Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

G. Prasad Raghavan v. Union Territory of Puducherry

10 Oct 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Vipul M. Pancholi · 2025 INSC 1221
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant from criminal charges, holding that mere purchase of property from accused without involvement in prior fraud does not attract criminal liability.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 239 CrPC discharge application Section 420 IPC fraudulent sale

S.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

10 Oct 2025 · J.B. PARDIWALA; ALOK ARADHE · 2025 INSC 1215
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's substitution of conviction under Section 63 of the Army Act for possession of ammunition and confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement, dismissing the appellant's appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Army Act, 1950 Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section 63 Army Act Section 69 Army Act

Hansraj v. State of U.P.

09 Oct 2025 · Dipankar Datta; Augustine George Masih · 2025 INSC 1211
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court allowed a juvenile convict’s writ petition for immediate release, holding that juvenility claims can be raised at any stage and detention beyond the permissible period violates Article 21.

criminal petition_allowed Significant juvenile justice juvenility claim Article 21 illegal detention

VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA

09 Oct 2025 · Nagarathna J.; K. V. Viswanathan J. · 2025 INSC 1209

The Supreme Court held that the Surrogacy Act's age restrictions cannot be applied retrospectively to bar intending couples who had lawfully commenced surrogacy procedures before the Act's enforcement, upholding their constitutional right to reproductive autonomy.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 age restrictions retrospective application reproductive autonomy

Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa

09 Oct 2025 · B. R. Gavai; M. M. Sundresh · 2025 INSC 1208

The Supreme Court clarified that under Article 233 of the Constitution, in-service judicial officers are eligible for appointment as district judges without the seven years' advocate practice requirement, which applies only to advocates not already in service.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 233 Constitution of India District Judge appointment Judicial service Direct recruitment

CANARA BANK v. K.L. RAJGARHIA

09 Oct 2025 · Aravind Kumar; Vipul M. Pancholi · 2025 INSC 1278
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for construction of flats that violated building laws, holding such illegal contracts unenforceable and refusing to rewrite essential terms.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance illegal contract building bye-laws Section 12 Specific Relief Act

Alok Kumar Ghosh v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Anr.

09 Oct 2025 · Manoj Misra; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · 2025 INSC 1239
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, an insurer can be made jointly and severally liable with the employer to pay compensation directly to the workman, restoring the Commissioner’s award and rejecting the High Court’s modification shifting liability solely on the employer.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 Workmen’s Compensation Insurer liability Joint and several liability

Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

09 Oct 2025 · Dipankar Datta; K. V. Viswanathan · 2025 INSC 1212
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that vocational subject marks must be included for eligibility in teacher recruitment, termination without fresh notice violated natural justice, and reinstated appellants with full benefits.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Teacher Eligibility Test Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 vocational subject marks natural justice

THE SOUTHERN NAGPUR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED v. GANPATI YADAVRAO KUMBHARE

09 Oct 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1226

The Supreme Court upheld the decree directing allotment and possession of Plot No. 5A to the respondent, rejecting the appellant's claim of merger and unauthorized constructions, and ordered removal of structures obstructing execution.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant plot allotment execution of decree merger of plots unauthorized construction

Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal

09 Oct 2025 · Ahsanuddin Amanullah; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 1210
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that a Trust is not a juristic person under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a complaint for dishonour of cheque is maintainable against the Trustee who signed the cheque without impleading the Trust.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Trust Juristic person Section 138 NI Act

Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra

08 Oct 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 1206

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove dishonest abstraction of electricity by artificial means beyond reasonable doubt and reinstated the acquittal of the appellant under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant theft of electricity Indian Electricity Act 1910 Section 39 Section 44

Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

08 Oct 2025 · K. Vinod Chandran; N. V. Anjaria · 2025 INSC 1204
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Supreme Court held that an insurance company must indemnify the vehicle owner despite the driver holding a fake licence unless breach or collusion by the owner is proved, setting aside the High Court’s recovery order against the owner.

civil appeal_allowed Significant insurance indemnity fake driving licence due diligence entrustment of vehicle

Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut

08 Oct 2025 · Ahsanuddin Amanullah; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 1207

The Supreme Court held that a "Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed" executed by the principal debtor without a distinct surety is chargeable under Article 40, not Article 57, of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Article 40 Schedule 1-B Article 57 Schedule 1-B Mortgage Deed

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others

08 Oct 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1205
Cites 0 · Cited by 26

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review its own order under inherent jurisdiction without clerical error and quashed the transfer of investigation to CBI ordered by the Rajasthan High Court in absence of jurisdiction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction review of judicial order transfer of investigation

Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu

08 Oct 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sanjay Karol; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1203

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence due to procedural lapses, unreliable circumstantial evidence, and denial of fair trial, and remanded the case for fresh trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant fair trial circumstantial evidence last seen together confession statement

ATUL J DOSHI & ORS v. PRAMUKH PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD

08 Oct 2025 · J. K. Maheshwari; Vijay Bishnoi · 2025 INSC 1345

The Supreme Court held that in eviction suits under a licensor-licensee agreement, courts may direct deposit of arrears and regular license fee under Order XV-A CPC but cannot grant liquidated damages as interim relief without evidence, and failure to comply may lead to striking off defense.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Leave and License Agreement Order XV-A CPC Bombay Amendment mesne profits liquidated damages

Sri Chikkegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka; Neelakantappa v. State of Karnataka

07 Oct 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sanjay Karol; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1213

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of accused for murder, affirming the primacy of credible ocular testimony over medical evidence and rejecting the Trial Court's acquittal as perverse.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant ocular testimony medical evidence time of death injured eyewitness

Sattar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar

07 Oct 2025 · J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 1192
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, affirming that members of an unlawful assembly are liable for murder committed in furtherance of their common object, based on reliable eyewitness and medical evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 149 IPC unlawful assembly common object murder

S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal

07 Oct 2025 · Ahsanuddin Amanullah; K. Vinod Chandran · 2025 INSC 1197
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that while a valid Will by an absolute owner can be proved, injunction against interference with possession cannot be granted when possession is admitted by the defendant, but injunction against alienation is maintainable pending determination of title.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Will Ancestral property Injunction simpliciter Possession

Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

07 Oct 2025 · Dipankar Datta; Augustine George Masih · 2025 INSC 1196

The Supreme Court held that courts can appoint arbitrators despite statutory disqualification of contractual appointees and that COVID-19 limitation extensions apply to arbitration appointment applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Limitation Act, 1963 COVID-19 limitation extension