⚖
Loading…
Loading…
Indian case law by case name, citation, provision or legal issue, with the case summary, the judgment text where we hold it and the provisions it applies.
121–140 · Page 7 of 500
Supreme Court of India7 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 33 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 227
Issue arose whether the Company Law Board-CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, could be said to have the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; that even if s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, per say, could not be applied to quasi-judicial bodies, whether the principles underlying s.5 of the 1963 Act be made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3) of the 2013 Act, instituted before the CLB; and that whether s.433 of the 2013 Act, which was brought into force on 01.06.2016 in order to empower the NCLT and NCLAT respectively, to apply the provisions of the 1963
Supreme Court of India7 Apr 2026Full text
Indian case law by case name, citation, provision or legal issue, with the case summary, the judgment text where we hold it and the provisions it applies.
121–140 · Page 7 of 500
Supreme Court of India7 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 33 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 227
Issue arose whether the Company Law Board-CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, could be said to have the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; that even if s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, per say, could not be applied to quasi-judicial bodies, whether the principles underlying s.5 of the 1963 Act be made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3) of the 2013 Act, instituted before the CLB; and that whether s.433 of the 2013 Act, which was brought into force on 01.06.2016 in order to empower the NCLT and NCLAT respectively, to apply the provisions of the 1963
Supreme Court of India7 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 328 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 37
Under Regulation 29 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulation), a notice of voluntary retirement if not refused within the prescribed period of three months or before the date as specified in the notice, whether such notice would be deemed to be accepted on expiry of such period; whether issuance of show cause notice dated 11.11.2010 by the Appellant may fall within the purview of institution of the disciplinary proceedings and such proceedings be treated as pending in terms of Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii) of the Service Regulation; whether further action taken by th
Supreme Court of India7 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 327 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 26
Whether the Sessions Court as well as the High Court erred in holding that the complaint as filed by the appellant u/s.138 of the N.I. Act was liable to be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque issued by the second respondent was not towards any legally enforceable debt.
Supreme Court of India7 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 325 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 417
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and ought to be acquitted of the charge u/s.302 IPC.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 322 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 398
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against the two co-accused and declining the similar relief to the remaining accused.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 320 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 1
The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the allegations and the prima facie material relating to the award and execution of public works contracts, including the asserted pattern of repeated departures from open and competitive tendering, gaps in official documentation, and the stated award of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms and individuals related to them, warrant a direction by this Court for an independent investigation by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so, the scope of such investigation and the consequential directions required to secure th
Supreme Court of India7 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 32 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 206
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant has initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of 90 days period as prescribed u/s.9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby resulting in automatic vacation of ad-interim injunction in terms of r.9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 319 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 381
Issue arose whether the High Court was right in not quashing the proceedings against the appellant surgeon who performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the one and a half year boy, without obtaining the consent by the father-de facto complainant, as alleged.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 318 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 368
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) IPC and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s. 324 IPC affirmed and also convicted u/s.304 Part II rw s.34, whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s.325 altered to one u/s. 304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly.
Supreme Court of India2 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 315 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 298
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for killing his wife by setting her on fire, ought to be upheld.
Supreme Court of India2 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 313 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 350
Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is in outright defiance of logic.
Supreme Court of India2 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 312 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 331
Whether the black listing order, in the instant case, suffers from patent infirmities; whether the blacklisting, being stigmatic and exclusionary in nature, can be imposed mechanistically.
Supreme Court of India6 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 31 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 191
Whether present is a case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration of the respondent-delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry or they be permitted to continue.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 309 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 313
The writ petitions instituted by the appellants assailing the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, came to be dismissed. Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 305 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 286
In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 304 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 273
Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to the benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused-‘SM’; whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be available to the appellants.
Supreme Court of India6 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 27 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 183
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint u/s.138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned.
Supreme Court of India19 Mar 2026Full text
2026 INSC 266 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 249
(i) Whether post-retirement of the appellant, punishment of reduction of three stages in the scale of pay, as imposed by the respondent, was permissible under the extant Service Regulations, or action under the Pension Regulations was the only way forward; (ii) Whether there is any perversity/infirmity in the enquiry report and the order(s) passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. If yes, whether it could be raised as a ground when it was not pressed before the High Court.
Supreme Court of India19 Mar 2026Full text
2026 INSC 265 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 239
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings u/s.420 IPC.
Supreme Court of India19 Mar 2026Full text
2026 INSC 264 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 221
Whether the appellant, a body corporate, while availing services of the Bank to deposit its surplus funds in an interest bearing term deposit, such as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), could be considered a consumer as defined in s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; whether the nature of allegations made in the complaint were such that they took the claim outside the purview of proceedings under the 1986 Act.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
2026 INSC 328 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 37
Under Regulation 29 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulation), a notice of voluntary retirement if not refused within the prescribed period of three months or before the date as specified in the notice, whether such notice would be deemed to be accepted on expiry of such period; whether issuance of show cause notice dated 11.11.2010 by the Appellant may fall within the purview of institution of the disciplinary proceedings and such proceedings be treated as pending in terms of Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii) of the Service Regulation; whether further action taken by th
Supreme Court of India7 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 327 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 26
Whether the Sessions Court as well as the High Court erred in holding that the complaint as filed by the appellant u/s.138 of the N.I. Act was liable to be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque issued by the second respondent was not towards any legally enforceable debt.
Supreme Court of India7 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 325 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 417
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and ought to be acquitted of the charge u/s.302 IPC.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 322 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 398
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings against the two co-accused and declining the similar relief to the remaining accused.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 320 · [2026] 5 S.C.R. 1
The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the allegations and the prima facie material relating to the award and execution of public works contracts, including the asserted pattern of repeated departures from open and competitive tendering, gaps in official documentation, and the stated award of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms and individuals related to them, warrant a direction by this Court for an independent investigation by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so, the scope of such investigation and the consequential directions required to secure th
Supreme Court of India7 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 32 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 206
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant has initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of 90 days period as prescribed u/s.9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby resulting in automatic vacation of ad-interim injunction in terms of r.9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 319 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 381
Issue arose whether the High Court was right in not quashing the proceedings against the appellant surgeon who performed Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the one and a half year boy, without obtaining the consent by the father-de facto complainant, as alleged.
Supreme Court of India6 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 318 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 368
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) IPC and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s. 324 IPC affirmed and also convicted u/s.304 Part II rw s.34, whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s.325 altered to one u/s. 304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly.
Supreme Court of India2 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 315 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 298
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for killing his wife by setting her on fire, ought to be upheld.
Supreme Court of India2 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 313 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 350
Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is in outright defiance of logic.
Supreme Court of India2 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 312 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 331
Whether the black listing order, in the instant case, suffers from patent infirmities; whether the blacklisting, being stigmatic and exclusionary in nature, can be imposed mechanistically.
Supreme Court of India6 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 31 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 191
Whether present is a case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration of the respondent-delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry or they be permitted to continue.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 309 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 313
The writ petitions instituted by the appellants assailing the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, came to be dismissed. Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 305 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 286
In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated.
Supreme Court of India1 Apr 2026Full text
2026 INSC 304 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 273
Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to the benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused-‘SM’; whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be available to the appellants.
Supreme Court of India6 Jan 2026Full text
2026 INSC 27 · [2026] 1 S.C.R. 183
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the respondent’s complaint u/s.138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned.
Supreme Court of India19 Mar 2026Full text
2026 INSC 266 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 249
(i) Whether post-retirement of the appellant, punishment of reduction of three stages in the scale of pay, as imposed by the respondent, was permissible under the extant Service Regulations, or action under the Pension Regulations was the only way forward; (ii) Whether there is any perversity/infirmity in the enquiry report and the order(s) passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. If yes, whether it could be raised as a ground when it was not pressed before the High Court.
Supreme Court of India19 Mar 2026Full text
2026 INSC 265 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 239
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings u/s.420 IPC.
Supreme Court of India19 Mar 2026Full text
2026 INSC 264 · [2026] 4 S.C.R. 221
Whether the appellant, a body corporate, while availing services of the Bank to deposit its surplus funds in an interest bearing term deposit, such as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), could be considered a consumer as defined in s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; whether the nature of allegations made in the complaint were such that they took the claim outside the purview of proceedings under the 1986 Act.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis