Daily Supreme Court reporting that explains what the Court held, why it matters, and where each judgment sits in Indian law.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran cancel the suspension of one life sentence, spare co-convicts whose witnesses turned hostile, and warn against release merely because appeals are pending.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar leave the 423-day delay condoned but order the fourth defendant to keep Rs 75 lakh in deposit instead of paying the lender.
Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan hold that the three-year limit to cancel a gift runs from knowing what the deed is, not from the end of the donor influence.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan say two school heads cannot be tried under Section 304 or 304A: an intervening cause broke the chain, and the contractor is prima facie answerable.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Delhi High Court and revive a contractor suit, holding that the society kept carrying his dues forward in its own balance sheets.
Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Augustine George Masih hold that property a father takes in a partition among Class I heirs is his alone, and his son has no birthright in it, and the Tamil Nadu amendment does not rescue the claim on these facts.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismiss the appeals of two Chhattisgarh clerks, holding that a similar colleague left in service does not make a compulsory retirement order invalid.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih dismiss the Trust appeal against a 2012 Delhi High Court Full Bench ruling, citing Government control over its Chairman, committee, accounts and rules.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan clarify the 11 March judgment, decline to set any timeline for the Centre policy exercise, and extend the compliance period by two months.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta exclude cultivators living outside the forest or only temporarily in it, and set deadlines under a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana adopt the Attorney General formula, set off Rs 420.77 crore of capital cost, and stretch the payback from 15 to 20 years.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismiss an appeal against the Allahabad High Court, which had restored a Basti plot to its original tenure holders after a dispute that began in consolidation proceedings.
Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan restore a Sessions Court acquittal, holding that the High Court could not convict one of four accused alone, charged jointly, on a single uncorroborated statement.
Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan hold that a plaint may be rejected before registration, but not without a meaningful reading of it, and order a record of every such rejection.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar order the release on bail of three men held in a 60.79 kg Yaba case and reject the idea of a pre-arrest buffer zone under NDPS procedure.
A seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant holds the Entry 54 question answered by S. Kodar and the reference academic, leaving Orissa and Punjab assessees to regular benches.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli say the trial court discarded the evidence of two widows on grounds that do not hold, and dismiss appeals against the High Court reversal of the acquittal.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe say laws penalising a third child have lost their foundation, keep a Maharashtra sarpanch in office and ask for a larger bench to revisit Javed.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya set aside a Section 306 conviction because the prosecution never proved who wrote the letters, and the letters would not have amounted to abetment anyway.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya expunge strictures and an ACR direction that a Rajasthan High Court Single Judge ordered against a district judge, holding the remarks were made without notice.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria reverse the Uttarakhand High Court, holding that withholding pension during tenure is not a pay cut and that those who accepted the posts cannot challenge the rule.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar hold that a foreign decree on a ground Hindu law does not recognise cannot defeat a Section 494 IPC charge, and quash the case against three co-accused.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan set aside a Bombay High Court refusal to quash the FIR, finding no proved dowry demand and no nexus between alleged cruelty and the death.
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court refusal of relief, rely on a King George Medical University ophthalmology report, and direct appointment if she is otherwise entitled.
