Judgment feed · Supreme Court + Kerala High Court
Recent judgments.
Fresh decisions worth knowing about, summarised for practising advocates. Updated every morning at 6 AM IST.
May 2026 · 2 judgments
- Supreme Court4 May2026 INSC 442
Attavar v. State of Maharashtra
Advocates defending accused persons where an FIR has been registered pursuant to a High Court writ direction — without the complainant first exhausting BNSS remedies before the SP or Magistrate — can cite this judgment to quash both the writ order and the FIR; conversely, complainants must ensure they traverse the full statutory ladder under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
criminalconstitutionalwrit - Supreme Court4 May2026 INSC 444
RPSC v. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors.
Recruiters and candidates in public service selections must note that where a service rule's proviso permitting "final-year appearing" candidates has been deleted, no amount of subsequent acquisition of qualification can cure ineligibility at the application stage — advocates advising PSC candidates or challenging eligibility cut-offs should scrutinise the current text of the applicable service rules before relying on any candidate-friendly interpretation of the advertisement.
servicewrit
April 2026 · 23 judgments
- Supreme Court16 Apr2026 INSC 372
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
Defendants who routinely invoke Order VII Rule 11(d) to reject plaints on the ground of Order II Rule 2 bar will now fail at the threshold — courts must dismiss such applications and proceed to trial; plaintiffs facing such applications should cite this judgment to resist premature rejection and insist that the Order II Rule 2 plea be tested only after evidence is recorded.
civilproperty - Supreme Court15 Apr2026 INSC 368
J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India
Arbitration practitioners must ensure that Section 34 (and all supervisory) petitions are filed at the court of the contractually designated seat — not at the place where hearings were held or the award was signed; this judgment forecloses any argument that the venue of proceedings or the place of signing the award can shift supervisory jurisdiction away from the agreed seat.
arbitrationcivil - Supreme Court13 Apr2026 INSC 357
Anosh Ekka v. State Through CBI
Advocates defending accused persons facing multiple prosecutions arising from split charge-sheets on the same FIR can cite this order to press for bail/suspension of sentence in the second case where the court has already granted relief in the first — and to flag the overlapping-allegations issue as a ground requiring the High Court's substantive consideration in the appeal, including the Article 20(3) double-jeopardy argument.
criminal - Kerala HC10 Apr
Akhil Louiz v. District Collector, Ernakulam
Advocates acting for landowners facing puramboke encroachment notices or consequential NOC refusals can cite this order to obtain a stay of Land Conservancy Act proceedings and a direction for a fresh survey with notice — particularly where the Government's puramboke claim has not been verified by an independent survey conducted after hearing the affected party.
writproperty - Kerala HC10 Apr
Akhil Louiz v. District Collector, Ernakulam
Advocates acting for landowners facing puramboke encroachment notices or NOC rejections can cite this order to insist on a fresh survey with prior notice before any adverse action is taken; the judgment establishes that an unverified puramboke claim is insufficient to sustain either Land Conservancy Act proceedings or a denial of NOC for a petroleum outlet.
writproperty - Supreme Court10 Apr2026 INSC 348
Ramachandrasa (LRs) v. Mahendra Watch Co.
Landlords litigating eviction on sub-letting grounds under State rent control statutes can cite this judgment for the proposition that a "reconstitution" of a partnership firm — where the original tenant-partner has wholly exited and strangers are in exclusive occupation — will be treated as unlawful sub-letting once the tenant fails to produce cogent documentary proof of a genuine partnership; equally, tenants and their counsel should note that a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot rescue such a case by reappreciating evidence, and that rent receipts in the original tenant's name carry no determinative weight.
propertycivil - Supreme Court10 Apr2026 INSC 355
Milind Dhanve & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Advocates defending accused who have been convicted but sentenced only to fine — with no imprisonment — can now squarely invoke s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to seek probation and, critically, invoke s.12 to shield their clients from service or other statutory disqualifications flowing from the conviction; the Supreme Court has authoritatively rejected the State's argument that "release" under s.4 presupposes incarceration.
criminal - Supreme Court10 Apr2026 INSC 346
Mamta Devi v. Sanjay Kumar
Advocates in matrimonial matters should note that the Supreme Court, while declining to disturb concurrent factual findings on cruelty and desertion, exercised its jurisdiction to convert a one-time lump-sum maintenance award into a recurring monthly payment — a useful precedent for arguing that the form of maintenance can be restructured at the appellate stage even where the divorce decree itself is upheld.
family - Supreme Court9 Apr2026 INSC 336
Roma Ahuja v. The State and Another
Any defence application to quash criminal proceedings on the ground that cognizance was taken after the Section 468 CrPC limitation period is now firmly foreclosed by this reaffirmation of Sarah Mathew — courts and counsel must reckon limitation from the date the FIR was lodged or the complaint filed, not from the date of cognizance; the Court also signals that advocates who persist in arguing against settled Constitution Bench law risk judicial censure on professional ethics grounds.
criminal - Supreme Court9 Apr2026 INSC 340
Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni
Advocates handling execution proceedings must note that a judgment debtor cannot use the executing court as a forum to re-engineer a compromise decree on grounds of practical inconvenience or self-created encumbrances (such as selling decretal land to a third party); the only permissible inquiry is as to the *identity* of the land directed to be delivered, not its substitution — making this decision directly citable to resist any application seeking modification of a decree in execution.
civilproperty - Supreme Court9 Apr2026 INSC 341
Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Advocates acting for municipal bodies or residents' associations in encroachment-removal matters must now demonstrate not merely that illegal vendors were evicted but that the State took affirmative steps — vending zone allocation, information dissemination, and customer-awareness drives — to support displaced vendors; failure to show this transition-support will expose enforcement drives to challenge as punitive and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
constitutionalwritcivil - Supreme Court9 Apr2026 INSC 339
Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth
Advocates defending specific performance decrees on second appeal must demonstrate perversity or a substantial question of law — erroneous fact-finding alone will not suffice; and counsel acting for vendors in pending litigation must advise that any pendente lite transfers will be declared non est if the decree is ultimately upheld, regardless of whether the transferees are bona fide purchasers. The judgment also clarifies that a manager or authorised agent with personal knowledge can rebut the adverse inference from a principal's non-appearance in the witness box.
propertycivil - Supreme Court8 Apr2026 INSC 333
K.G. Seshadri v. Trustees of SBI
Advocates handling SBI (and analogous bank) pension disputes must note that the Court firmly separates "voluntary abandonment" from "voluntary retirement" — an employee declared to have abandoned service cannot invoke r. 22(i)(c) to claim pension; additionally, the twenty-year pensionable service clock starts from the date of confirmation, not appointment, which can be decisive where the gap between the two dates is significant.
servicelabour - Supreme Court8 Apr2026 INSC 335
Chopra Hotels v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon
Advocates acting for parties adversely affected by interim orders in writ petitions to which their clients are not party can now cite this judgment to resist exclusion from those proceedings — the Court has firmly held that demonstrable civil consequences from an interim order confer standing to seek impleadment and clarification, regardless of non-party status. It also provides a clear precedent against courts staying independent appellate or revision remedies merely because a broader parent writ is pending.
writcivilproperty - Supreme Court7 Apr2026 INSC 325
Gautam Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh
Defence counsel in Section 302 IPC cases built on circumstantial evidence can cite this judgment for two propositions: (1) a 'last-seen' witness with demonstrable group hostility towards the accused is a plausible 'interested witness' whose uncorroborated testimony cannot sustain conviction, regardless of the Trial Court's contrary finding; and (2) where a co-accused is acquitted on materially identical evidence, the principle of parity from Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi compels the same result for the remaining accused — even against concurrent findings of guilt under Article 136.
criminal - Supreme Court7 Apr2026 INSC 330
West Bengal SETCL v. Dipendu Biswas
Employers and candidates in any recruitment involving UR (PWD) horizontal vacancies must note that a reserved-category PWD candidate who scores higher than an unreserved PWD candidate is entitled to the UR (PWD) post by migration on merit — a notification clause conditioning the vacancy on "non-availability" of a qualified unreserved candidate cannot be read to exclude more meritorious reserved-category PWD candidates; advocates challenging or defending such appointments should cite this judgment alongside Saurav Yadav v. State of UP and Deepa E.V. v. Union of India.
serviceconstitutional - Supreme Court6 Apr2026 INSC 322
Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal
Defence counsel in quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS can now cite this judgment for the proposition that a court — including the Supreme Court — may itself view CCTV footage forming part of the chargesheet and, if it unambiguously negates the accused's presence or participation, quash proceedings at the threshold without relegating the accused to a full trial; the judgment also reinforces the parity principle, requiring cogent reasons before co-accused in the same FIR are treated differently on a quashing petition.
criminalwrit - Supreme Court6 Apr2026 INSC 319
Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
Surgeons and hospitals facing criminal prosecution for alleged consent-form forgery can invoke this judgment to seek quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where a competent medical opinion supports the procedure performed and no forensic evidence of tampering exists — the Court has confirmed that the Section 482 power extends to examining factual questions on consent documents when necessary to prevent abuse of process, and that Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab does not exhaust the field in non-negligence medical cases.
criminalwrit - Supreme Court6 Apr2026 INSC 318
Sivakumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Defence counsel in obscenity prosecutions under Section 294(b) IPC can now cite this judgment alongside Apoorva Arora (2024) 6 SCC 181 to argue that abusive expletives used in altercations — however offensive — fall short of the prurient-interest test for obscenity; separately, the judgment tightens the evidentiary bar for fastening Section 34 common intention on a co-accused in sudden fight cases where the fatal blow is attributable to only one participant.
criminal - Supreme Court2 Apr2026 INSC 315
Shankar v. State of Rajasthan
Defence counsel challenging dying declarations in bride-burning or domestic homicide cases on grounds of the declarant's fitness or alleged tutoring will find this judgment a strong precedent against such challenges where a magistrate-recorded declaration is backed by a medical fitness certificate and consistent post-mortem/medical evidence; the Court also signals continued judicial intolerance for patriarchal domestic violence through its detailed postscript on the persistence of crimes against women.
criminal - Kerala HC1 Apr
K.K.Sidharthan v. State of Kerala
Advocates handling writ petitions for transfer of police investigation should note that submission of a final report in the subject crime will ordinarily render such relief infructuous; the residual remedy is to challenge the final report before the competent court, not to persist in the writ. The judgment also confirms that a pending final report is no bar to a private settlement between parties.
writcriminal - Supreme Court1 Apr2026 INSC 304
Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das
Advocates defending subordinate police personnel in criminal proceedings cannot invoke a co-accused senior officer's Section 197(1) quashing order unless their client falls in the same "removable only by Government sanction" category; equally, State notifications issued under Section 197(3) after cognizance is taken will not rescue pending prosecutions — making the date of cognizance the critical threshold in all Section 197 sanction challenges.
criminal - Supreme Court1 Apr2026 INSC 305
Jai Prakash Saini v. MD, U.P. Cooperative Federation
Advocates defending employees in disciplinary proceedings can cite this judgment to challenge any enquiry where the employer relied purely on documents without examining a single witness to prove them — the Court has now firmly settled that an evasive reply to a charge-sheet does not amount to an admission under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the employer's burden to lead evidence cannot be bypassed regardless of the strength of documentary material on record.
servicelabour
March 2026 · 32 judgments
- Kerala HC31 Mar
Dr. Ramees T.P v. Kerala Veterinary & Animal Sciences University
Advocates advising candidates or institutions in matters arising from university bifurcations or statutory reorganisations can cite this judgment for the proposition that a successor university cannot reset the communal reservation roster to the prejudice of communities next in rotation; the roster must be continued from where the predecessor institution left off, and any fresh-roster appointments in the transferred departments are liable to be set aside.
writserviceconstitutional - Kerala HC30 Mar2025:KER:30861
Brinda v. State of Kerala
Advocates appearing before the Kerala High Court must note that the Division Bench has firmly refused to condone non-representation arising from the 09.04.2025 pen-down protest, citing *Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal* and *Krishnakant Tamrakar* as binding authority; litigants whose matters were dismissed that day have a one-month window to file restoration applications, and counsel who held vakalats risk personal cost liability for absenting themselves pursuant to a boycott call.
propertywritconstitutional - Kerala HC26 Mar
K.V. Xavier v. Peter Augustine
Advocates in property title disputes should note that conflicting survey numbers across title documents do not by themselves defeat a claim — courts must look to boundary descriptions, and a commissioner's identification plan keyed to those boundaries is essential evidence before any finding on property identity can be recorded.
propertycivil - Kerala HC25 Mar2025:KER:15667
M/S. INKEL LIMITED v. M/S. MANSIONS
Advocates handling multi-party construction disputes should note that a co-contracting entity without an arbitration clause in its agreement cannot be dragged into Section 11 proceedings unless the *Ajay Madhusudan Patel* dual test is expressly pleaded and established; the judgment also reaffirms that unilateral arbitrator-appointment clauses remain invalid post-*Central Organisation for Railway Electrification*.
arbitrationcommercial - Supreme Court19 Mar2026 INSC 264
Sant Rohidas Leather Industries v. Vijaya Bank
Advocates acting for corporate depositors in consumer disputes against banks can now cite this judgment to resist the blanket argument that any FDR earns interest and is therefore "commercial" — the dominant-purpose test governs and the burden lies on the bank. Conversely, where a complaint is rooted in allegations of fraud or forgery (e.g., unauthorised pledge of an FDR), practitioners must advise clients to approach a civil court or criminal forum rather than NCDRC, as such complaints will be dismissed as not maintainable under the 1986 Act.
consumercommercial - Supreme Court19 Mar2026 INSC 265
V. Ganesan v. State & Anr.
Advocates defending producers, promoters, or investors in speculative ventures (films, startups, real-estate projects) against Section 420 IPC complaints can cite this judgment to argue that dishonour of post-dated cheques issued as security or to discharge existing liability does not ipso facto constitute cheating, and that High Courts must examine the inherently contingent nature of profit-sharing transactions before refusing to quash such proceedings under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226.
criminalcheque bouncing - Supreme Court19 Mar2026 INSC 266
Virinder Pal Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank
Bank and public-sector disciplinary authorities can now confidently impose pay-reduction penalties (not just dismissal) at the conclusion of post-retirement disciplinary proceedings, provided the service regulations contain a deeming-continuance clause like r.20(3)(iii); advocates defending retired employees must distinguish Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade (charge sheet served after retirement) from cases where proceedings were initiated before superannuation, and must press all merits-based grounds before the High Court or risk being shut out at the Supreme Court stage.
servicelabour - Kerala HC18 Mar
R. Bindu v. State Bank of India
Advocates acting for legal heirs of deceased auction purchasers in SARFAESI/bank-auction matters can cite this order to compel a bank — which has already admitted no impediment to registration — to complete the sale-certificate registration within a court-fixed deadline upon production of a legal heirship certificate; the order also confirms that SBI's communication to the Sub Registrar restraining encumbrances is sufficient to protect the property pending registration.
writpropertycivil - Supreme Court18 Mar2026 INSC 260
R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance
Claimants with combined physical and cognitive/neurological injuries can now press for functional disability exceeding the Medical Board's certified percentage, up to 100%, where the impairments collectively destroy earning capacity in their specific avocation; insurers seeking appellate reduction of MACT awards must place contra medical evidence on record and cannot rely on a bare "no mechanical equation" argument.
motor accidents - Supreme Court17 Mar2026 INSC 249
Subramani v. State of Karnataka
Defence counsel challenging dying declarations in burn-injury homicide cases on the ground of the victim's physical incapacity will find this judgment a significant obstacle: the Supreme Court affirms that a doctor's contemporaneous certification of fitness to make a statement, corroborated by eyewitness and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction even where the victim suffered 80–90% burns and some witnesses deposed she was unconscious.
criminal - Supreme Court17 Mar2026 INSC 251
Mohammad Kaleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Defence and prosecution counsel in Section 319 CrPC applications can now cite this judgment for the proposition that courts must assess evidence cumulatively and cannot reject a summoning application merely on the basis of inter-witness inconsistencies or absence of documentary corroboration; the decision also provides a clear three-tier evidentiary threshold framework (prima facie / strong and cogent / proof beyond reasonable doubt) that can be deployed at every stage of a criminal trial.
criminal - Kerala HC16 Mar
Sreena S. v. State of Kerala
This order has no precedential value on the substantive service dispute; advocates handling similar headmaster appointment or educational service matters in Kerala should note that the underlying G.O.(P) No. 1612/2023/GEDN remains unchallenged and the petitioner may need to explore fresh remedies if the dispute is to be revived.
writservice - Kerala HC13 Mar
Santhosh M.K. v. Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance
This disposal confirms that a mediated settlement at the execution stage extinguishes the challenge to execution proceedings before the High Court; advocates handling similar arbitration-enforcement matters should ensure the settlement terms are reduced to writing and placed on record before the petition is formally dismissed as infructuous, to preserve enforceability of the agreed terms.
arbitrationcivil - Kerala HC12 Mar2025:KER:27235
Manoj K v. Ombudsman for Local Self Govt.
Panchayat and municipal officers facing personal compensation orders from the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions can now cite this judgment to contend that Section 271J(iii)(b) confines liability to the institution itself; the ruling also preserves the institution's right to subsequently recover the amount from the erring officer, keeping that question open for internal proceedings.
writconstitutional - Supreme Court12 Mar2026 INSC 234
Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police
Advocates defending government servants dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) can cite this judgment for the proposition that the disciplinary authority's satisfaction must be grounded in objective, on-record material — not conjecture — and that an employee's concurrent judicial custody fatally undermines any claim of witness intimidation as justification for dispensing with the inquiry; the judgment also reinforces that Constitutional Courts retain full judicial review power notwithstanding Article 311(3).
serviceconstitutionalwrit - Supreme Court11 Mar2026 INSC 229
Thanigivelu & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Advocates handling public-sector seniority disputes — particularly where direct recruits undergo a pre-probation training period — can cite this judgment for the proposition that training counts as "duty" and anchors the seniority date; any Board Proceeding, appointment letter, or administrative order that defers seniority to the probation-commencement date will be overridden by service regulations that expressly treat training as part of service. The ruling also clarifies that reducing a training period by administrative order does not retrospectively alter seniority already accrued.
servicewrit - Supreme Court11 Mar2026 INSC 223
Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar
Defence counsel in fire-death and dying-declaration cases can now cite this judgment for two distinct grounds of challenge: (1) a checklist of investigative lapses — absence of scene mahazar, forensic examination, medical certification, and independent witnesses — that collectively destroy the credibility of dying declarations; and (2) the proposition that an omnibus Section 313 CrPC examination that omits specific incriminating circumstances is itself a ground to assail a conviction, without necessarily requiring a remand if the underlying evidence is also insufficient.
criminalconstitutional - Supreme Court11 Mar2026 INSC 228
MCGM v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
Counsel defending arbitral awards against jurisdictional challenges based on alleged procedural non-compliance in tribunal constitution now have a Supreme Court ruling that a party's acquiescence — silence across multiple appointments, participation in proceedings, and pursuit of alternative dispute resolution — is independently fatal to such challenges even when the Section 16 application was technically filed in time; the "jurisdictional ace" doctrine signals that courts will scrutinise the full conduct history, not merely the procedural timeline, when evaluating composition-based objections.
arbitrationcommercial - Supreme Court11 Mar2026 INSC 225
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rajkumar Yadav
Advocates defending police or paramilitary screening-committee rejections can cite this judgment for the proposition that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal — particularly in cases involving grave moral turpitude such as kidnapping or sexual offences — does not compel reinstatement or appointment, and that courts must not substitute their view for the screening committee's on candidate suitability absent mala fides or arbitrariness; conversely, candidates challenging such rejections must now demonstrate more than a mere acquittal to succeed.
servicecriminalconstitutional - Kerala HC10 Mar
Dr. K. Satheesh v. Rajeev Sadanandan IAS
Advocates handling civil contempt matters should note that a pending appeal against the base order is a recognised ground for closing contempt proceedings without a merits finding; the liberty to re-open preserves the petitioner's right to revive the case once the appeal is decided.
writservicecriminal - Supreme Court10 Mar2026 INSC 219
Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar
Advocates challenging State legislation that acquires or dissolves trust or private institutions can cite this judgment for the proposition that "better management" as a preamble object does not justify the most extreme legislative measure when less invasive alternatives (grant-in-aid, conditional funding, statutory audit, supervisory oversight) are available; the absence of any pre-enactment inquiry or notice to the affected institution is itself a powerful indicator of manifest arbitrariness under Article 14. The judgment also settles that a token or illusory compensation provision independently renders an acquisition law confiscatory and unconstitutional under Article 300A.
constitutionalpropertywrit - Supreme Court10 Mar2026 INSC 216
Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies v. Gurdeep Singh Narval
Advocates advising cooperative societies in States carved out of erstwhile Uttar Pradesh — or any reorganised State — can now cite this judgment to resist claims that Section 103 of the 2002 Act automatically confers Multi-State status: the deeming fiction is displaced where reorganisation was completed under the Reorganisation Act and the society's objects are single-State in character, and Naresh Shankar Srivastava (2009) 16 SCC 157 is expressly distinguished and confined to the 1984 Act.
civilconstitutionallabour - Supreme Court10 Mar2026 INSC 213
Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Ltd.
Counsel advising companies on Section 66 capital reductions can now rely on this ruling to confirm that no registered-valuer report need be enclosed with the shareholder notice — distinguishing the stricter disclosure requirements under Sections 62, 230, 232 and 236 — and that DLOM is a permissible valuation adjustment for unlisted, illiquid shares outside an oppression context; minority shareholders challenging such reductions must demonstrate egregious, blatant unfairness rather than a mere preference for a higher price.
companycommercial - Supreme Court10 Mar2026 INSC 221
CBI v. Baljeet Singh
Advocates defending or prosecuting bribery trap cases must note that a failed conspiracy charge does not sink a co-accused's standalone Section 7 PC Act conviction — the two charges are independently examinable. Additionally, post-trap conduct (silence, attempt to flee, pallor) is admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act and can fortify an otherwise circumstantial case even where electronic recordings are excluded for want of Section 65B certification.
criminal - Supreme Court10 Mar2026 INSC 218
Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Advocates representing COVID-19 vaccine-injury claimants can now cite this judgment to press for a structured no-fault compensation framework from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; until that policy is framed, the direction itself provides a constitutional anchor to resist dismissal of such claims on the ground that only negligence-based civil or consumer remedies are available. Respondent-side counsel should note the Court's explicit caveat that the direction is not an admission of State liability and does not displace existing AEFI committee processes.
constitutionalwritcriminal - Supreme Court10 Mar2026 INSC 217
Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan
Defence counsel in murder trials relying on electronic evidence and FSL reports should immediately scrutinise (a) whether the Section 65-B/BSA Section 63 certificate has been formally proved — its absence renders call records wholly inadmissible regardless of nodal officer testimony — and (b) whether the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of custody for muddamal articles; any discrepancy in malkhana records can be used to neutralise FSL reports entirely.
criminal - Supreme Court9 Mar2026 INSC 212
Purbey & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Advocates defending in-laws in dowry cases can cite this judgment to compel parity of treatment under Section 482 CrPC: if a co-accused obtains quashing on the "general and omnibus" ground, the same standard must be applied to all co-accused whose allegations are materially identical, and a court cannot selectively deny relief without a principled distinction. The judgment also reinforces that delay in lodging an FIR, when combined with absence of specific allegations, is a relevant — though not standalone — factor supporting quashing.
criminalfamily - Supreme Court9 Mar2026 INSC 211
Gobind Singh v. Union of India
Advocates defending against Order XLI Rule 27 applications can cite this judgment for the proposition that additional evidence cannot be admitted to patch a fundamentally defective case — particularly where the party was aware of the evidentiary gap at the trial stage; courts handling declaration-of-title suits should insist that the best evidence be produced at first instance, as appellate-stage supplementation will not be permitted as a matter of course.
civilproperty - Supreme Court9 Mar2026 INSC 220
Abhishek Sharma v. State of J&K
Advocates representing temporary or contractual government employees should cite this judgment wherever a State has relabelled a standard contractual engagement under a novel nomenclature to deny regularisation benefits — the Court has firmly held that the label of appointment cannot override substantive similarity of service conditions, and has struck down the exclusionary provision as unconstitutional; the benefit expressly extends to all similarly situated employees who satisfy the Section 5 conditions.
constitutionalservicewrit - Kerala HC6 Mar2025:KER:27020
Somasundaran v. Sunitha K.P.
Advocates handling matrimonial appeals must advise clients that non-compliance with a court-imposed deposit condition, coupled with non-appearance, will swiftly result in dismissal for default — this order illustrates the Kerala High Court's strict approach to enforcing such conditions in family-court appeals.
family - Kerala HC5 Mar
SL Format Architects v. State of Kerala
Advocates handling Kerala VAT assessment challenges should verify whether a notice invoking Section 25A actually references a CAG report; absence of that reference collapses the Section 25A basis and confines the matter to Section 25(1), making a writ challenge to the vires of Section 25A untenable — the appropriate remedy being the statutory appeal, with limitation protected if the writ is withdrawn on this ground.
writtax - Kerala HC3 Mar
G. Subramonia Warrier v. Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayat
Advocates handling building-permit or building-number disputes before Gram Panchayats in Kerala should note that even where the High Court declines to interfere with a Tribunal's fact-finding, it may carve out a regularisation route — directing the local body to consider a fresh regularisation application untrammelled by prior adverse observations, preserving the client's statutory remedy without a merits reversal.
writconstitutionalproperty
February 2026 · 1 judgment
Showing 58 judgments. AI-generated summaries drawn from the courts' official judgment publications. Always verify against the original before relying on a summary in court.