In the matter of Pooja Ramesh Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. (2026 INSC 668), the Supreme Court of India set aside the judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) because they relied upon “fake and hallucinated” legal
In the matter of Mathu Alias Jagdish vs. State of Uttarakhand (2026 INSC 658), the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but modified his sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The Court concluded
In the matter of Jittu Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2026 INSC 657), the Supreme Court of India ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not excluded in appeals filed under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The Court held that in
In the matter of Shankar Dutt vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2026 INSC 656), the Supreme Court of India allowed the appellant’s appeal, enhancing his total compensation from ₹11,51,423 to ₹35,95,923 for injuries sustained in a 2004 motor accident. The Court determined that the appellant, a skilled
In the matter of M. Paramesh vs. VRL Logistics Ltd. and Another (2026 INSC 655), the Supreme Court of India allowed a claimant’s appeal to enhance compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident that resulted in the above-knee amputation of his right leg. The Court held that when assessing
In the matter of Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026 INSC 654), the Supreme Court of India partially allowed an appeal limited to the quantum of sentence, reducing the appellant’s substantive rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction under
In the matter of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kalu Ram and Others (2026 INSC 653), the Supreme Court of India dismissed the insurer’s appeal regarding negligence and quantum of compensation, while partially allowing the claimants’ appeal to include compensation for filial consortium. The Court affirmed concurrent findings that
