Topic
The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority, interpreting the Constitution and settling legal disputes of national importance through binding judgments.
The Supreme Court ruled that limitation for appeals under Section 62 IBC starts from the NCLAT order date, not receipt of the certified copy. A delay in obtaining the copy cannot be excused if the appeal is filed after limitation has commenced, impacting parties challenging NCLAT rulings.
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 ruled that a High Court cannot invoke its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to set aside a conviction that has already attained finality before the apex court, even if the accused later proves he was a juvenile under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act. This narrows the scope of Section 482, preserving the finality of appellate judgments and limiting relief avenues for convicted persons claiming subsequent juvenility.
Interim release of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act can be ordered under CrPC Section 451 upon furnishing satisfactory security, despite Section 98(2). This permits owners to recover seized conveyances pending trial, expanding procedural relief in prohibition cases.
A 2014 revision notice cancelling an earlier land-record order was set aside because the Karnataka Land Revenue Act imposes a strict three-year limit on exercising revisionary power, which cannot be extended by subsequent amendments or the Limitation Act. The ruling bars authorities from reviving old cases beyond that period, protecting owners of surveyed lands.
The Supreme Court confirmed that a decree issued by Ras Al Khaimah’s Investment Authority is enforceable in India under Section 44A CPC, dismissed a contempt petition based on an ambiguous undertaking, and mandated the respondents to furnish an additional security of Rs 200 crore, leaving any corporate veil-piercing questions to the execution courts. This clarifies cross-border decree enforcement and limits contempt claims tied to vague undertakings.
The Supreme Court affirmed that a High Court may set aside arbitration awards of a cooperative society only when the award breaches statutory provisions, confirming the narrow reach of certiorari under Articles 226/227. This limits judicial interference in internal cooperative disputes, affecting societies and members alike.
The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal case can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC only when the victim himself settles the dispute, rejecting the notion that a third party can seek quash. This distinction separates compounding from quashing and limits judicial interference to victim-initiated settlements, affecting litigants and prosecutors in pending criminal matters.
The Supreme Court struck down an ex parte externment order for breaching the mandatory notice and hearing provision of Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, reaffirming natural-justice safeguards. The ruling bars authorities from imposing exile without prior notice, protecting individuals facing such orders across Chhattisgarh.
The Supreme Court reinstated the statutory authorities’ view that land registered as residential but used as a showroom/factory must be classified as commercial for stamp-duty purposes. The higher commercial stamp duty stands and the appellant’s refund claim is dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled that missing notarisation on Form-25 and rubber-stamp attestations do not automatically invalidate an election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act. Such procedural defects are therefore not grounds for peremptory dismissal, safeguarding the petitioner’s right to contest the election result.
Supreme Court set aside Kerala HC’s order, holding that a valid settlement agreement extinguishing monetary claims prevents any later complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that filing such a complaint is an abuse of process. Settled spouses are thus shielded from re-litigation.
‘Industry’ now requires a commercial character in addition to the Triple Test under Sec 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Applied prospectively via the Industrial Relations Code 2020, the ruling reshapes which enterprises fall within industrial-dispute jurisdiction, affecting employers and workers.
The Supreme Court ruled that while police can file an FIR for alleged PCPNDT violations, the investigation must be conducted exclusively by the Act’s Appropriate Authority. Magistrates therefore cannot take cognizance of a police-prepared charge-sheet, curbing police powers in sex-selection cases.
The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for each of the two minor daughters, overturning the High Court’s cut to Rs 15,000. It held that a wife’s professional earnings cannot be used to halve the husband’s liability under Section 125 CrPC.