Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Supreme Court Summary 28th Oct, 2026

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

Supreme Court Judgments Summary

   28th Oct, 2026

Validation of Reassessment Proceedings under Income Tax Law

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by the appellants (Chetan Sabharwal and Nitin Sabharwal) challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgment that upheld reassessment notices issued under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. The Supreme Court held that the reopening of assessment was backed by fresh, tangible material—specifically an investigation report indicating share overvaluation and tax deferment—which provided a valid “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the reassessment was not a mere “change of opinion,” thereby confirming the validity of the proceedings.

2026 INSC 1163: Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(1), New Delhi (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

Arbitration Extensions: Waiver of Coram Objections, IBC Moratorium, and the Correct Forum Under Section 29A

These civil appeals challenged a common judgment and order dated September 15, 2023, passed by the High Court of Patna in connection with arbitral proceedings arising out of a Distribution Franchisee Agreement dated December 31, 2013. The core issues revolved around whether a party can object to a sole arbitrator after participating and consenting to it despite a contractual clause requiring a three-member panel, whether an insolvency proceeding under the IBC against a corporate debtor bars them from continuing arbitration, and which court holds the proper jurisdiction to extend an arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the appellant had waived its right to object to the single arbitrator’s coram through active participation and consent, affirmed that IBC moratorium provisions do not bar a corporate debtor from pursuing recovery claims like arbitration, but clarified that the High Court erred in holding that Section 29A extensions fall under the High Court’s jurisdiction rather than the Principal Civil Court/Commercial Court. Ultimately, because a parallel commercial court order had already validly extended the mandate, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and directed the sole arbitrator to conclude the proceedings within six weeks.

2026 INSC 1165: South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. India Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

Entitlement to War Injury Pension for Disabilities

This civil appeal by the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence (MoD) challenged the concurrent findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the High Court, which had granted War Injury Pension to the respondent in place of a regular Disability Pension. The respondent, an Indian Army personnel enrolled in 1996, developed ‘Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive)’ while posted at Kargil under “Operation Rakshak” and was subsequently discharged with 75% disability for life. After receiving standard disability pension for six years, he sought a shift to War Injury Pension under Part II, Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the MoD Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001. The MoD contested this, arguing that ongoing large-scale operations like Operation Rakshak do not qualify under Category E(i). A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe held that once an operation is specially notified by the government, it falls squarely within the plain language of Category E(i) unless explicitly excluded, and dismissed the MoD’s appeal.

2026 INSC 1166: Union of India & Ors. v. Narender Kumar (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

Refining the Execution of Arbitral Awards: SC Rejects Post-Decision Clarifications and Calls for Law Commission Study

This appeal challenged an interim order passed by the High Court of Delhi in an execution proceeding, which had granted parties the liberty to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court as to why a factual matter—namely, whether the principal amount was paid in Indian Rupees back in 2009—was not raised when the Supreme Court previously answered a certified substantial question of law under Article 134-A read with Article 133(1)(a). A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh held that appellate proceedings addressing a certified question of law cannot be expanded into factual inquiries regarding subsequent execution events or adjustments. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s liberty to seek clarifications, dismissed a connected miscellaneous application seeking modification of its prior judgment, and left it open for the executing court to determine questions of set-off or adjustment. In a strong epilogue reflecting on a dispute originating under the 1940 Arbitration Act and lingering for over two decades, the Court requested the Law Commission of India to study and recommend reforms for strengthening the execution framework of arbitral awards in India.

2026 INSC 1167: M/s Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s National Projects Construction Corporation (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

Substantial Compliance and Prejudice-Oriented Test: SC Sets Aside Bail Granted on Procedural Grounds in Espionage Case

This criminal appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenged the judgment and order dated May 18, 2026, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, whereby the respondent (Jhabra Ram) was enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The High Court had granted bail on the sole premise that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the respondent in writing at the time of arrest, in violation of Section 47 of the BNSS. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the High Court erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach and ignoring the gravity of offences affecting national security, noting that there was substantial compliance with statutory safeguards and no demonstrable prejudice was caused to the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, cancelled the respondent’s bail, and directed him to surrender within two weeks.

2026 INSC 1169: State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

SC Transfers Conflicting Commercial Suits to a Neutral Forum

This matter involved two interconnected transfer petitions filed under Supreme Court jurisdiction by opposing parties engaged in cross-litigation over trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark ‘SUPREME’. While M/s The Supreme Industries Limited filed a commercial suit before the High Court of Delhi, M/s Supremo India Private Limited instituted a commercial suit before the District Judge (Commercial) in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. With both parties agreeing that the conflicting cross-suits ought to be tried together by a single court but strongly opposing each other’s preferred forum, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to transfer both commercial suits to a neutral forum, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, for a unified trial.

2026 INSC 1170: M/s The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/s Supremo India Private Limited (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

Mandatory Nature of Section 143(2) Notice in Reassessment: SC Dismisses Revenue’s Appeals and Clarifies Section 292BB

This batch of civil appeals filed by the Revenue challenged concurrent decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, which had set aside reassessment orders due to the total failure of the Revenue to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assesses had responded to Section 148 reassessment notices by requesting that their original returns filed under Section 139 be treated as returns filed in response to the reopening. The Revenue argued that participation in proceedings cured defects under Section 292BB or that Section 142(1) letters/requests sufficed. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory sine qua non for reassessment, that Section 292BB cannot cure complete absence or non-issuance of a notice, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.

2026 INSC 1171: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar v. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (and connected appeals) (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

SC Upholds Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act and Clarifies Onus of Proof

This criminal appeal challenged an order passed by the High Court of Kerala, which had partly allowed an appeal against the appellant’s conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, a former Sub-Registrar, was found to have accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by over 51% during the check period from January 1, 1993, to January 16, 2001. While the High Court confirmed the conviction, it took a lenient view due to delays and age, reducing his sentence from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed the appeal, holding that even after accounting for all minor discrepancies raised by the appellant, the disproportionate assets remained well over 26%, and the appellant failed to satisfactorily discharge his burden of accounting for the excess wealth.

2026 INSC 1172: V. Gopalakrishnanan v. The State of Kerala (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Summary 27th Oct, 2026

October 31, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Judgments Summary

27th Oct, 2026

Supreme Court Excludes Debenture Trustee and Lender from CoC under IBC

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeals preferred by a Debenture Trustee (IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.) and a Debenture Holder/Lender (ECL Finance Ltd.), affirming the orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that where lenders exercise pervasive control over the management, policy-making decisions, quarterly budgets, key personnel, and revenue accounts of a Corporate Debtor, such entities fall within the definition of a “related party” under Section 5(24)(m)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Consequently, under the first proviso to Section 21(2) of the IBC, such related-party financial creditors are disqualified from participating, representing, or voting in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Court further ruled that an un-invoked corporate guarantee constitutes a valid financial debt under Section 5(8), an individual homebuyer has locus standi to challenge CoC composition, and a post-CIRP assignment of debt executed in bad faith cannot circumvent the statutory disqualification of a related party.

2026 INSC 1159: ECL Finance Ltd. and Anr. v. Abhinav Mukherjee and Ors. (with Civil Appeal No. 6273 of 2022, Contempt Petition (C) No. 730 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 6268 of 2022, and Contempt Petition (C) No. 731 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 6273 of 2022) (D.O.J. 27.10.2026)

Liberty Overruled by Legal Limits: SC Affirms High Court Order Restoring Default Bail Under UAP Act

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment, which had set aside the trial court’s order cancelling the default bail granted to the respondent. The Apex Court held that Section 43D(7) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act), which bars bail to non-Indian citizens who enter the country unauthorizedly or illegally, requires the initial entry itself to be illegal—subsequent overstay on an expired visa does not trigger this statutory bar. Furthermore, the non-obstante clause in Section 43D(7) overrides sub-sections (5) and (6) but does not exclude statutory default bail governed by Section 43D(2) read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Finding no strong grounds or satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in seeking bail cancellation, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision protecting the personal liberty of the accused.

2026 INSC 1160: Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas (D.O.J. 27.10.2026)

Multiple Life Sentences Cannot Run Consecutively

In this criminal appeal arising from the conviction of the appellant for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim, the Supreme Court examined whether multiple life sentences imposed in a single trial can be directed to run consecutively. A Bench led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, relying on the Constitution Bench precedent in Muthuramalingam v. State, held that since a human being has only one life, life sentences awarded for multiple offences cannot run consecutively. Instead, multiple life sentences must run concurrently by being superimposed over each other. This ensures that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority for one sentence does not ipso facto result in the remission of the other. Consequently, the Court set aside the consecutive nature of the sentences and modified them to superimposed life sentences.

2026 INSC 1161: Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra (with Criminal Appeal No. 5073 of 2026) (D.O.J. 27.10.2026)

Unpaid Excise Duty on Bonded Closing Stock Cannot Be Added to Taxable Income

The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal preferred by the assessee (M/s. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.), setting aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and restoring the concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria held that unpaid excise duty on uncleared closing stock remaining inside a bonded warehouse—which was neither debited to the Profit & Loss account nor claimed as an allowable expenditure by the assessee—cannot be added back to the value of closing stock or added to taxable income under Section 43B read with Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court highlighted that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous factual assumption that the goods had been removed, and emphasized that disallowing an expense which the assessee never actually claimed as a deduction is legally impermissible under the Act.

2026 INSC 1162: M/s. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II (D.O.J. 27.10.2026)

Next Story

Supreme Court Summary 26th Oct, 2026

October 31, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Judgments Summary

26th Oct, 2026

A Travesty of Justice: Six Years of Undeserved Imprisonment Due to Slipshod Investigation

This judgment arises from a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner seeking bail after enduring six years of incarceration as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case. The petitioner was never named in the initial First Information Report (FIR) or the Section 161 statement, but was later implicated solely based on unverified CCTV footage and the confession of a co-accused. Recognizing the complete lack of evidence and the severe lapses in the case, the Supreme Court had earlier directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial, which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. Reviewing the trial court’s judgment, the Apex Court strongly deprecated the abysmal quality of the investigation, the failure to establish any incriminating circumstances (such as last-seen theory, electronic evidence without Section 65B certificates, or DNA matching of recovered bones), and the gross violation of personal liberty. To redress the grave miscarriage of justice that robbed an innocent man of six years of his life, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 to the petitioner within one month.

2026 INSC 1150: Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Setting Aside Arbitrary Land Acquisitions for Cooperative Societies

This batch of civil appeals challenged a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which had overturned a learned Single Judge’s well-considered ruling that quashed land acquisition notifications on grounds of fraud, collusion, and colorable exercise of power. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the record—including a pre-amendment agreement with a third-party service provider/middleman, cryptic government approvals lacking a detailed housing scheme or layout blueprint as required under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and damning findings from the G.V.K. Rao Committee Report regarding fictitious memberships and bribery. The Apex Court held that technical pleas like delay, laches, and res judicata (predicated on a prior superficial ruling in Karithimmaiah) cannot be used as engines of fraud to protect an illegal acquisition. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench judgment, restored the Single Judge’s order quashing the acquisition, and issued robust consequential directions for restoring land possession to the owners and auctioning unresumed parcels for victim compensation.

2026 INSC 1151: N. Arasappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Protecting Waqf Sanctity: Supreme Court Restores Injunction Against Encroachment on Service Inam Lands

This civil appeal challenged the High Court’s judgment, which had set aside a trial court decree granting a permanent injunction in favor of the Wakf Board over ‘Mafi Inam’ lands attached to the Qutub Shahi Mosque. The High Court had previously dismissed the suit, concluding that the Wakf Board failed to prove possession and that the defendants held valid pattadar passbooks. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied precedents such as Anathula Sudhakar and Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande, noting that the suit property was officially surveyed and duly notified as a wakf institution under the Wakf Act in 1989 (with no statutory challenge brought by the defendants or their vendors within the limitation period). Emphasizing that the vendors only held the land as a service inam for the maintenance of the mosque and possessed no right to alienate it, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, restored the trial court’s permanent injunction, and dismissed the connected contempt petitions.

2026 INSC 1152: The A.P. State Wakf Board (Now Telangana State Wakf Board) v. Syed Masood Ahmed & Anr. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

RTI: SC Affirms Member’s Right Under RTI Act to Obtain Cooperative Society Documents via Registrar

This civil appeal challenged a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala, which had upheld a cooperative society member’s right to obtain documents—specifically a construction agreement and minutes of the General Body Meeting—under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The appellant-bank argued that as a cooperative society, it is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and that the Registrar cannot access its documents without first satisfying strict statutory preconditions for a formal inquiry under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that although a cooperative society is not a public authority, information relating to a private body “can be accessed” by a public authority (such as the Registrar under statutory supervisory and inspection powers) and therefore falls within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Apex Court affirmed that a member of a society cannot be denied such routine records, directed the Registrar to secure and supply the documents within two weeks, and dismissed the appeals.

2026 INSC 1153: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

SC Clarifies Limits on Committee of Creditors Withdrawing Approved Resolution Plans

This civil appeal arose from a challenge to an NCLAT order which rejected the Committee of Creditors’ (CoC) attempt to withdraw its previously approved Resolution Plan on the ground that the Corporate Debtor’s (CD) financial position had vastly improved during the intervening litigation delay. The CoC, backed by the erstwhile promoters offering a One-Time Settlement (OTS), sought a fresh invitation of Expression of Interest (Form-G), whereas the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) opposed this, citing the binding nature of the plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Supreme Court upheld the principle that a CoC-approved resolution plan is binding inter se between the CoC and the SRA, aligning with the precedents in Ebix Singapore and Kalyani Transco. However, declining to interfere with the NCLAT’s directions, the Apex Court directed the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to expeditiously consider both the approval application of the Resolution Plan and the holding company’s OTS application, ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC while emphasizing that merely improved profitability alone does not invalidate an otherwise lawful resolution plan.

2026 INSC 1154: Bank of India & Ors. v. S.M. Kamal Pasha & Ors. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Valid Title Prevails: Supreme Court Upholds Original Allotment in Execution Proceedings

This civil appeal challenged concurrent adverse findings by the trial court and the Karnataka High Court, which had dismissed an application filed under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC by the appellant (Balakrishna) objecting to an execution proceeding. The original plaintiff (Kanniah Naidu) had secured an ex-parte or contested decree for declaration of title and possession based merely on a photocopy of an allotment certificate (Hakkupatra), claiming his original was taken back by the Tahsildar due to multiple allotments. Conversely, the objector Balakrishna produced the genuine, original Hakkupatra dated January 5, 1972, and established his actual physical possession, which the decree-holder himself admitted during cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts completely misdirected themselves by ignoring the mandate of Order XXI Rule 101 (which bars separate suits and treats execution applications as regular suits) and disregarding vital admissions and primary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court judgments, and declared the legal representatives of Balakrishna as the lawful owners and possessors of the property.

2026 INSC 1155: Balakrishna (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. G.N. Kanniah Naidu (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Another (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Balancing Equity and Commerce: SC Settles Industrial Loan Dispute Through Final Settlement Terms

This appeal arose from a common judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, which had set aside a Single Judge’s order and upheld the classification of the appellant-borrower’s loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and its subsequent assignment to an Asset Reconstruction Company (Respondent No. 2). During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, interim arrangements were made allowing the appellant to pay the principal assignment value of Rs. 250 crores, and a committee/report was commissioned under the guidance of former Supreme Court Judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, to determine any reasonable return or additional liability. Balancing the equities to protect a running industrial concern and its workforce—while addressing the competing claims of the assignee—the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to dispense with technical questions regarding the NPA classification and assignment validity. Instead, the Court accepted Justice Anil R. Dave’s report with modifications and directed the appellant to pay a final lump sum of Rs. 125 crores over and above the Rs. 250 crores already paid, bringing all pending proceedings across the NCLT and DRT to a quietus.

2026 INSC 1156: Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Anr. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Reconciling Eelectricity Theft Assessments: Supreme Court Clarifies Interplay Between Section 126 &135 of the Electricity Act

These civil appeals addressed common questions of law regarding the correct mechanism for assessing electricity charges and restoring power supply when a consumer is accused of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The distribution licensees argued that the summary assessment and deposit requirement for reconnection under the third proviso to Section 135(1A) are independent of Section 126 (unauthorized use) and Section 127 (appeals), and that civil liability is strictly preserved for determination by a Special Court under Section 154(5). The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a separate statutory procedure or designated assessing officer for theft under the Supply Code, the “assessed amount” required for seeking emergency restoration of supply under Section 135(1A) must be determined by adopting the procedure delineated under Section 126 (including filing objections and hearings). The Court clarified that while this assessed amount is subject to an appeal under Section 127 and acts as final for the limited purpose of reconnection, it remains ultimately subject to the final determination of civil liability by the Special Court under Section 154(5) in the event of criminal prosecution. Finding the High Court’s interim orders directing electricity restoration upon a 50% deposit to be sound, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals with necessary legal clarifications.

2026 INSC 1157: Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr. v. Vaibhav Metal Crusher (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Textile Cess: Refining Without Manufacturing: Exempt from Textile Cess on Powerloom and Handloom Fabrics

This civil appeal arose from a challenge to an Allahabad High Court judgment, which had quashed a textile cess demand raised against an independent textile processor (M/s. Premium Suiting Pvt. Ltd.) engaged in bleaching, dyeing, and processing man-made fabrics supplied by powerloom and handloom units on a job-work basis. The appellant-Textiles Committee argued that such processing amounted to “manufacture” under an extended interpretation (borrowed from the Central Excise Act), thereby attracting a duty of excise/cess under Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the term “manufacture” is undefined in the 1963 Act, its meaning cannot be bodily imported from a non-pari materia statute like the Central Excise Act. The Court ruled that independent job-workers performing supplementary processes like dyeing and bleaching on powerloom/handloom fabrics act merely as an extended arm of the exempted primary manufacturers, and no independent “textile manufactured” is created to justify levying cess.

2026 INSC 1158: The Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee v. M/s. Suiting Pvt. Ltd. & Another (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Quashing Non-Compoundable Heinous Crimes on Settlement

This matter arose out of a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7332 of 2026 filed by the petitioner, Gopal Lodhi, seeking anticipatory bail. The case involved serious allegations under Sections 64(1), 331(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court was informed that the High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties by exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. Disturbed by the quashing of a heinous non-compoundable offence like rape solely on the basis of a compromise, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court’s order quashing the complaint and directed the trial to proceed, while simultaneously granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to trial court conditions and cooperation with the investigation.

2026 INSC 1164: Gopal Lodhi v. State of M.P. & Anr. (D.O.J. 26.10.2026)

Share
Next Story

SC Upholds Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act and Clarifies Onus of Proof

October 31, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal challenged an order passed by the High Court of Kerala, which had partly allowed an appeal against the appellant’s conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, a former Sub-Registrar, was found to have accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by over 51% during the check period from January 1, 1993, to January 16, 2001. While the High Court confirmed the conviction, it took a lenient view due to delays and age, reducing his sentence from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed the appeal, holding that even after accounting for all minor discrepancies raised by the appellant, the disproportionate assets remained well over 26%, and the appellant failed to satisfactorily discharge his burden of accounting for the excess wealth.

1. Background & Factual Matrix

  • The appellant entered government service in May 1971 and became a Sub-Registrar in September 1993.
  • An FIR was registered against him on January 15, 2001, for possessing disproportionate assets between January 1, 1993, and January 16, 2001.
  • The prosecution established foundational facts through Basic Statements A to E, showing that at the beginning of the check period, assets were worth Rs. 1,93,898/-, and by the end, they rose to Rs. 12,37,720/-. After factoring in legal income (Rs. 10,12,117.20) and verifiable/non-verifiable expenditures (Rs. 4,93,424/-), likely savings were computed at Rs. 5,18,693/-.
  • The value of assets acquired exceeded savings by Rs. 5,25,129/-, representing 51.88% disproportion to known sources of income.
  • The Trial Court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,50,000/. The High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the prison term to one year and fine to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

2. Appellant’s Contentions and Court’s Rebuttal

  • Cost of Construction: The appellant disputed the valuation of his commercial-cum-residential building, claiming an overestimation of Rs. 1,90,153/- based on an informal notebook. The Supreme Court noted that the notebook was not maintained in the ordinary course of business and the appellant failed to produce expert or documentary evidence to counter PWD schedule rates. Even if this deduction were granted, the disproportion remained at over 33%.
  • Household and Non-Verifiable Expenses: The appellant contested estimated monthly household expenses. The Court observed that the prosecution’s calculation relied on prevailing consumer price indices proved by expert witnesses (PW33), whereas the appellant’s version was based on mere estimations without actuals. Granting the appellant’s claimed difference still left disproportionate assets at over 26%.
  • Other Minor Items: Minor contentions regarding chit fund remittances and rental income lacked contemporaneous documentary proof from the appellant.

3. Principles on Burden of Proof and Scope of Investigation

  • Prosecution’s Initial Onus: Citing Nallamal v. State and State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu, the Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish foundational facts regarding known sources of income, assets, and expenditures during the check period.
  • Explanation by the Accused: Once disproportion is shown, the burden shifts entirely to the public servant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Section 106 Evidence Act) to “satisfactorily account” for the excess wealth, as these facts are within his special knowledge.
  • Explanation to Section 13(1)(e): The expression “known sources of income” refers to sources known to the prosecution upon investigation, relieving the investigating agency from conducting an endless, open-ended roving inquiry into undisclosed or speculative sources claimed by the accused.

4. Final Directions

  • The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and the interim bail granted to the appellant was vacated.
  • The appellant was granted two weeks to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining sentence.

2026 INSC 1172

V. Gopalakrishnanan v. The State of Kerala (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1172 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

SC Transfers Conflicting Commercial Suits to a Neutral Forum

October 31, 2026 No Comments

This matter involved two interconnected transfer petitions filed under Supreme Court jurisdiction by opposing parties engaged in cross-litigation over trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark ‘SUPREME’. While M/s The Supreme Industries Limited filed a commercial suit before the High Court of Delhi, M/s Supremo India Private Limited instituted a commercial suit before the District Judge (Commercial) in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. With both parties agreeing that the conflicting cross-suits ought to be tried together by a single court but strongly opposing each other’s preferred forum, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to transfer both commercial suits to a neutral forum, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, for a unified trial.

1. Nature of the Dispute & Proceedings

  • First Petition (TP (C) No. 3594 of 2025): Filed by M/s The Supreme Industries Limited seeking to transfer CS (Comm) No. 134 of 2025 (filed by M/s Supremo India Private Limited from the Commercial Court at Indore, Madhya Pradesh, to New Delhi). The Indore suit sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark usage, asset disclosures, removal from e-commerce platforms, and damages worth Rs. 15,00,000/-.
  • Second Petition (TP (C) No. 175 of 2026): Filed by M/s Supremo India Private Limited seeking to transfer CS (Comm) No. 1294 of 2025 (filed by M/s The Supreme Industries Limited before the High Court of Delhi, to Indore or another competent court). The Delhi suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and dilution, seeking damages of Rs. 2,00,01,000/- and a declaration of ‘SUPREME’ as a well-known mark.

2. Core Consensus and Conflict Between Parties

  • Both parties and their respective senior counsel were in full agreement (ad idem) that the two cross-suits must be tried together before a single court to avoid conflicting adjudications.
  • However, each party vehemently opposed transferring their matter to the forum chosen by the other, insisting that the trial take place where their respective suit was originally instituted.

3. Final Directions & Neutral Relocation

  • Without delving into the merits of the underlying claims or contentions, the Supreme Court exercised its discretionary powers to resolve the stalemate.
  • Transfer Order: CS (Comm) No. 134 of 2025 pending before the District Judge (Commercial), Indore, and CS No. 1294 of 2025 pending before the High Court of Delhi were both ordered to be transferred to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
  • Procedural Instructions: The respective courts where the suits were originally filed were directed to transmit the plaints to Ahmedabad expeditiously.
  • Appearance Date: Both parties were directed to appear before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on November 26, 2026.
  • The transfer petitions and any pending applications were accordingly disposed of.

2026 INSC 1170

M/s The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/s Supremo India Private Limited (D.O.J. 28.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1170 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins