Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: August 10 – August 14, 2026
1) Convict found to be minor on date of offence covered under juvenile justice act even if crime preceded its commencement: Supreme Court sets aside life sentence
The Court held that a person who was below eighteen years of age on the date of an offence committed even before April 1, 2001 is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The Court accordingly affirmed an appellant’s conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 of the IPC, but set aside the life sentence, seven-year rigorous imprisonment, fine and default stipulations imposed on him, after accepting that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence. It was hearing a criminal appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had affirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence in a murder and robbery case arising from the hiring of a taxi, the disappearance and death of its driver, and recovery of the vehicle and personal articles.
Cause Title- Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 842)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
2) State government cannot delegate power to refer dues dispute u/s 17(2) Working Journalists Act
The Court held that while Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 explicitly allows the State Government to delegate its recovery powers to a specified authority, no such delegation is permissible under Section 17(2) for making a reference to a Labour Court.
Expressly invoking the legal maxim unius est exclusio alterius, the Court determined that the legislature intentionally withheld the power of delegation for making references, leaving the ultimate administrative responsibility of reaching a satisfaction on the existence of a dispute solely with the State Government. Addressing the disruption caused by invalidating references issued under a 2016 Government of Maharashtra notification, the Bench utilized its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to protect ongoing litigations and awards. The Court directed the State Government to independently review all past references within six months, issue fresh formal orders of satisfaction where appropriate, and permit Labour Courts and High Courts to proceed seamlessly from the current stage without forcing litigants to restart proceedings de novo.
Cause Title- Sudhir & Ors. v. Head of Human Resource, Dainik Bhaskar Group (D.B. Corp. Ltd.) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 834)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
3) Blow by blow account of seriously injured victim raises serious doubt: Supreme Court refuses to restore conviction u/s.302 IPC
The Court upheld an order altering the conviction of accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to one under Section 304 Part II after taking note of the material inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. The Court noted that a ‘blow by blow’ account given by the seriously injured victim raised a serious doubt, and the effect of tranquillizers on the victim could not be ruled out.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh through its Home Department against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Criminal Appeal altering the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment to one under Section 304 Part II with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years.
Cause Title- The State of Andhra Pradesh Home Department v. Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 820)
Date of Judgment- August 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
4) Default occurs at a singular point in time: Supreme Court holds claim u/s 9 ibc time-barred despite subsisting EPC contract
The Court held that default under Section 3(12) IBC occurs at the singular point in time when payment becomes due and is not made, and that while an unpaid debt may cause continuing financial harm, it does not constitute a continuing legal injury capable of resetting the limitation clock under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Setting aside the concurrent orders of the NCLT and NCLAT, the Court quashed Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings initiated under Section 9 IBC by an EPC contractor against a power project developer over dues dating back to 2011–2012. Clarifying the scope of operational debt, the Bench ruled that while contractual milestone dues qualify as operational debt, unadjudicated claims such as idling, suspension, or demobilization charges constitute unliquidated damages and cannot be recovered through insolvency proceedings without prior judicial determination.
Cause Title- Srinivasa Reddy Velagala v. Sravanthi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 835)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
5) Proof of thumb impression & handwriting does not conclude enquiry into validity of will
The Supreme Court has held that establishing the thumb impression of a testator and the handwriting of an attesting witness under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not conclude the entire enquiry into the legal validity of a Will. The Court clarified that while Section 69 provides a substituted mode of formal proof when attesting witnesses cannot be produced, it does not create any legal presumption that the testator understood the recitals, freely adopted the testamentary scheme, or acted without suspicious circumstances.
The Apex Court further emphasized that the statutory gateway between Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act cannot be bypassed without cogent proof regarding the death or unavailability of all named attesting witnesses. Where the propounders fail to satisfactorily establish the unavailability of a witness or remove cumulative suspicious circumstances, such as incorrect recitals, exclusion of natural heirs without explanation, and withholding key witnesses, the document fails as a valid testamentary disposition.
Cause Title- Pazhanathal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. v. Alamathal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 860)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) S.482 CrPC| Alibi plea requiring trial not inflexible rule; official documentary material can be looked into
While quashing a cruelty case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against a BSF Official, the Court held that it is not an inflexible rule that the plea of alibi necessarily requires trial. The Apex Court clarified that documentary material touching upon the accused's presence or absence may be looked into at the threshold irrespective of its source, character, and the absence of any dispute as to its authenticity.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal by special leave directed against the final judgment of the Allahabad High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC whereby the High Court declined to quash the Chargesheet as well as the entire criminal proceedings in a case registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Cause Title- A v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 825)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
7) Termination of contract by itself does not amount to offence of cheating unless original design to deceive is alleged
The Supreme Court has held that exercising a contractual power to terminate an agreement is not, by itself, an act of deception, and that a wrongful termination may give rise to a claim for damages but not to an offence of cheating unless facts are alleged to show that the termination was part of a design formed at the very inception.
The Court was hearing appeals against a Jharkhand High Court judgment which had declined to quash a first information report registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a camphor distributorship dispute.
Cause Title- Parag Kishore Satoskar and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 846)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Equating presiding officers of central government industrial tribunals cum labour courts with district judges reasonable
The Supreme Court has held that equating Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts with officers of the District Judiciary for pay scales is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, except in the case of Presiding Officers of National Tribunals functioning at Mumbai and Calcutta.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 by two Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts, who sought implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations on par with other tribunals and challenged the order dated January 16, 2012, concerning the fixation of their pay scales.
Cause Title- R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 848)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
9) Supreme Court disapproves practice of writing lengthy, merits-laden orders in temporary injunction applications
The Supreme Court has held that courts deciding applications for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX CPC, and appellate courts reviewing such orders, must confine themselves to the three settled requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, without entering into a merits-laden examination of documents.
The Court was hearing appeals arising from a Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment dated March 20, 2026, which had set aside a Single Judge’s order dated July 29, 2022 granting interim injunction in favour of the original plaintiff in a family estate dispute involving shares, LLP interests, companies and immovable properties.
Cause Title- Shruti Manav Sharma & Anr. v. Sunanina Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 843)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
10) Going to movie after witnessing drowning not enough to sustain conviction: Supreme Court acquits two men accused of murdering friend
The Supreme Court has acquitted two accused convicted for the murder of their friend, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances necessary to establish that the death was homicidal rather than an accidental drowning.
The Court held that the accused having fled from the spot, gone for a movie, and returned soda bottles after witnessing their friend drown was reprehensible, but could not by itself establish murder when the hypothesis of accidental drowning was more plausible from the evidence.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by two accused against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court confirming their conviction by the Trial Court under Sections 302, 34 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 859)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
11) Suppression of fact which isn’t wilful can’t constitute permissible ground for invocation of proviso to Section 11-A of Central Excise Act
While observing that the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked to extend the period of limitation, the Supreme Court has held that there cannot be a suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitutes a permissible ground for invocation of the proviso to Section 11-A.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the issue raised of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was on the ground of the assessee having not wilfully misrepresented or wilfully suppressed the valuation of the ‘body-built vehicle’, by reason of inclusion of only the cost of manufacture of chassis and not the assessable value declared by the manufacturer.
Cause Title- Audi Automobiles v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 858)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
12) Dealing in company’s securities after being informed by confidential information amounts to insider trading; less or no profit is of no consequence
While upholding an order of the Whole Time Member, SEBI, wherein the Chairman and other promoters of a Company were held guilty of insider trading under the SEBI Act, the Supreme Court has observed that the fact that the accused persons had indulged in the trades at the relevant point in time would be sufficient to conclude that they had conducted insider trading and less or no profit would not be of any consequence.
The Apex Court explained that insider trading is dealing in a company’s securities having been informed by confidential information which is likely to affect the price of the securities in the market, once such information is made public. The Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, challenging the correctness of the final judgment passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby the SAT quashed the order passed by the Whole Time Member SEBI, holding the Respondents guilty of insider trading under the SEBI Act.
Cause Title- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 826)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
13) Every act of child sexual abuse is an assault upon humanity": Supreme Court restores life term of POCSO convict for aggravated penetrative assault on 3-year-old
The Supreme Court restored the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 3-year-old girl, holding that every act of child sexual abuse constitutes an assault upon humanity itself. The apex court set aside a High Court order that had modified the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by relying on the 2019 Amendment to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court clarified that applying enhanced statutory penalties retrospectively violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
Opening the judgment with Fyodor Dostoevsky’s literary reflection from The Brothers Karamazov, the Court emphasized that innocent, painful tears of a tormented child must be atoned for by soothing the child through judicial powers. The Bench held that the High Court committed a gross error in applying the amended provisions of Section 6 of the POCSO Act to an offence committed in 2016. The Court observed that while life imprisonment was the appropriate punishment given the heinous nature of the crime, the term would not carry the express stipulation that it must endure until the remainder of the offender's natural life.
Cause Title- Balesh Kumar Kuraiti v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 850)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
14) Award debtor can seek protection u/s 9 Arbitration Act in rare cases to prevent irreparable prejudice
The Supreme Court has affirmed that an unsuccessful award debtor can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 post-award to seek interim relief under rare and compelling circumstances to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of Section 34 challenge proceedings.
Applying this standard, the Court upheld orders directing an award creditor to deposit ₹3.5 crore, realized by encashing bank guarantees, into court pending the outcome of the award debtor's Section 34 petition.
Cause Title- National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 828)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe
15) Electricity Boards face strict, not absolute liability in electrocution compensation cases
The Supreme Court has held that in electrocution cases involving electricity boards or transmission corporations, the applicable standard is strict liability and not absolute liability, meaning that such bodies may be liable to compensate irrespective of fault, unless an exception to strict liability applies.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation against orders of the Karnataka High Court which had held it liable to pay compensation in two electrocution matters.
Cause Title- Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Rekha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 847)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
16) Tenant’s possession after agreement to sell is not part performance unless traceable to agreement
The Supreme Court has held that continuous possession of a tenant even after execution of an agreement to sell does not amount to part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act unless such possession is directly relatable to the agreement to sell.
The Court also rejected the argument that execution of an agreement to sell, by itself, changes the relationship between the parties from landlord-tenant to vendor-vendee so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.
Cause Title- Nazim Shaikh Hasan v. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 853)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
17) Deceased's daughter not interested witness merely by relationship: Supreme Court upholds life sentence in witch-hunting murder case
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man convicted for murdering a woman after she was branded as having practised witchcraft, holding that the testimony of the deceased’s daughter could not be discarded merely because she was a close relative.
The Court held that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be equated with an interested witness solely on account of such a relationship, particularly where the testimony is cogent, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence.
The Court was hearing an appeal against an Orissa High Court judgment which had affirmed the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Balku Oram v. State of Odisha (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 852)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
18) Absence of injury near private part, FSL report rules out presence of semen & blood on clothes: Supreme Court restores acquittal in 4-yr-old’s rape case
The Supreme Court has restored Trial Court judgment acquitting a man booked for raping a 4-and-a-half year old girl after taking note of the absence of injury on or near the private parts of the victim and the fact that the FSL report ruled out the presence of blood and semen on her clothes.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant convicted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Cause Title- Ram Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 830)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
19) Order passed u/s.69 CGST Act must be communicated to accused
The Supreme Court has held that the order under Section 69 of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act), being a sine qua non to seek anticipatory bail, must be communicated to the accused. The Apex Court clarified that the communication of the order would not, in any manner, obstruct the investigation conducted by the department.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the Bombay High Court order granting protection to the respondent Sunil Biyani who had applied for pre-arrest bail. While rejecting the respondent’s application, the High Court granted protection to him from arrest for a week from the date of intimation of the order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 849)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
20) High Court or Sessions Court can't grant protection to accused while dismissing pre-arrest bail petition on ground that it is not maintainable
While dealing with a case alleging wrongful availing and passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods or services and non-payment of GST on import of services, the Supreme Court has held that while dismissing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that the same is not maintainable, the High court or the Sessions court, cannot extend or grant protection which is in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the Bombay High Court order granting protection to the respondent Sunil Biyani who had applied for pre-arrest bail. While rejecting the respondent’s application, the High Court granted protection to him from arrest for a week from the date of intimation of the order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 849)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
21) Registration of FIR and onward dispatch do not replace duty to record & transmit secret information u/s 42 NDPS Act
The Supreme Court has held that the procedural registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with its routine transmission to superior authorities, cannot serve as a substitute for the statutory obligations mandated under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Court held that while total non-compliance with the requirement to reduce secret information into writing and transmit it to a superior officer is fatal to the prosecution, substantial compliance can be established if the information is received on the move in an emergent situation, provided a contemporaneous writing like a ruqa is dispatched prior to the search and the superior officer is promptly notified.
Cause Title- Kashmir Ram @ Pappi v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 854)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
22) Remand not to be adopted in ordinary course when parties have adduced evidence in accordance with burden & onus of proof fastened on them
While restoring the appeals in a Partition suit, the Supreme Court has held that remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course. The Apex Court held that the judgment of remand reflected the Appellate Court’s incorrect exercise of its discretion when the parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence in accordance with the burden and onus of proof fastened on them.
The Apex Court was considering a challenge laid against a Judgment allowing an appeal to the extent of one of the Items of the Plaint Schedule Property and remitting the matter to the Trial Court to frame issues, allow the parties to adduce further evidence, and thereafter dispose of the suit.
Cause Title- Shivappa v. Shantavva and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 857)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2026
Coram- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
23) Initiation of winding up proceeding won’t impact limitation for separate remedy of suit for money recovery
While highlighting the distinction between a winding up proceeding and a suit for recovery of money simpliciter, the Supreme Court has held that the initiation of a winding up proceeding, which may or may not enable recovery, will not impact the limitation for the separate remedy of suit for recovery of money.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed challenging the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, primarily on the contention that the suit claim was barred by limitation.
Cause Title- Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited v. M/s. Trade Centre (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 839)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
24) Is composite appeal filed against common judgment in same plaintiff’s civil suits maintainable? Supreme Court answers
The Supreme Court has upheld the maintainability of a composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alongwith the requisite court fee raising a challenge to a common judgment of the Trial Court rendered in two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff when certified copies of the decrees passed in both the suits were filed and the court fees payable for challenging both the decrees was also paid.
The Apex Court was considering the issue of whether a composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raising a challenge to a common judgment of the trial Court rendered in two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable when certified copies of the decrees passed in both the suits were filed along with the said appeal, a prayer for dispensing with filing of more than one certified copy of the common judgment was made and the court fees payable for challenging both the decrees was also paid.
Cause Title- Bassanna Since Deceased by Lrs. v. Bhimanna and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 838)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
25) Sec.161 CrPC statements can’t be relied on for conviction: Supreme Court acquits man in wife’s burn death case
While acquitting a man accused of burning his wife to death, the Supreme Court has held that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be relied upon to convict the accused.
The Apex Court was considering a case pertaining to the burn death of a woman.
Cause Title- Jupudi Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 832)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
26) Officer in-charge of women police station not public servant to whom allegedly false statements were made: Supreme Court quashes section 182 IPC proceedings
The Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings registered under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of marital discord while observing that the Officer in-charge of the Women Police Station was neither the public servant to whom allegedly false and frivolous statements were made nor was the said officer administratively superior to the public servant mentioned in the complaint of the wife.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against an order refusing to quash a complaint registered under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- A v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 856)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
27) Consortium is an indispensable head for awarding just motor accident compensation
The Supreme Court has held that consortium, including spousal and parental consortium, is an important and indispensable head of compensation in motor accident claim cases to ensure a just award.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which had enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from ₹8,44,000 to ₹11,00,672. Although notice was issued on the limited aspect of parental consortium, the Supreme Court considered the issue comprehensively with respect to both spousal and parental consortium.
Cause Title- Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 864)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice N.V. Anjaria
28) Authorities conveniently tried to cover up: Supreme Court directs state to pay ₹25L compensation to kin of man alleged to have died in police custody
While holding that the facts of the case warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of a man who allegedly sustained multiple injuries during his police custody, which the State authorities deliberately tried to cover up, the Supreme Court has awarded an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the wife and children of the deceased.
The Apex Court was considering a Special Leave Petition filed by the legal heirs of a man who allegedly died in police custody.
Cause Title- Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 840)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
29) Common judgment in suit & counter-claim can be challenged in a composite appeal
The Supreme Court has held that when a suit and a counterclaim are adjudicated by a single common judgment, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim, it can be challenged through a single composite appeal. The Bench clarified that whether one decree or two decrees are drawn up by the trial court, the requirement of filing two separate appeals is not mandatory under the CPC. However, to maintain statutory and fiscal compliance, such a composite appeal must specifically set out separate grounds challenging the decree in the suit and the decree in the counterclaim, and it must be valued separately with court fees paid on both valuations.
The Apex Court emphasized that rules of procedure are designed to act as handmaids of justice rather than obstacles, and requiring multiple appeals against a single judgment merely adds unnecessary procedural complexity and leads to multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, a party challenging a common judgment disposing of both a suit and a counterclaim can now seek complete appellate relief through a single composite appeal without being barred by technical objections.
Cause Title- Basudev & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 831)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
30) Provident fund & ESPP deductions are ultimately benefits: Supreme Court asks man to pay enhanced maintenance to children
While observing that deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be passed on to the depositor, the Supreme Court has asked a man to pay enhanced maintenance to his children after taking note of the expenses for the cancer treatment of the wife, who has been looking after both the children residing with her.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution against the impugned judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in a contempt case which partly enhanced the child maintenance to Rs 1,25,000 for both children and closed the contempt proceedings against the Respondent-husband.
Cause Title- A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 822)
Date of Judgment- August 10, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
31) Customs Tariff Act| Laser imager is "accessory" having no diagnostic capabilities; can be brought under residuary heading
The Supreme Court has held that a laser imager is an ‘accessory’ to the diagnostic equipment from which it receives inputs, and has no diagnostic capabilities of its own. The Apex Court further held that such imagers necessarily have to be brought under residuary CTH 9033 00 00, being accessories suitable for use with machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus falling under Chapter 90 of Section XVIII of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, which have not been specified or included under a particular tariff heading.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by an importer, Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd, under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, questioning the concurrent findings as to the tariff heading under which the said laser imagers should be classified.
Cause Title- M/S. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 837)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
32) Provisional assessment order under Electricity Act unsustainable if inspection report lacks finding and evidence of theft
The Supreme Court held that a provisional assessment order issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be sustained unless the underlying inspection report explicitly records a finding of theft and details the evidence collected.
The Court clarified that suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot replace strict proof in allegations of electricity theft. The Bench further held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a provisional assessment order. Section 127 of the Electricity Act provides a statutory appeal only against a final assessment order, leaving consumers without an alternative statutory appellate remedy at the provisional stage.
Cause Title- M/s. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 851)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
33) Candidate can’t be said to have suppressed or furnished false information when existence of criminal antecedent was not within his knowledge
While directing the reinstatement of an employee, the Supreme Court has observed that where the very existence of a criminal antecedent is not shown to have been within the candidate's knowledge at the relevant time, he cannot be held to have suppressed or furnished false information in that regard.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from a judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appellant’s challenge to a termination order passed against him.
Cause Title- Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 829)
Date of Judgment- August 11, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
34) Dependent can’t be denied compassionate appointment due to procedural delay
The Supreme Court has held that a dependent cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because procedural formalities took time, and directed the authorities to reconsider the claim by treating the applicant as eligible in age and examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition against Western Coalfields Limited’s rejection of a dependent son’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI by the time his claim was considered.
Cause Title- Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 841)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
35) Residential house exemption u/s 60(1)(Ccc) CPC is personal to judgment-debtor & not available to legal representatives
The Supreme Court has held that the statutory protection under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, which exempts one main residential house from attachment and sale, is strictly personal to the judgment-debtor and cannot be invoked by their legal representatives.
The Court further clarified that once execution proceedings are transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (now 1993 Act), the recovery process is governed by the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering Order XXI Rule 22 CPC inapplicable to the validity of the auction sale.
Cause Title- Sheela Gehlot v. Mohini Hardayal Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 863)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
36) Power to litigate seems unlimited: Supreme Court imposes ₹10l costs on reliance industries for delay in 20-yr-old commercial suit
While observing that the power of Reliance Industries to litigate and obstruct the progress of the suit seems unlimited, the Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh for the Company’s involvement in delaying trial in a 20-year-old commercial suit involving supply of natural gas.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against an order of the Bombay High Court in a Commercial Suit redacting certain portions of the Examination-in-Chief affidavit (first evidence affidavit) and Examination-in-Chief affidavit (second evidence affidavit) of defendant witness B.K. Ganguly.
Cause Title- Reliance Industries Limited v. NTPC Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 862)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2026
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
37) Can’t blithely ignore bank accounting system: Supreme Court holds pnb entitled to claim interest maintained in separate suspense account
While observing that a trust and its trustees cannot blithely ignore the accounting system followed by banks and come up with different calculations at different points of time to suit their own interests, the Supreme Court has held Punjab National Bank entitled to claim the interest due, which was calculated and maintained in a separate suspense account.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Punjab National Bank, challenging the orders passed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court on January 11, 2024, directing the Bank to receive a sum of ₹29,55,678.02 from a charitable trust M/s. Shree Jyoti Education and Management Trust World and its managing trustee, Tara Prasad Satpathy (respondents) in full and final settlement of their dues so as to close their loan account.
Cause Title- Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Shree Jyoti Education and Management Trust World and others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 836)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2026
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva