Home / Research Hub / Judgment library
Research hub
Judgment library
Judgments from the chamber’s research lists, each verified against the published judgment, categorised and summarised in one line.
Verified 9 October 2026: 39 judgments. Each entry is taken from the chamber’s research list and checked against the published text (title, date, citation and neutral citation). The one-line holding is a summary for orientation only; read the full judgment, and check later decisions, before relying on it. Full-text links go to the official Supreme Court PDF where available, otherwise to Indian Kanoon (a free, non-official database); the “Official search” link opens the court’s own search.
Judgments
- Arbitration
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd.
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided01.03.2024Citation2024 INSC 155Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., 2024 INSC 155, Supreme Court of India, decided 01.03.2024
The Limitation Act applies to applications for appointment of an arbitrator under s.11(6); the three-year period runs from failure to appoint after notice. Full text
- CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided12.09.2024Citation2024 INSC 686
An application to extend the arbitral tribunal's mandate under s.29A can be filed even after the period has expired. Full text
- Arbitration
Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided20.09.2024Citation2024 INSC 710Non-signatories may, in appropriate cases, be bound by an arbitration agreement; role of the referral court explained. Full text
- CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided07.11.2024Citation2024 INSC 850
Explains how the seat of arbitration is identified from the agreement and its effect on court jurisdiction. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided07.05.2010CitationAIR 2010 SC 1898
Neutral citation not availableRangappa v. Sri Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898, Supreme Court of India, decided 07.05.2010
The presumption under s.139 NI Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and is rebuttable. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided29.05.2019CitationAIR 2019 SC 2956
Neutral citation not availableUnder s.148 NI Act, the appellate court may direct deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation pending appeal. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided11.10.2022CitationNeutral citation not availableWhere part of the debt had been paid before presentation, a cheque for the original full amount did not represent a legally enforceable debt; s.138 was not attracted. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided04.09.2023Citation2023 INSC 822Deposit under s.148 NI Act is the normal rule, but the appellate court may depart from it in exceptional cases, for reasons recorded. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided09.10.2023Citation2023 INSC 888Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 INSC 888, Supreme Court of India, decided 09.10.2023
Explains the presumption under s.139 NI Act and how an accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided15.03.2024Citation2024 INSC 205Interim compensation under s.143A NI Act is discretionary, not mandatory; the Court indicated the relevant factors. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided08.04.2024Citation2024 INSC 347Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 347, Supreme Court of India, decided 08.04.2024
Where the complainant had been compensated, the Supreme Court (under Article 142) closed s.138 proceedings even without the complainant's consent. Full text
- Cheque Bounce (NI Act)
Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided02.01.2025Citation2025 INSC 1Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries, 2025 INSC 1, Supreme Court of India, decided 02.01.2025
Considers when a s.138 complaint filed through a power-of-attorney holder is maintainable. Full text
- CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided27.10.1993Citation(1994) 1 SCC 1
Neutral citation not availableS.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India, decided 27.10.1993
A judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity; suppressing material documents amounts to fraud on the court. Full text
- CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided20.07.2006CitationAIR 2006 SC 2780
Neutral citation not availableCourts must guard against purely civil disputes being given a criminal colour; principles for quashing explained. Full text
- CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided31.10.2023Citation2023 INSC 964
Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 INSC 964, Supreme Court of India, decided 31.10.2023
Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the plaint must be read as a whole; the defence is not considered at that stage. Full text
- CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided02.01.2025Citation2025 INSC 10
Leela v. Muruganantham, 2025 INSC 10, Supreme Court of India, decided 02.01.2025
On proof of a will: registration alone does not establish its genuineness; due execution must still be proved. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Moti Ram v. State of M.P.
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided24.08.1978CitationAIR 1978 SC 1594
Neutral citation not availableMoti Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594, Supreme Court of India, decided 24.08.1978
Bail conditions and sureties must not be so onerous that a poor accused cannot obtain release. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided21.11.1990CitationAIR 1992 SC 604
Neutral citation not availableState of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, Supreme Court of India, decided 21.11.1990
Illustrative categories in which an FIR or criminal proceedings may be quashed. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided25.04.1994Citation(1994) 4 SCC 260
Neutral citation not availableJoginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, Supreme Court of India, decided 25.04.1994
Arrest must be justified; the police must have reasonable grounds and record why arrest is necessary. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided29.03.2001Citation(2001) 5 SCC 453
Neutral citation not availableExplains when the right to default bail under s.167(2) CrPC (now s.187 BNSS) is availed by the accused. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided09.10.2007CitationAIR 2008 SC 251
Neutral citation not availableNon-bailable warrants should not be issued as a matter of routine; summons or bailable warrants should ordinarily come first. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided02.12.2010CitationAIR 2011 SC 312
Neutral citation not availableSets out the factors for anticipatory bail and stresses that personal liberty is not to be curtailed lightly. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided12.11.2013Citation(2014) 2 SCC 1
Neutral citation not availableLalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India, decided 12.11.2013
Registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence; limited preliminary inquiry permitted. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided06.02.2018Citation(2018) 3 SCC 22
Neutral citation not availableDataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, Supreme Court of India, decided 06.02.2018
Bail is the rule; the discretion to grant or refuse bail must be exercised judiciously and with compassion. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided29.01.2020CitationAIR 2020 SC 831
Neutral citation not availableAnticipatory bail need not be limited to a fixed period as a rule; conditions may be imposed on the facts. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided14.07.2020CitationAIR 2020 SC 4908
Neutral citation not availableA certificate under s.65B(4) of the Evidence Act (now s.63 BSA) is required for secondary electronic evidence. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided18.03.2021CitationAIR 2021 SC 1492
Neutral citation not availableAparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 1492, Supreme Court of India, decided 18.03.2021
Bail conditions in cases of sexual offences must not trivialise the offence; guidelines issued to courts. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided11.07.2022Citation(2022) 10 SCC 51
Neutral citation not availableSatender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, Supreme Court of India, decided 11.07.2022
Comprehensive guidelines on bail, notices under s.41A CrPC and categories of offences. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided03.10.2023Citation2023 INSC 866Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 866, Supreme Court of India, decided 03.10.2023
Under the PMLA, the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person in writing. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided15.05.2024Citation2024 INSC 414Grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing; arrest and remand without this were held invalid. Full text
- Criminal & Bail
Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided18.07.2024Citation2024 INSC 534Where the right to a speedy trial is violated, constitutional courts may grant bail despite statutory restrictions. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided27.01.1988Citation(1988) 1 SCC 530
Neutral citation not availableA woman whose marriage is void because of the husband's subsisting earlier marriage cannot claim maintenance as 'wife' under s.125 CrPC. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided21.10.2010CitationAIR 2011 SC 479
Neutral citation not availableD. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479, Supreme Court of India, decided 21.10.2010
Lays down the conditions for a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the Domestic Violence Act. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided19.04.2017CitationAIR 2017 SC 2383
Neutral citation not availableOn the facts, 25% of the husband's net salary was treated as a just and proper amount of maintenance. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided25.09.2018CitationAIR 2018 SC 4606
Neutral citation not availableReema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, AIR 2018 SC 4606, Supreme Court of India, decided 25.09.2018
Maintenance under s.125 CrPC should enable the wife to live with dignity, consistent with the husband's status. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided20.01.2020CitationAIR 2020 SC 577
Neutral citation not availableYashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2020 SC 577, Supreme Court of India, decided 20.01.2020
In custody matters the welfare of the child is paramount; directions on visitation and video contact. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided01.05.2023CitationNeutral citation not availableShilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, Supreme Court of India, decided 01.05.2023
The Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage under Article 142 on irretrievable breakdown, and may dispense with the s.13B waiting period. Full text
- Matrimonial & Family
Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided10.12.2024Citation2024 INSC 953Vague and generalised allegations against the husband's relatives under s.498A IPC (now s.85 BNS) do not justify prosecution; proceedings quashed. Full text
- Property & Rent
Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah
CourtSupreme Court of IndiaDecided16.05.2024Citation2024 INSC 435Under Article 300A, the State must observe seven procedural sub-rights before acquiring private property. Full text