Daily Supreme Court reporting that explains what the Court held, why it matters, and where each judgment sits in Indian law.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant appointed a former Bombay High Court Chief Justice as sole arbitrator, leaving the non-signatory subsidiary question to him.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside a revisional order of 2025, holding it would not serve justice to put the appellant on trial at this distance of time.
A Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that presentation in person under Section 81 is mandatory, and the defect is not curable under Section 86(1).
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed Mepco Industries' fourteen-year-old appeal, holding that the purpose test reads a subsidy scheme whole and not through its general object clause.
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that with no jewellery recovered and no proof of its value, the robbery element failed, leaving only a dislodged tooth.
Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi restored an attempt-to-murder charge, holding that charge framing is no occasion for a mini-trial and Section 216 remains available later.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside a Patna High Court reinstatement order, holding a Bihar block teacher was never eligible under the 2006 Rules when appointed.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu continued the Gujarat High Court's stay on a Rs 67 crore award for two months, conditional on a further deposit with the Registrar General.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside concurrent convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that not one trap witness saw the demand or the money change hands.
Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi hold that a recognised qualification is not automatically the prescribed one, and that marks cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification.
Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and N.V. Anjaria quash proceedings against two in-laws for want of any specific overt act, while leaving the case against the husband entirely untouched.
Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N. Kotiswar Singh quash an FIR nine years on, holding that an agent who signed for his principals cannot be prosecuted where the principals cannot.
Justices Manmohan and Arun Palli hold that a tax entry listing syrups, cordials and essences is a list of liquids, and that what the buyer later does with a product cannot change its rate.
Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva hold that workers made permanent by a 1988 Government Resolution cannot be denied an increment on the ground that they began as daily wagers.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran find a consensual relationship that went sour, with each side then accusing the other, and stop every proceeding on both sides.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar strengthen the safeguards in Mihir Rajesh Shah, requiring a superior officer's endorsement, a Magistrate's permission and a departmental enquiry.
Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva hold that the conduct of the investigation shocks the conscience of the court, and give a new State SIT three months to report.
Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli hold that limitation turning on mixed questions cannot be tried as a preliminary issue, and that the High Court should not have decided it either.
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar hold that a statement of sufficient material is not a statement that the investigation is complete, and set aside the default bail.
Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva hold the consumer commission gave the insured a clean chit without basis and quantified the loss far above what the surveyors had assessed.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran hold that redetermination requires an award of the Reference Court, and that a rejected reference is not a situation the legislature contemplated.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran deal with each category of documents an accused sought from the CBI, and set aside the orders below to let the trial move.
