Daily Supreme Court reporting that explains what the Court held, why it matters, and where each judgment sits in Indian law.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that a personal guarantee integrated as a facility agreement carries the loan agreement's arbitration clause, binding the guarantor.
A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria upheld the bar on a Rs. 57.74-lakh MCGC demand raised nine years after the alleged liability arose.
A Division Bench rules that Vedanta's escrow release under Buyback Regulations creates no statutory immunity from fraud charges under PFUTP Regulations, remanding the case to SAT.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vipul M. Pancholi holds that a former partner's share in dissolved firm property must be valued at the prevailing market rate, not frozen at the dissolution date.
A Supreme Court division bench held a baptismal certificate does not prove a POCSO victim's age under Section 94 JJ Act, but altered conviction to Section 376 IPC.
A Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Dipankar Datta held that compulsorily retiring an outstanding officer months after a merit promotion was arbitrary, perverse and mala fide.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside a corruption conviction, holding that Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot stand without proof of pecuniary advantage.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant disposed of the proceedings after NCERT recalled 82,440 copies and a revised, balanced chapter replaced the offending text.
A Division Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar quashed POCSO proceedings against a West Bengal school teacher, holding that physical punishment without sexual intent cannot attract Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismisses a Dera's claim of ownership over agricultural land, holding that neither revenue entries nor uninterrupted possession, absent hostile animus, can establish title.
A Division Bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran reversed concurrent conviction findings, holding that pervasive inconsistencies among close-relative witnesses raised a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
A bench of Justices Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran quashed a false-promise-of-marriage FIR, holding that a mother's objection explaining the refusal negates deceitful intent under Section 69 BNS.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran accepted FSSAI progress on front-of-pack labelling but flagged gaps in thresholds, phasing and design, seeking further answers.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that contract service before August 2004 counts as qualifying service for pension.
A bench of Justices Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran cleared the path for the Sushant Aquapolis resolution plan by directing the SRA to develop a 24-metre access road around plot GH-1.
A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu questions whether Section 47-A stamp duty proceedings require proof of fraudulent intent, referring the issue for authoritative resolution.
A Division Bench found the First Appellate Court and High Court brushed aside discrepancies identified by the Trial Court without proper reasoning, reviving the defendant's case.
A Division Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan sets aside concurrent conviction, finding that reliance on a Test Identification Parade without dock identification, compounded by contradictory medical evidence, destroyed the prosecution case.
A two-judge Bench held that an illiterate widow was entitled to family pension arrears from her husband's death in 2000, following S.K. Mastan Bee over Tarsem Singh.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that solatium and interest for NH Act acquisitions follow the 1894 Act if the Competent Authority's award predates 1 January 2015.
A Division Bench upholds the appointment while directing Maharshi Dayanand University to verify, under Article 142, a PhD degree Bundelkhand University called "fake and farzi."
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta holds Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules valid, restoring a criminal investigation against police officials.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a suit for possession, holding that a defendant relying on an undisputed revenue entry need not enter the witness box.
A Division Bench found nearly 100 metres of a promised 24-metre-wide road either converted to green patch or used for parking, putting DLF and Haryana on final notice.
