Supreme Court of India judgments

The SC ruled its 2026 disability-pension judgment for ex-servicemen is not a blanket precedent; each claim must be decided on its own merits. This blocks mechanical extension to other pensionary claims, safeguarding settled cases and limiting costs.

The Supreme Court held that a non-signatory may be joined as a veritable party in arbitration when a nexus with the arbitration agreement exists, upholding the referral court’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of the ACA, 1996 and clarifying doctrine scope.

The Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court's earlier ruling, holding that compassionate appointments under Tamil Nadu Service Rules cannot claim seniority over direct recruits appointed after hiring ban, affecting many in promotion and pay scales.

The Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses in a Joint Venture Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding remain operative despite a separate Licence Agreement, affirming the doctrine of independent arbitration agreements. It clarified Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator, impacting parties to intertwined commercial contracts.

The SC ruled that an operational creditor whose claim is extinguished under IBC resolution plan may assert a set-off defence in arbitration initiated by resolution applicant, with no affirmative recovery. This limits clean-slate for OCs after CIRP.

An election petition must be filed in person by the petitioner under Section 81 RP Act, the Supreme Court ruled, and non-compliance results in dismissal under Section 86(1). The decision reinforces procedural strictness for election disputes, impacting petitioners and the electoral process.

By rejecting the NIOS certificate as equivalent to the 10th standard under 10+2 requirement, the SC upheld Goa's 2006 Recruitment Rules for the Vocational Instructor (Plumber) post and restored the original selection based on strict eligibility.

The Supreme Court set aside the PMGSY recovery order, holding that cross contract recovery can be effected only with express authority and must observe natural justice. It ordered the release of Rs.84,17,003 plus 6% interest from 27 September 2025 to the contractor.

The Supreme Court held that a statutory demand notice delivered to the correct address raises a presumption of service under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that receipt of such notice by a family member residing at the same address does not rebut that presumption. The ruling restores the conviction of the accused for cheque dishonour and clarifies service requirements for NI Act prosecutions.

Recalling a CIRP initiated via fraud or collusion is within an Adjudicating Authority’s power, but continuation depends on whether it serves insolvency resolution with integrity, the Supreme Court held, requiring a hearing of the RP, CoC and stakeholders.

The Supreme Court quashed a SARFAESI Act sale certificate for procedural violations, emphasizing that secured creditors must strictly observe notice, judicial restraint and transparency requirements to protect borrowers from defective auctions.

Supreme Court restored a ₹5 lakh per acre rate for LA Act 1894 land in Aspal Extension Drain, overturning High Court’s radial pricing and clarifying that severance, tree compensation and statutory benefits apply uniformly affecting Fazilka landowners.

SC barred a specific performance suit on an oral land sale agreement, holding no contract and the claim omitted in a prior suit without leave. Order II Rule 2 CPC requires leave to add omitted relief, affecting oral property litigants.

The Supreme Court exercised its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual consent divorce, ordering the husband to pay ₹35 lakh alimony in two installments and to quash all existing criminal and civil cases between the parties. This ruling showcases the Court’s ability to deliver complete justice in matrimonial disputes while preventing further litigation.

The Supreme Court held that arrest under Admiralty Act 5(2) requires an ongoing demise charterer status. A termination notice ending a bareboat charterparty ends that status, so arrest cannot be sustained and owners are protected from sister ship arrests.

The Supreme Court quashed a false POCSO FIR in a matrimonial custody dispute and held that arrest requires expert psychological evaluation prior to curb misuse, shielding children and parents from exploitation while upholding Act’s child-welfare aim.

The Supreme Court allowed the mother to relocate her two children to the UK for better education and finances, holding that the Tender Years Doctrine cannot dictate custody and that the child's welfare must prevail, despite POCSO allegations against the father.

The Supreme Court held that an express contractual bar on interest (Clause 54 GCC) absolutely bars pre-reference interest, overriding Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act. It upholds party autonomy, affecting contractors and employers drafting GCC terms.

The SC held that lack of the original forged document does not vitiate framing of charge under Section 227 CrPC if a prima facie case exists. It also applied issue estoppel to bar re-litigation, restoring the criminal trial against the accused.

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to vacate an anti-suit injunction against a UK divorce suit. It held that forum non conveniens and comity of courts bar Indian courts from restraining pending foreign matrimonial litigation when foreign forum is appropriate.

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu widow’s limited interest under Section 3(2) of HWRPA 1937 becomes absolute upon her husband’s death under Section 14(1) of HSA 1956, validating her will and property sale and clarifying widows’ rights.

SC restored HCs' power under Section 482 CrPC to order denovo investigation after acquittal for flawed probe, overturning Karnataka HC's dismissal of a reinvestigation plea in a 2012 rape-murder case and directing a SIT excluding investigators.

The SC held that Article 22(1) breach needs written grounds & judicial sanction for re-arrest, while Article 22(2) breach draws State compensation. Victims need not sue officials; State liable and police must follow safeguards before re-detention.

The Supreme Court referred to a Larger Bench the question whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates infringement suits before a District Court, is rendered ineffective by Jharkhand’s notification treating Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court, and stayed the suit, affecting trademark litigants and clarifying IP-commercial court jurisdiction.