1) Overlap of disputes with mother agreement cannot be ground to refuse reference u/s 11 A&C Act at threshold
The Supreme Court has held that an overlap between disputes under a joint venture agreement and MoU and claims under a separate licence agreement is a matter for the arbitrator. It cannot be a ground to refuse a reference at the threshold under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court held that the three agreements prima facie operate in different fields, so the Mumbai-seated arbitration clauses in the joint venture agreement and MoU govern disputes under them, not the Seoul clause in the Licence Agreement. It left open whether the non-signatory subsidiary is bound, and appointed Justice Ramesh Deokinandan Dhanuka, former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, as sole arbitrator.
Cause Title- Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1098).
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2026
Coram- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
2) Supreme Court directs Centre to form committee on unethical pharma practices and mandatory marketing code
The Court directed the Union of India to constitute a committee to review representations regarding unethical drug promotion practices and the mandatory implementation of a marketing code for pharmaceutical companies. The Court heard a Public Interest Litigation seeking enforcement of a statutory code to regulate unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.
Cause Title- Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 323/2021)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
3) Ambiguity in qualification prescribed in advertisement should be construed to benefit of candidate
While setting aside an order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court for expanding the scope of the dispute in holding a candidate ineligible for appointment to the post of Librarian, the Court has held that any ambiguity or vagueness in the prescribed qualification should be construed to the benefit of the candidate who prima facie appears to possess the requisite qualifications.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an applicant for the post of Librarian under the Law Department challenging the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court by which the Division Bench interfered with the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that the requirement of 3 years’ experience is directly related to the educational qualification of M.Lib for the post of Librarian and such experience can be acquired by a candidate only after having the qualification of M.Lib.
Cause Title- Irfan Ahmad Hakak v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1104)
Date of Judgment- October 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
4) Robbery or attempted robbery essential component of offence u/section 394 of IPC
While acquitting an accused in a case registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court observed that robbery or attempted robbery is not a peripheral circumstance and is an essential component of the offence.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court affirming the appellant’s conviction under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of ₹1,000.
Cause Title- Appa v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1091)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
5) Courts ordinarily can’t add to or alter essential qualifications prescribed under recruitment rules while exercising judicial review
While restoring the temporary appointment of an aggrieved litigant to the post of Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber, the Court reiterated that Courts, while exercising judicial review, ordinarily cannot add to or alter the essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court directing the concerned authorities to consider the case of the third Respondent for recruitment to the post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber, in light of the marks secured by him in the written examination.
Cause Title- Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1089)
Date of Judgment- October 06, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
6) Norm of counting seniority from date of regularization should be followed for inter se seniority unless recruitment rules clearly provides another methodology
While dealing with a dispute pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, the Court held that except in cases where the Recruitment Rules are clear and provide a methodology for fixing inter se seniority, the norm of counting seniority from the date of regularisation of temporary, ad hoc or Compassionate appointees should be followed to determine their inter se seniority.
The High Court was considering the Civil Appeals and Transferred Cases involving an inter se seniority dispute between different categories of appointees. The Direct recruits and Special appointees were claiming seniority over each other, and together both claimed a higher position in the seniority list above the Compassionate appointees. The Direct recruits and Special appointees challenged the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Cause Title- M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Secretary to the Government & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1105)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2026
Coram- Justice S.VN. Bhatti and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
7) Classification for rate of commercial tax must be based on form of goods at time of sale & not on manner in which consumer may choose to use it
While upholding an order subjecting ‘GRD Powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’ to tax, the Court held that the classification which determines the applicable rate of tax must be based on the form of the good at the time of sale and not on the manner in which the consumer may later choose to use it.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed against the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the classification of ‘GRD Powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’, manufactured and marketed by the Respondent, under the residuary entry of Schedule II to the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (1994 Act), thereby subjecting them to tax at the rate of eight per cent (8%) for the Assessment Year 1997-1998.
Cause Title- Addl. Commr. Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1078)
Date of Judgment- October 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Manmohan and Justice Arun Palli
8) Demand for bribe is sine qua non for establishing offence u/s 7 & 13 PC Act: Supreme Court sets aside conviction despite sentence already undergone
The Court held that demand for a bribe is the sine qua non for establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Setting aside the conviction of a District Education Office assistant, the Court cleared him of the charges even though he had already undergone his sentence and paid the fine, as he had pursued the appeal to clear his name. The case rested on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
The Court declared the charge not proved and cleared the appellant, who had already undergone his sentence and sought to clear his name.
Cause Title- Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1084)
Date of Judgment- October 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
9) High Court bench expected to sincerely endeavour to expedite decision once priority hearing is requested
The Court observed that once a request is made for priority hearing of appeals, the roster Bench of the High Court is expected to make a sincere endeavour to expedite its decision. Expressing regret over the pace of first appeals concerning land acquired for the Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme in 1987, the Court requested the Allahabad High Court to decide them as early as possible and, subject to its convenience, preferably within six months.
The Court was hearing a batch of special leave petitions filed by the Meerut Development Authority against interim orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in its pending first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Cause Title- Meerut Development Authority v. Parmeshwar Dayal and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1106)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
10) Complete failure of victim to identify accused before court: Supreme Court acquits POCSO accused
The Court held that, even after extending due latitude to a mentally challenged child victim, her complete failure to identify the accused before the Court makes it unsafe to sustain a conviction, especially where no scientific corroboration is available.
Setting aside a conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift to an accused unless the victim and the accused are shown to have been last seen together. It also drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding the teacher, whose disclosure led to the FIR.
Cause Title- Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1102)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Electricity subsidy tied to power charges received under govt scheme is revenue receipt
The Court affirmed the view of the Assessing Officer as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in appreciating the nature of electricity subsidy tied to power charges received under a Government scheme as a revenue receipt.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal concerning the nature of the electricity subsidy of Rs 16,20,745 received by the appellant-assessee, M/s. Mepco Industries Ltd., from the Government of Pondicherry for the Assessment Year 1997-98.
Cause Title- M/S. MEPCO Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1090)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
12) Widow’s limited estate right is transformed into absolute right as per Section 14(1) Hindu Succession Act
While observing that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 serves as an instrument of social amelioration designed to eliminate gender-based discrimination in property inheritance and place female heirs on an equal footing with male heirs, the Supreme Court has held that a widow’s limited estate right is transformed into an absolute right.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal arising from the Judgment passed by the Delhi High Court revolving around the scope, extent and operation of Section 51(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
Cause Title- Sultan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs and Others v. The Financial Commissioner Government of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1107)
Date of Judgment- October 09, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N. V. Anjaria
13) Temporary misappropriation cannot constitute criminal breach of trust unless entrustment and dishonest intention are proved
The Court held that temporary misappropriation cannot constitute criminal breach of trust unless the prosecution establishes entrustment or dominion over the property and dishonest intention behind its misappropriation. Applying these requirements, the Court restored the acquittal of a Telephone Department cashier charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment which reversed the appellant’s acquittal, convicted him of criminal breach of trust and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000.
Cause Title- Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1099)
Date of Judgment- October 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
14) Trial Court can alter charge from Section 307 IPC to Section 308 IPC or another appropriate lesser offence if evidence falls short
The Court held that a trial court may invoke Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to alter a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 308 IPC or any appropriate lesser offence if the evidence adduced during trial does not establish the original charge.
The Apex Court consequently set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s threshold substitution of the Section 307 IPC charge and restored the trial court’s order.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court’s decision partly allowing the accused persons’ criminal revision petition and directing the trial court to substitute the Section 307 IPC charge on the ground that the injuries had been inflicted on non-vital parts of the victims’ bodies.
Cause Title- Abhishek v. State of Rajasthan and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1093)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
15) Tendency of litigants to colourize civil disputes as criminal offences is open secret: Supreme Court quashes cheating case involving land sale
While quashing a cheating case involving the sale of land, the Court observed that the tendency of litigants to colourize civil disputes into criminal offences is an open secret, and the Courts have tried to put their foot down to prevent the litigants from obliterating the fine distinction between the two.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal filed against the dismissal of a quashing petition.
Cause Title- Sudha Rakesh v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1086)
Date of Judgment- October 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
16) Requirement u/s 81 RP Act mandatory; election petition not maintainable when it is not presented by petitioner himself
The Court affirmed the dismissal of an election petition by the Madras High Court on the ground that the election petition had been presented by the petitioner’s counsel. The Apex Court held that the mandatory requirement under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that the petition must be presented “by” the petitioner enables the High Court, at the stage of presentation itself, to undertake a preliminary verification
The matter before the Apex Court emanated from an election petition filed by the petitioner.
Cause Title- V. Pon. Paneerselvam v. S. Regupathy and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1092)
Date of Judgment- October 07, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
17) Allegations not specific, cogent & credible; no overt act: Supreme Court quashes case u/s. 498A IPC against husband's parents
The Court held that allegations against a husband's parents that attribute no overt or specific act to them, and are unsupported by investigative material, cannot sustain criminal proceedings. The Court quashed the case against the in-laws under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court found that neither the complaint nor the investigation disclosed independent material showing that the appellants committed any of the alleged offences. It held that the Calcutta High Court ought to have quashed the entire proceedings against them, instead of only the charge under Section 323 of the IPC.
Cause Title- P & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1087)
Date of Judgment- October 05, 2026
Coram- Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice N.V. Anjaria
18) Preventive policing cannot justify arbitrary exercise of police powers: Supreme Court issues directives for women’s safety in Delhi NCR
The Court, in the matter concerning suo motu cognizance of the gang-rape of a minor in a moving bus in Delhi-NCR and other similar matters, has observed that the pursuit of preventive policing cannot become a justification for the arbitrary, excessive, or disproportionate exercise of police powers.
The Court has passed directions to the Delhi Police and civic administration such as enhanced beat patrolling, strict verification of public transport drivers, and real-time command centre monitoring so as to ensure public safety across the National Capital Region.
On the day of the hearing, the court has asked the Delhi Police and civic administration to institute preventive measures to guarantee that every woman and young girl in the National Capital Territory feels safe, even late at night. It said that it will pass a detailed order.
Cause Title- IN RE: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 1096)
Date of Judgment- October 05, 2026
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran