1) Supreme Court restores Congress candidate's election petition challenging Assam BJP MP Kripanath Mallah's election to Lok Sabha
The Court restored the election petition filed against Assam BJP MP Kripanath Mallah, the successful candidate from the Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, and directed the High Court to verify whether Form-25 was duly attested in the original record.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal challenging the High Court’s order under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, by which the election petition had been rejected on the ground of improper attestation of copies served on the returned candidate.
Cause Title- Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 915)
Date of Judgment- August 24, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
2) Monetary claims including maintenance relinquished by wife in settlement can’t be revived through subsequent proceedings
While quashing the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court held that once the wife has voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, through a divorce settlement, revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-husband seeking quashing of the complaint filed by the respondents under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Cause Title- AB v. CD (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 918)
Date of Judgment- August 24, 2026
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
3) Non obstante clause is a legislative device: Supreme Court upholds notification fastening customs duty liability on Mumbai Port Trust for pilfered goods
The Court upheld a customs notification approving the Mumbai Port Trust as custodian of imported goods for the purpose of fastening liability to pay customs duty on pilfered goods, holding that Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, which begins with a non obstante clause, was deliberately enacted as "a legislative device to meet such a circumstance" where the ordinary saving clause under Section 45(1) would otherwise have left a lacuna in revenue collection.
The Court further held that the liability of a Major Port Trust under Sections 42 and 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 as a bailee towards the owner of goods is fundamentally different in source, nature and object from the statutory liability to pay customs duty under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, since the former is compensatory and conditional upon fulfilment of prescribed formalities, while the latter is an independent and absolute obligation owed to the Revenue that survives regardless of the Port Trust's civil liability status.
Cause Title- Union of India and Others v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 919)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2026
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan
4) Extended limitation u/s 74 CGST Act cannot be invoked based on mechanical recital of suppression
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the show cause notice issued to Tata Steel Limited and the consequential Order-in-Original, has held that the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be invoked by merely reciting expressions such as fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression.
The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising out of a challenge to a show cause notice issued for the financial years 2018-2019 to 2020-2021, purportedly under Section 74 of the CGST Act, following audit objections concerning mismatch of input tax credit and alleged short payment of tax.
Cause Title- M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 920)
Date of Judgment- August 25, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran