 'nil' arbitral awards made by a sole arbitrator whom the Chairman of the Airports Authority of India had appointed unilaterally under the licence agreement. The Chairman was ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule and so could not appoint anyone. Ineligibility can be waived only by an express written agreement made after the dispute arose, not by conduct. An award by an ineligible arbitrator is void and may be challenged at any stage, including for the first time under Section 34.

• ADANI POWER LTD. & ANR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 2 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court held that the Gujarat High Court's 2015 declaration that customs duty could not be levied on electricity cleared from the appellant's SEZ power plant to the Domestic Tariff Area was a declaration of law on the authority to levy, not confined to one notification or period. Later notifications imposing per-unit duty merely continued the same unauthorised levy, so the appellant was entitled to refund for 16.09.2010 to 15.02.2016 without separately challenging them.

• DHARMENDRA SHARMA versus M. ARUNMOZHI & ANR.

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 24

  In contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the Court's 2024 direction that the Agra Development Authority return non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 3,99,100, the Court, without going into the merits, directed the impleaded State of Uttar Pradesh to refund that sum to the petitioner upon return of the stamp papers, and closed the contempt against the Authority's officer.

• NAK ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. versus TARUN KESHRICHAND SHAH AND ORS.

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 504

  The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to implead the appellant, which claimed to be the corporate successor of a sub-tenant firm, as a defendant in the owners' suit for service charges. The appellant had not shown that it succeeded the firm, the owners sought no relief against it, the plaintiffs as dominus litis could not be made to add it, and it had delayed about nine years after learning of the suit. The decree is not to be enforced against the appellant.

• MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus SANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER

  05/01/2026 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 1

  The Supreme Court upheld the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a dispute over a Mumbai leave and licence agreement, holding that the referral court's inquiry is confined by Section 11(6A) to the existence of an arbitration agreement and that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 does not by its own force make the arbitration clause non-existent; arbitrability questions were left to the arbitrator.