Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 07– September 11, 2026
1) Whether particular claim falls outside excepted matters clause of work contract is matter within arbitral tribunal’s competence u/s.16 A&C Act
The Court has held that the question whether a particular claim is covered by, or falls outside, an “excepted matters” clause of a works contract is a matter squarely within the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not a question for a Court exercising even the wider, appointment-stage jurisdiction under Section 11.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court.
Cause Title- M/s. GVV Constructions Private Limited v. The Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 976)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
2) Personal guarantee not isolated contract, forms composite transaction: Supreme Court holds guarantor bound by arbitration clause in loan agreement
The Court held that a personal guarantee executed as a mandatory pre-disbursement condition under a loan agreement, and expressly deemed to form an integral part of that agreement, stands incorporated with the arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement, thereby binding the guarantor to arbitration notwithstanding the absence of any independent arbitration clause in the guarantee itself.
The Court held that where a loan agreement's own definitional and miscellaneous clauses declare that all "Facility Agreements", including personal guarantees, shall be deemed part of the principal agreement "as if the provisions thereof were set out herein in extension", this deeming fiction operates to bind the guarantor to the same arbitral framework governing the principal agreement, reversing the Delhi High Court's affirmation of an arbitrator's order deleting the guarantor from the array of parties.
Cause Title- National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 977)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
3) Non-identification of natural person no ground to quash prosecution against company: Supreme Court lays down three-stage test for attributing mens rea to corporations
The Court held that the question of attributing the guilty mind of a natural person to a corporation is an intricate, fact-dependent inquiry that must be resolved at trial, and cannot be used as a ground to quash criminal proceedings against a company at the threshold merely because the chargesheet does not conclusively establish attribution. In doing so, the Court has, for the first time, laid down a structured three-stage framework governing how corporate criminal liability is to be fixed under the law in cases involving mens rea.
The Court further clarified that neither the identification of the specific individual who acted for the corporation, nor the arraignment of that individual as a co-accused, is a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining a prosecution against the company itself. It held that such requirements, if imported wholesale into every case, would risk stifling genuine prosecutions against corporations at the very outset, particularly in circumstances where the identity of the actual wrongdoer within the corporate hierarchy may not be readily ascertainable even after investigation.
Cause Title- Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 957)
Date of Judgment- September 07, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
4) Services rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis before regularization must be computed as qualifying service for retiral & pension benefits
While dismissing an appeal of the Punjab School Education Board, the Court affirmed the view that the services by the employees rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularisation must be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case revolving around the entitlement of the respondent-employees of the appellant, the Punjab School Education Board, to have their pre-regularisation service counted as qualifying service for pension, and be governed by the old pension scheme rather than the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, which was introduced in 2004.
Cause Title- Punjab School Education Board And Another v. Satnam Singh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 965)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
5) Reconstituted partnership firm can’t utilize assets of dissolved firm unless accounts are settled with outgoing partner
While dealing with a civil dispute pertaining to the issue of dissolution of a partnership firm at will, the Supreme Court has held that the reconstituted firm has no right whatsoever to utilise the assets of the dissolved firm unless all the partners of the dissolved firm reach an agreement to settle the accounts and to pay the outgoing partner his share in the value of the assets.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court involving the issue of share of the first respondent in the assets of the partnership firm on its dissolution.
Cause Title- V. Sumitra Reddy & Anr. v. K. Ranganadha Reddy & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 979)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
6) Mere long possession not evidence of adverse possession; element of hostility has to be affirmatively established
While dismissing an appeal in a property dispute, the Supreme Court has affirmed the view that long possession may furnish evidence of physical occupation; however, it does not, by itself, establish that such possession was adverse in law.
The Apex Court further held that the element of hostility has to be affirmatively established for sustaining such a plea. The appeal before the Apex Court arose from a dispute relating to the title and possession of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of Muktsar, Punjab.
Cause Title- Bhag Singh (D) Thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 983)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
7) Leading voluminous evidence often unnecessary: Supreme Court raises concern over long pendency of corruption cases
While passing an order of acquittal in a corruption case, the Court raised concern over the voluminous evidence led in corruption cases, which is often intimidating to the Court and which leads to long pendency.
The Apex Court was considering a matter challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C Act) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Cause Title- Khanindra Kr. Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 970)
Date of Judgment- September 8, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
8) Compulsory retirement order partaking character of backdoor disciplinary proceeding is indefensible: Supreme Court orders ₹15L compensation to ex-ITS Officer
The Court granted relief to a former Indian Trade Service (ITS) Officer by setting aside his compulsory retirement and asking the Centre to pay ₹15 lakh to him as compensation. The Apex Court further observed that any order of compulsory retirement partaking the character of a backdoor disciplinary proceeding, clandestinely avoiding the safeguards embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution, would be indefensible.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal by special leave filed by a former Indian Trade Service (ITS) officer challenging the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court declining to interfere with the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service a little less than 5 (five) years before his date of superannuation.
Cause Title- S.S. Das v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 980)
Date of Judgment- September 09, 2026
Coram- Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Dipankar Datta
9) Baptismal certificate not a prescribed document u/s 94 JJ Act to prove minor’s age: Supreme Court converts POCSO conviction into rape u/s 376 IPC
The Court held that a Baptismal Certificate, even where its contents are corroborated by the mother’s testimony, cannot by itself satisfy the mandatory hierarchy of proof of age prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. In the absence of such proof, coupled with the prosecution’s failure to produce school or municipal records or conduct an ossification test, minority cannot be treated as proved for the purposes of the POCSO Act.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and instead convicted him for rape under Section 376(1) of the IPC. Rejecting the plea for acquittal on the ground that age was not proved, the Court noted that letting a guilty person escape would not amount to justice for a rape victim. Invoking Section 464 CrPC, the Court further held that failure to frame an alternative charge under Section 376 IPC did not occasion any failure of justice, as penetrative sexual assault stood independently proved.
Cause Title- Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 984)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
10) Land allotment not necessary for seeking environmental clearance to establish bio-medical waste treatment facility; identification is enough
The Court held that mere identification of a prospective site, and not successful allotment or legal possession of land, is sufficient for a project proponent to apply for prior Environmental Clearance to establish a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility, clarifying that a firmer showing of land status is required only at the subsequent appraisal stage of the clearance process.
The Court also noted that the Central Pollution Control Board's Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 are mandatory and binding despite never having been published in the Official Gazette, holding that publication through the CPCB's official website was a reasonable alternative mode sufficient to give the guidelines the force of law; it went on to uphold the grant of land-area relaxation to the appellant and the continued validity of an earlier Terms of Reference despite the intervening quashing of the appellant's first clearance.
Cause Title- M/s Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 956)
Date of Judgment- September 7, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
11) Accused refusing to marry because mother didn’t permit indicates promise made with good intention: Supreme Court quashes FIR u/s.69 BNS
The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after noting that the allegation that the accused refused to marry the complainant later because his mother did not permit it indicated that the promise was made with good intention, if at all it was made.
The appeal before the High Court was filed by the accused booked under Section 69, challenging the impugned judgment, refusing to quash the FIR.
Cause Title- Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 987)
Date of Judgment- September 7, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
12) Common intention & object can be inferred even if accused did not fire the fatal shot: Supreme Court restores murder conviction
The Court held that an accused who restrains a victim or exhorts a co-accused to fire, even without personally discharging the fatal shot, can be convicted with the aid of common intention or common object, reversing Madhya Pradesh High Court acquittal that had absolved two accused solely on the ground that no overt act of firing was attributed to them.
The Court arrived at this conclusion by applying the principle that "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in India, holding that a duty rests on courts to separate the grain from the chaff even where several eyewitnesses have named more accused than the evidence ultimately supports, and accordingly accepted the testimony implicating two accused while rejecting the case sought to be made out against a third.
Cause Title- Santosh Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 972)
Date of Judgment- September 8, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
13) Supreme Court flags "two-or-more nutrient" threshold and red hexagon label’s non-veg colour clash, poses 13 questions before finalising front-of-pack labelling
The Court questioned the scientific basis of the FSSAI's proposal to confine Phase I of its Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) scheme to products high in two or more nutrients-of-concern, noting that excess sugar, salt and saturated fat are independently harmful and act through different pathways, and has separately flagged that the proposed red hexagonal warning label risks being confused by consumers with non-vegetarian labelling, given their habituation to associating red with non-veg products.
Beyond these two specific concerns, the Court also found the proposed font size and undisclosed dimensions of the hexagonal logo inadequately explained, questioned the absence of individual pictorial icons for each nutrient-of-concern in a word-heavy label, and noted the lack of a fixed timeline for transitioning to Phase II or for mandatory compliance; it has accordingly directed the FSSAI to file a fresh affidavit within ten days answering thirteen specific questions before the FoPL regime can be finalised.
Cause Title- 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr., (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 988)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
14) National Highway Act| If determination of compensation is made before 01.01.2015, solatium payable under Land Acquisition 1894: Supreme Court clarifies compensation regime
The Court held that where the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 determines compensation before January 1, 2015, the landowner's solatium, interest, and interest on solatium must be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even though the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had already come into force on January 1, 2014.
The Bench held that the entitlement to these benefits does not depend on when the acquisition proceedings began, but squarely on the date of the determination of compensation, observing that if the award was passed before the cut-off date, entitlement would be governed by the 1894 Act, and if passed after, by the 2013 Act.
Cause Title- Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 973)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
15) Related witnesses can’t be called interested witnesses; but closer scrutiny warranted if a ring of falsity found in their testimonies
While granting acquittal in a murder case, the Court has observed that the related witnesses merely for their relationship with the deceased cannot be called interested witnesses but a closer scrutiny is warranted when a ring of falsity is found in their testimonies.
The Apex Court was considering a case of murder arising out of a gunshot injury. Out of the five accused persons, two were convicted. The appeal was filed at the instance of the convicts.
Cause Title- Ashok Upadhyay and Anr. v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 971)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
16) Burden of proof has to be discharged by petitioner while questioning public office appointment: Supreme Court on quo warranto writ petitions
The Court ordered a probe in a case involving allegations of a fake PhD degree being obtained by an aspirant to the post of Assistant Professor of Physical Education. The Apex Court observed that while questioning an appointment to a public office under the writ of quo warranto on the ground of lack of authority of the appointee to occupy the same, the burden of proof has to be discharged by the writ petitioner by producing unimpeachable evidence in support of his assertion.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal in a controversy pertaining to the Ph. D. degree allegedly awarded to the sixth respondent by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.
Cause Title- Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 968)
Date of Judgment- September 08, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
17) Supreme Court rejects Abu Salem's early release plea in 1993 Bombay blast case
The Court dismissed the plea filed by gangster Abu Salem seeking his release from custody in the 1993 Bombay Blast Case, claiming that he has completed 25 years in jail in India as mandated under the terms of his extradition from Portugal.
The Court had reserved the order in the plea on July 27, 2026.
Cause Title- Abu Salem v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (SLP(Crl) No. 12871/2026)
Date of Judgment- September 17, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
18) Policy not to be interpreted like a statute: Supreme Court upholds NOIDA developer's entitlement to 'zero period' benefit over missing access road
The Court clarified that the purpose behind Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) is not to freeze other proceedings against the accused till proceedings under the Gangsters Act are concluded.
The Apex Court further held that the purpose is only to indicate that in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would get priority. The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court in a murder case.
Cause Title- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors. v. M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Private Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 975)
Date of Judgment- September 8, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
19) Administrative discretion not placed beyond judicial review: Supreme Court directs to grant permission to J&K Physical Ed. teacher for National Kayaking Coaching
The Court come to the aid of a Physical Education Teacher in the Department of Youth Services and Sports by directing the Jammu & Kashmir Government to issue the necessary relieving order and permission to enable her to join and discharge the remaining assignment as Coach/Chief Coach of the Indian National Kayaking and Canoeing Team for the Asian Games, 2026.
The Apex Court also held that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution operates upon the exercise of administrative discretion as much as it does upon a statutory decision. The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
Cause Title- Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of J&K (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 981)
Date of Judgment- September 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
20) Mere release of escrow doesn’t create automatic statutory bar to proceedings under PFUTP Regulations
While remanding a matter to the Securities Appellate Tribunal where allegations of making a misleading announcement of the buyback of shares without any intent to fulfil it were raised, the Court held that the mere release of the escrow does not create an automatic statutory bar to proceedings under the (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, because the release of the escrow is not necessarily equivalent to the absence of fraud.
The Apex Court was considering two appeals arising from the common judgment passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT) setting aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer (AO) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (first Appellant / SEBI) wherein the AO had imposed a penalty of Rs 5.25 crore on the first respondent and of Rs 15 Lakh each on four respondents under Sections 15HA and 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 on account of making misleading announcement of the buyback of shares without any intent to fulfil it, thereby violating Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), and 4(1), 4(2)(k), and 4(2)(r) of (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations) and Regulation 19(1)(a) of the SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998 (Buyback Regulations).
Cause Title- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vedanta Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 978)
Date of Judgment- September 09, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
21) Failure to get identification of accused done by victim is fatal flow: Supreme Court grants acquittal in 5 year old girl's rape case
While noting that there was a fatal flaw in the prosecution case on account of the failure to get identification of the accused done by the victim during her deposition before the Trial Court, the Court granted acquittal to an accused booked in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) case who suffered more than 9 years of incarceration.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant was dismissed and the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant was affirmed.
Cause Title- Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 958)
Date of Judgment- September 7, 2026
Coram- Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan
22) Does invocation of Section 47-A Indian Stamp Act require wilful undervaluation with fraudulent intent? Supreme Court refers issue to larger bench
The Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether the power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 depends upon wilful undervaluation accompanied by fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty, or can be exercised to determine the true nature and market value of a transaction irrespective of the parties’ culpable mindset.
Expressing serious doubts about the correctness of the three-Judge Bench decision in V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector of Stamps (2009), the Court directed that the questions and papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India.
The Court was hearing an appeal by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited against a Madras High Court Division Bench judgment which had reversed the Single Judge’s decision quashing proceedings initiated under Section 47-A for determining alleged deficit stamp duty on land purchased by the company from the Union Government.
Cause Title- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 963)
Date of Judgment- September 7, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu