Sultan Singh (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
09 October 2026
•
2026 INSC 1107; Civil Appeal No. 9146 of 2012
Hindu Succession / Property Law / Agricultural Land — Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 51(2), 50 & 53, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 — Female Bhumidhar — Limited Estate — Absolute Ownership
The Supreme Court held that the limited estate held by a Hindu widow in agricultural land could enlarge into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
For determining succession under Section 51(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the expression “personal law applicable to her” refers to the personal law applicable when the female Bhumidhar dies, rather than freezing her rights according to the law existing when the Delhi Land Reforms Act commenced or when she originally acquired the property.
Since Khajano died in 1973, after the Hindu Succession Act came into force, her earlier limited interest had become absolute. Consequently, succession was governed by Section 51(2)(a)(ii) read with Section 53 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act rather than reverting to the heirs of the last male proprietor under Section 50.
Read Full Headnote →
Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
08 October 2026
•
2026 INSC 1098
Arbitration Law — Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Referral Court — Multiple Agreements — Non-Signatory
The Supreme Court reiterated that the inquiry of a referral court under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Once such an agreement is shown, the court should ordinarily appoint an arbitrator and refer the parties to arbitration.
Where multiple agreements operate in different fields and contain separate arbitration clauses, disputes arising under a particular agreement are ordinarily governed by its own dispute-resolution clause. Questions concerning overlapping claims and whether a non-signatory subsidiary is bound by the arbitration agreement are contentious matters that can be determined by the arbitrator rather than used to refuse reference at the threshold.
Read Full Headnote →
Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani v. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi
High Court of Judicature at Patna
•
06 October 2026
•
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025; CNR No. BRHC011148682025
Constitutional Law / Criminal Procedure — Article 22(1) — Grounds of Arrest — Article 21 — Sections 50 & 50A CrPC — Sections 47 & 48 BNSS — NIA Act — Bail
The Patna High Court held that a standard or template arrest memo merely recording that the grounds of arrest were “explained” or “conveyed” to the accused does not satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
The investigating agency must furnish the arrested person with the written grounds of arrest. Applying the Supreme Court's decisions including Mihir Rajesh Shah, Vihaan Kumar, Ahmed Mansoor and Dr. Rajinder Rajan, the Court held that if written grounds cannot be supplied immediately, they must nevertheless be furnished within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production before the Magistrate for remand.
As the NIA could produce no document demonstrating that written grounds had been furnished to Sarfaraz, the High Court held that his arrest could not be sustained, set aside the impugned order and directed his release on bail.
Read Full Headnote →
Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
06 October 2026
•
2026 INSC 1089; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1021; Civil Appeal No. 13460 of 2026; SLP (C) No. 35916 of 2026; Diary No. 11600 of 2025
Service Law / Recruitment Law — Essential Qualifications — Recruitment Rules — Educational Qualification — NIOS — Equivalence — Judicial Review — Comparative Merit
The Supreme Court held that higher marks obtained in a selection examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules.
The post of Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the trade of Plumber specifically required a candidate to have “passed 10th standard under 10+2 system of education.” A candidate possessing a Secondary School Certificate from NIOS could not be treated as satisfying this particular condition merely because NIOS qualifications enjoyed general recognition, since the Recruitment Rules contained no equivalence provision.
The Court emphasised that comparative merit arises only among candidates who first satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements.
Read Full Headnote →
M/s Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai
Supreme Court of India
•
07 October 2026
•
2026 INSC 1090; Civil Appeal No. 8694 of 2012
Income Tax / Taxation — Capital Receipt v. Revenue Receipt — Government Subsidy — Purpose Test — Electricity/Power Subsidy — Operational Expenditure
The Supreme Court held that an electricity subsidy received by Mepco Industries under the Government of Pondicherry's Power Subsidy Scheme constituted a revenue receipt, rather than a capital receipt.
The Court reaffirmed the “purpose test”: the character of a subsidy depends upon the purpose for which the assistance is granted, determined by reading the scheme as a whole. The timing, source or form of payment is not by itself decisive.
In the present case, the subsidy became available after production commenced, was calculated as a percentage of actual electricity charges and operated to reduce manufacturing expenditure. It was not intended as a contribution towards acquisition of capital assets or creation/expansion of the assessee's capital structure. It was therefore an operational subsidy and taxable as a revenue receipt.
Read Full Headnote →
Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Association of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Supreme Court of India
•
08 October 2026
•
2026 INSC 1097
Constitutional Law / Public Health / Pharmaceutical Regulation — Article 21, Right to Health, Unethical Pharmaceutical Marketing, UCPMP
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to constitute, within two weeks, its proposed committee to comprehensively examine unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices and the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework. The committee must consult petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and recommend an appropriate regulatory and/or statutory framework addressing transparency, accountability, monitoring and enforcement. It should endeavour to submit its recommendations within two months of its first meeting, after which the Union must take an appropriate and reasoned decision.
Read Full Headnote →
Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Ors. v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
Supreme Court of India
•
05 October 2026
•
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1029; Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7239 of 2026
Criminal Law — Abetment of Suicide — Sections 306 & 107 IPC — Mens Rea — Instigation — Refusal to Marry — Relationship Breakup
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against six accused for alleged abetment of suicide, holding that a breakup or refusal to marry followed by suicide does not, by itself, constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC.
Even accepting the prosecution version, the Court found no material showing that the accused intentionally instigated the deceased to die by suicide or possessed the requisite intention or knowledge. The Court emphasised that people react differently to emotional situations and criminal liability cannot be inferred merely because a breakup or refusal to marry was followed by suicide.
Read Full Headnote →
Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya
Supreme Court of India
•
09 October 2026
•
2026 INSC 1102; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1038; Criminal Appeal No. 4845 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11881 of 2022; Diary No. 32065/2022
Criminal Law / POCSO — Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Identification of Accused — Delayed FIR — Material Contradictions — Non-Examination of Material Witness — Right of Cross-Examination — Alibi — Benefit of Doubt
The Supreme Court acquitted an accused who had been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court identified several serious deficiencies in the prosecution case: the victim and her cousin failed to identify the accused in court; the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about ten days and omitted material circumstances later introduced during trial; there were inconsistencies regarding the accused's relationship with the victim's family; a crucial school teacher who allegedly received the victim's disclosure was not examined; the medical witnesses were not effectively subjected to cross-examination; and the defence produced credible evidence supporting the accused's plea of alibi. Cumulatively, these circumstances made it unsafe to sustain the conviction.
Read Full Headnote →