C.A. No.-010693-010694 - 2026

Parties: SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA DEAD THROUGH LRS. vs M/S. BURMAH SHELL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (REGD) THROUGH MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER SH. P. JINDAL

Judge(s): JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

Area of Law: Arbitration Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the Delhi High Court’s decision to set aside concurrent orders of the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, and the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal under Section 76, which had directed the allotment of a plot to the appellant’s predecessor. The Court held that the High Court, exercising its certiorari jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, was justified in interfering as the Arbitrator and Tribunal had committed a patent error of law by ignoring crucial documentary evidence.

Your Subscription

Ask Junior Annual Subscription — ₹5,000 for 12 months (plus applicable taxes)

Your subscription is valid for 12 months from the date we activate your access.

For billing-related queries:
Please contact madhu@askjunior.ai and support@askjunior.ai

Read more

WPL/38052/2025 (9)

Parties: IBM India Private Limited Vs Union of India

Judge(s): HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDESH DADASAHEB PATIL

Area of Law: Tax Law

The High Court held that IBM India Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to a refund of the pre-deposit made under Section 107 of the MGST Act, 2017, proportionate to the demand dropped by the First Appellate Authority, despite the petitioner’s intention to appeal the remaining confirmed demand. The Court reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the refund application on the premise that the appellate proceedings had not attained “finality” because the petitioner intended to challenge the portion of the order that went against it. The decisive ground was that finality, for the purpose of refund, is achieved for the portion of the demand that has been set aside and against which the department has not appealed, thereby creating a statutory right to refund under Section 107(16) of the CGST Act. The Court relied on the principle established in Nelco Limited Vs. UoI (2002), affirmed by the Supreme Court,

Your Subscription

Ask Junior Annual Subscription — ₹5,000 for 12 months (plus applicable taxes)

Your subscription is valid for 12 months from the date we activate your access.

For billing-related queries:
Please contact madhu@askjunior.ai and support@askjunior.ai

Read more

Some of you wrote in the same day. A few within the hour, before we had even worked out how to take the money. We didn’t expect that, and we won’t forget it, you paid for something you had been getting free, on nothing but the argument tha…

Read more

CARAPL/23278/2026 (25)

Parties: Kiran Narendra Patkar Vs Milan Narendra Patkar

Judge(s): HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Area of Law: Arbitration Law

The Bombay High Court, exercising powers under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointed a Sole Arbitrator, holding that a prima facie arbitration agreement existed between the Applicant and Respondent No.1, despite allegations of forgery and fabrication of the Development Agreement. The Court, relying on Rajia Begum, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 135, acknowledged that serious allegations of fraud affecting the arbitration agreement itself render a dispute non-arbitrable, but clarified that a mere allegation is insufficient to halt arbitration if prima facie material supports the agreement’s existence.

Your Subscription

Ask Junior Annual Subscription — ₹5,000 for 12 months (plus applicable taxes)

Your subscription is valid for 12 months from the date we activate your access.

For billing-related queries:
Please contact madhu@askjunior.ai and support@askjunior.ai

Read more

C.A. No.-004477-004477 - 2010

Parties: UNION OF INDIA . vs THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

Judge(s): JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Area of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 4477 of 2010, delivered on August 25, 2026, by Nagarathna, J., overturned the Bombay High Court’s order dated July 28, 2009, which had quashed the Notification dated October 11, 2000. The Court held that the Commissioner of Customs (Import) validly exercised powers under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to approve the Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) as a custodian, thereby making it liable for customs duty on pilfered goods under Section 45(3). The Court reasoned that while Section 45(1) includes a saving clause, Section 45(3), inserted with a non-obstante clause, creates an independent and absolute statutory liability for customs duty on pilfered goods, distinct from the MbPT’s conditional civil liability as a bailee under Sections 42 and 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, read with the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Citing Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (AIR 1952 SC 369) and Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani (AIR 1954 SC 596), the Court clarified that a non-obstante clause overrides conflicting provisions in other laws, ensuring revenue protection where Section 13 of the Customs Act absolves the importer. The Court affirmed the quashing of show cause-cum-demand notices prior to October 11, 2000, as liability under Section 45(3) requires prior approval under Section 45(1).

C.A. No.-012020-012020 - 2026

Parties: MS TATA STEEL LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Judge(s): JUSTICE J. B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Area of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to M/s Tata Steel Limited under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for the financial years 2018-2019 to 2020-2021 was unsustainable and set it aside, along with the consequential Order-in-Original. The decisive ground was the Department’s failure to establish foundational facts demonstrating fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, which are indispensable for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74, as opposed to the normal three-year period under Section 73. The Court emphasized that mere mechanical recitation of terms like “suppression of facts” in the SCN, without specific factual allegations, does not constitute the requisite application of mind or satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Court rejected the Department’s reliance on Explanation 2 to Section 74, noting its omission, and found the argument of initiating proceedings before Section 73 limitation expired fallacious, as Section 73(10) pertains to the order, not the notice. The Court further observed that the Department’s transfer of the SCN to a ‘call book’ and contesting the audit objection before the Public Accounts Committee indicated a lack of satisfaction regarding the alleged suppression. While setting aside the SCN, the Court granted liberty to the Department to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 74, provided they are based on proper foundational facts and an order is passed before February 28, 2027, considering the extended limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic as per In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

Your Subscription

Ask Junior Annual Subscription — ₹5,000 for 12 months (plus applicable taxes)

Your subscription is valid for 12 months from the date we activate your access.

For billing-related queries:
Please contact madhu@askjunior.ai and support@askjunior.ai

Read more

C.A. No.-007474 - 2025

Parties: HAFIZ RASHID AHMED CHOUDHURY vs KRIPANATH MALLAH

Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Area of Law: Election Law

The Supreme Court, in Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors., reversed the High Court’s dismissal of an Election Petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RoP Act), holding that defects in the copy of Form-25 affidavit served on the respondent, specifically the absence of notarization indication, were not fatal to the maintainability of the entire petition. The Court decisively relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore (1963 SCC OnLine SC 129), which established that a defect in verification, even if not in the prescribed form, is not fatal to maintainability, and that “copy” in Section 81(3) RoP Act does not require an absolutely exact replica, but one that does not mislead. This precedent clarified that only those parts of the petition alleging corrupt practices, if unsupported by a properly attested Form-25, should be struck off, while other independent grounds must be tried on merits. The Court distinguished Dr. Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal (1996) 5 SCC 181, noting it was not overruled by T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose (1999) 4 SCC 274, and found T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian (2001) 8 SCC 358 erred in its understanding of T.M. Jacob. The High Court was directed to verify the original Form-25 attestation and proceed accordingly, either by disallowing corrupt practice allegations or considering all grounds on merits.

Crl.A. No.-001346-001346 - 2021

Parties: REJI BABY vs SUBI MARY

Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Area of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021, authored by Justice Manmohan, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order dated October 26, 2018, passed by the High Court of Kerala in CRL. MC No. 8568/2017, and quashed proceedings in M.C. 23/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The Court found that the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by the respondent-wife constituted an abuse of process. This was based on a Settlement Agreement dated July 23, 2016, where respondent No.1-wife explicitly waived all monetary and maintenance claims against the appellant-husband, a waiver reiterated in an affidavit dated January 24, 2017, filed before the Family Court during their joint divorce application under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, which resulted in a divorce decree dated January 30, 2017. The Court rejected the respondents’ claim of duress, noting the absence of any legal challenge to invalidate the Settlement Agreement or set aside the divorce decree, emphasizing that mere averments of coercion are insufficient given the parties’ education and awareness of their rights. The Court referenced Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, which deprecated re-agitating claims after a valid compromise. However, the Court clarified that respondent No.2-daughter, not being a party to the Settlement Agreement, retained the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for monetary reliefs against the appellant.

Read more

C.A. No.-009228-009231 - 2013

Parties: LAKSHMI MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. vs M/S. AIRTECH PROJECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

Area of Law: Banking Law

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 9228–9231 of 2013, Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 1441-1446 of 2014, and Civil Appeal @ Diary No. 31322 of 2018, addressed the validity of an auction sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Court held that a shortfall in the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) from the stipulated Rs. 21,50,000/- to Rs. 21,15,000/- in the possession-cum-sale notice dated 18.03.2009 did not vitiate the auction, as the EMD condition was non-statutory and intended to filter non-serious bidders. Both bidders had the same shortfall, and the successful auction-purchasers complied with Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by depositing 25% of the bid amount on 24.04.2009. Citing precedents like Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, and E. Muthurathinasabathy and Ors. v. Sri International and Ors., the Court affirmed that non-essential conditions can be relaxed if no substantial prejudice occurs. The Court also found the delayed payment of the balance sale consideration excusable due to the Bank’s extension of time. Consequently, the High Court’s common judgment dated 22.03.2013 and the DRAT’s order dated 20.06.2011 were quashed, and the Bank was directed to refund the surplus amount of Rs. 1,33,94,054/- with 7% interest from 23.03.2010.

C.A. No.-011223-011223 - 2026

Parties: NEELAM SHARMA vs AMITA PASSAN

Judge(s): JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

Area of Law: Civil Law

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. OF 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 31540 of 2025), heard arguments from Mr. Amit Aggarwal for the appellants, Neelam Sharma and Others, and Mr. Manoj Swarup for the respondents, Amita Passan and Others. The Court addressed an appeal against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh’s order dated May 19, 2025, in Civil Revision Petition No. 2778 of 2022 (O&M), which had set aside the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula’s order dated April 12, 2022. The Trial Court had dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No. 379 of 2017, which sought rejection of the plaint for non-payment of ad-valorem court fee. The High Court, however, allowed the Revision Petition, finding that the plaintiffs were required to affix ad-valorem court fee and granted time for payment, failing which the plaint would be rejected. The Supreme Court, applying principles from Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Others ((2010) 12 SCC 112), found that the Trial Court was justified in refusing to reject the plaint at the threshold, given the plaintiffs’ averments of joint possession. The Court held that the question of court fee, whether ad-valorem or fixed, would depend on the establishment of germane facts through evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint, with the modification that the question of court fee would be decided after evidence is led in the suit.

Read more

C.A. No.-010586-010588 - 2026

Parties: PARBATSINH DOLATSANG DODIYA vs RAMESHBHAI HARJIBHAI MAKWANA

Judge(s): JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

Area of Law: Tenancy Law

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, setting aside specific findings of the Bombay High Court and modifying the Gujarat High Court’s orders, primarily concerning agricultural land disputes. The Court held that the Bombay High Court’s impugned order dated 28.06.2022, in Appeal (L) No. 12396 of 2022, had exceeded the scope of the appeal by disposing of I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022, which was an application for recalling an earlier possession order. Consequently, paragraphs 8 to 11 of the said order were set aside, and I.A. (L) No. 10443 of 2022 was restored for disposal in accordance with law, allowing the appellants, who claimed to be agricultural tenants under Section 32G of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to pursue their objections in the execution proceedings. Regarding the Gujarat High Court’s orders in L.P.A. Nos. 1722 and 1749 of 2024, which maintained status quo, the Supreme Court modified them by directing the appointment of an Advocate Receiver to administer and supervise the subject matter during the pendency of Special Civil Application Nos. 9081 and 10167 of 2024, ensuring the benefit accrues to the successful party. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the competing claims, acknowledging the serious factual disputes regarding the MoUs and the ongoing proceedings in both High Courts.

SLP(C) No.-029517-029517 - 2026

Parties: K. SUMAN CHANDRA vs UNION OF INDIA

Judge(s): JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

Area of Law: Service Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court’s decision that the petitioner, K. Suman Chandra, was not entitled to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF) but correctly remained under the Central Pension Fund Scheme (CPF). The Court’s decisive reasoning stemmed from its prior judgment in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others (Civil Appeal No. 542 of 2023, decided on 28.02.2023), which held that the regularisation of services, including the petitioner’s, by Office Order No. 98 dated 04.05.2012, took effect from the date of the order and did not relate back to the initial appointment. This precedent established that the terms and conditions of regularisation, specifically the continuation under the CPF Scheme and the prospective effect of regularisation, were binding as they were not challenged by the petitioner at any point. The Court noted that the petitioner, like Mr. S.S.P. Sharma, had accepted these terms and conditions and only raised the grievance post-retirement after receiving CPF benefits, thereby being rightly non-suited by the High Court. The Court found no reason to re-open the issue, as the petitioner was similarly situated to Mr. S.S.P. Sharma, whose case had exhaustively considered Bye-law 52 and Rules of 2011, and thus declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Read more

Crl.A. No.-001177-001177 - 2015

Parties: RAFIKMIYA AHMEDMIYA MALEK vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Judge(s): JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177 of 2015 and 1183 of 2015, allowed the appeals of Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek and Sirajbhai Rasulbhai Vora, setting aside the common judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated January 22, 2015, which had upheld their conviction under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the initial demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, noting discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony regarding the demanded amount, particularly his prior inconsistent statements in Criminal Case No. 826 of 1996. Citing N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021 INSC 60), the Court reiterated that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 arises only after the initial demand is proved, and mere recovery of ₹20 from A2 was insufficient without such proof. Furthermore, the Court observed that the amount was given after the income certificate was issued, raising doubts, a point supported by State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere vs. C.B. Nagaraj (2025 INSC 736). The Court also noted the invalidity of the sanction for A1’s prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, as it was granted by an incompetent authority, but ultimately based its acquittal on the prosecution’s failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

C.A. No.-010755-010758 - 2026

Parties: REENA vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Judge(s): JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

Area of Law: Insurance Law

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 10755-10758 of 2026, overturned the High Court’s finding of 50% contributory negligence against the deceased driver, Nandan Shet, holding that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver (RW1). The Court emphasized that police investigation records, including FIRs and charge sheets, constitute prima facie evidence of negligence in MACT proceedings, and criminal acquittals, especially those based on benefit of doubt, do not displace civil liability, citing ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo and Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi. It further clarified that site maps or accident sketches cannot be the sole basis for attributing contributory negligence, particularly when a lighter vehicle is involved, as a collision with a heavy vehicle naturally displaces it, relying on Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Court also allowed the Claimant’s application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC, noting the beneficial nature of the MV Act and the summary procedure under Section 169, to determine “just compensation” under Section 168. Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation for the deceased husband, Nandan Shet, to Rs. 50,81,876, calculating his income at Rs. 70,000 per month based on his engineering qualifications and entrepreneurial activities, and directed KSRTC to pay the entire compensation with 6% interest.

Read more

Crl.A. No.-003856-003856 - 2026

Parties: KESHVENDRA SINGH vs SHANKAR SINGH

Judge(s): JUSTICE K. V. VISWANATHAN, JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court, in Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh And Anr., addressed the correctness of an order dated 25.08.2025 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which set aside a Sessions Court order dated 03.03.2025 and directed that Sessions Trial No. 0934 of 2023 be kept in abeyance while expediting Gangster Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2024. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, mandates precedence for trials under the Act only in the event of a clash of dates between concurrent proceedings, not to indefinitely halt other trials. Citing Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368, the Court affirmed that the legislative intent was to prevent simultaneous trials and ensure speedy resolution of Gangsters Act cases without unduly delaying other matters. The Court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which extends to victims, and harmonizes with Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), which mandates day-to-day proceedings. The Court noted that the murder trial had already concluded with convictions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other sections, pursuant to its interim order dated 13.04.2026, rendering the High Court’s direction untenable.

Crl.A. No.-002239-002240 - 2026

Parties: NEPAL SINGH vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Nepal Singh, setting aside his conviction under Sections 148, 324/149, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the testimonies of the key eyewitnesses, PW-6 and PW-7, were unreliable and riddled with contradictions and embellishments during cross-examination, failing to inspire confidence. Specifically, PW-6’s admission of losing consciousness upon receiving the first blow rendered his detailed account of subsequent events incredible, while PW-7’s claim of witnessing the incident was belied by her admission of arriving at the scene after her husband was already injured. The Court further noted the High Court’s error in solely relying on these flawed testimonies and the mere recovery of common household weapons, which lacked direct linkage to the accused. Crucially, the Court highlighted the inconsistency in the trial court’s judgment, which acquitted five co-accused on the same set of facts and depositions, assigning similar roles, without adequate justification from the High Court for distinguishing the appellant’s case. This selective conviction, coupled with the unreliability of the primary evidence and the possibility of false implication due to a land dispute, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had not established the appellant’s guilt.

Read more

No subscription fees, no sponsors, no paywall. Every daily judgment newsletter, every summary, every tool we built, free, to everyone who signed up.

We did it because we wanted to find out whether a small team could make Indian case law genuinely easier to follow, and because we didn’t want cost deciding who got to read it.

That question is answered. What we have now is a readership that shows up every morning, writes back, corrects us, and tells us what to cover next. 🙌

What we don’t have is a way to keep paying for it.

So from now on, Ask Junior is a paid subscription: ₹5,000 a year.

That is a little over ₹400 a month, for a year of judgments read, filtered and summarised before you reach your desk. The money goes where you’d expect: the infrastructure that runs the tools, the cost of doing this properly rather than occasionally.

We’ve thought about this for a long time and we’d rather be straightforward about it than dress it up. If you’ve found this useful, this is the point at which it needs your support to continue.

✉️To subscribe

Write to support@askjunior.ai and copy madhu@askjunior.ai.

We’ll come back to you with payment details.

Thank you for reading us for two years. We hope you’ll stay. 🙏

Crl.A. No.-003856-003856 - 2026

Parties: KESHVENDRA SINGH vs SHANKAR SINGH

Judge(s): JUSTICE K. V. VISWANATHAN, JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court, in Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh And Anr., addressed the correctness of an order dated 25.08.2025 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which set aside a Sessions Court order dated 03.03.2025 and directed that Sessions Trial No. 0934 of 2023 be kept in abeyance while expediting Gangster Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2024. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, mandates precedence for trials under the Act only in the event of a clash of dates between concurrent proceedings, not to indefinitely halt other trials. Citing Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368, the Court affirmed that the legislative intent was to prevent simultaneous trials and ensure speedy resolution of Gangsters Act cases without unduly delaying other matters. The Court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which extends to victims, and harmonizes with Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), which mandates day-to-day proceedings. The Court noted that the murder trial had already concluded with convictions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other sections, pursuant to its interim order dated 13.04.2026, rendering the High Court’s direction untenable.

Crl.A. No.-002239-002240 - 2026

Parties: NEPAL SINGH vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Nepal Singh, setting aside his conviction under Sections 148, 324/149, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the testimonies of the key eyewitnesses, PW-6 and PW-7, were unreliable and riddled with contradictions and embellishments during cross-examination, failing to inspire confidence. Specifically, PW-6’s admission of losing consciousness upon receiving the first blow rendered his detailed account of subsequent events incredible, while PW-7’s claim of witnessing the incident was belied by her admission of arriving at the scene after her husband was already injured. The Court further noted the High Court’s error in solely relying on these flawed testimonies and the mere recovery of common household weapons, which lacked direct linkage to the accused. Crucially, the Court highlighted the inconsistency in the trial court’s judgment, which acquitted five co-accused on the same set of facts and depositions, assigning similar roles, without adequate justification from the High Court for distinguishing the appellant’s case. This selective conviction, coupled with the unreliability of the primary evidence and the possibility of false implication due to a land dispute, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had not established the appellant’s guilt.

Read more

C.A. No.-000182-000182 - 2016

Parties: SHEELA GEHLOT vs MOHINI HARDAYAL SINGH .

Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

Area of Law: Civil Law

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated August 14, 2026, set aside the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur’s judgment dated May 15, 2009, in Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2008. The High Court had remitted the matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (DRT) for a fresh inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of execution proceedings from the Morena Court to the DRT under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, superseded the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rendering Order XXI Rule 22 inapplicable. Instead, the Recovery Officer was guided by Section 29 of the 1993 Act read with the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. While acknowledging the non-service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule, the Court found no substantial injury to the respondent, Mohini Hardayal Singh, given her prior knowledge and participation in the proceedings, and her failure to invoke Rule 61 of the Second Schedule. Furthermore, the Court, relying on Yogesh Sharma v. Devi Dayal & Ors. (AIR 1977 Delhi 270) and K.L. Bawa v. Basant Textiles (AIR 1982 P&H 275), clarified that the exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC is personal to the judgment-debtor and not available to legal representatives, and such a mixed question of law and fact could not be raised for the first time in a writ petition without factual foundation. Consequently, Civil Appeal Nos. 182 of 2016 and 190 of 2016 were allowed, and Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2016 was dismissed.

C.A. No.-010738-010738 - 2026

Parties: SAMEEM BEGUM vs K. VENKAT SWAMY

Judge(s): JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

Area of Law: Civil Law

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 18553 of 2023, enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded to the appellants, who are the wife and three children of the deceased Shaik Janimiya. The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1363 of 2015, which had increased the compensation from Rs. 8,44,000/- to Rs. 11,00,672/-. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 7,000/-, based on the testimony of the employer’s Director (PW3), despite the appellants’ claim of Rs. 9,000/-. The primary grounds for the Supreme Court’s enhancement were the inadequate awards for consortium by both the Tribunal and the High Court. Citing National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Court clarified that “consortium” encompasses spousal, parental, and filial consortium, and each claimant is entitled to a fixed amount. The Court determined that each of the four appellants was entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for consortium, enhanced by 10% for every three years, resulting in Rs. 48,400/- each. Additionally, funeral expenses and loss of estate were increased to Rs. 15,000/- each. Consequently, the total compensation was recalculated to Rs. 12,47,272/-, with the additional amount of Rs. 1,46,600/- payable with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition.

C.A. No.-010723-010723 - 2026

Parties: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs NTPC LIMITED

Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

Area of Law: Commercial Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), upholding the Bombay High Court’s redaction of portions of RIL’s witness affidavits, thereby reaffirming its earlier judgment dated February 28, 2019. The Court decisively held that oral evidence regarding the contents of internal documents, emails, and discussions among officers, previously deemed irrelevant and excluded from documentary evidence, cannot be indirectly introduced through oral testimony. This decision was grounded in the principle of res judicata, as the prior orders excluding such internal communications had attained finality, having been upheld through multiple rounds of litigation, including dismissal of RIL’s Special Leave Petitions. The Court rejected RIL’s attempt to re-open the issue by invoking Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing that the High Court meticulously applied the Supreme Court’s mandate by distinguishing between inadmissible internal communications and permissible testimony regarding a witness’s perception or external correspondence. The Court expressed dismay at the protracted litigation, noting that the commercial suit, filed in 2005, remains at the evidence stage due to RIL’s obstructive tactics, and reiterated its direction for expeditious disposal.

Read more

C.A. No.-010504-010506 - 2017

Parties: AUDI AUTOMOBILES vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX INDORE

Judge(s): JUSTICE J. B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Area of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court held that while the assessee was liable to include the 10% profit margin, statutorily fixed under Rule 8 of the Central Exci…

Read more

Crl.A. No.-000064-000064 - 2011

Parties: DINESH KUMAR vs THE STATE OF HARYANA

Judge(s): JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 IPC, finding a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, but set aside the adult sente…

Read more

Crl.A. No.-003774-003774 - 2026

Parties: RAHUL vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellant, Rahul, for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, overtu…

Read more

Crl.A. No.-002120-002120 - 2017

Parties: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT vs PONTHATI SIVA RAMI REDDY

Judge(s): JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

Area of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, declining to restore the conviction of the respondents (A1-A4) under Section 302 read with …

Read more

C.A. No.-007225-007225 - 2011

Parties: RAZIYA BEGUM vs NAFISA BEGUM ABDUL HAMID .

Judge(s): JUSTICE J. B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Area of Law: Property Law

The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 7225 of 2011, reversed the High Court’s judgment, thereby restoring the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appe…

Read more

C.A. No.-004708-004711 - 2008

Parties: COMMR.OF SERVICE TAX,CHENNAI vs M/S DIEBOLD SYSTEMS(P) LTD.

Judge(s): JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

Area of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, affirming the CESTAT’s decision that service tax was not leviable on the installation and commis…

Read more

C.A. No.-005939-005941 - 2010

Parties: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD IV COMMISSIONER vs M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

Judge(s): JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA

Area of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, affirming that the Assessee’s activity of grouping and fitting imported modules in…

Read more