(1) SANDEEP YADAV Vs. SATISH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 215, 228, 464 and 465 — Charge framing — Substantial compliance — Purpose of charge framing is to give notice to accused of accusation and enable defence preparation — Defect in charge, including absence of signature, is curable if no prejudice or failure of justice is occasioned — Accused's active participation and cross-examination indicate awareness of charges and no prejudice — Belated objection to charge defect, especially after demise of key India Law Library Docid # 2441217
(2) RAJESH GOYAL Vs. M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 — Section 21(2) — Eviction proceedings — Landlord-tenant relationship established and affirmed up to Supreme Court — Tenant's subsequent restoration application before Rent Authority, challenging sale deed validity, was an India Law Library Docid # 2441218
(3) CHARUL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 482 and 226 — Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings — Allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and assault resulting in miscarriage — Delay in lodging FIR — Vague and omnibus allegations without corroborating evidence — Inherent improbability of allegations — Abuse of process of law — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants (sister-in-law and parents-in-law) leading to a miscarriage — The Court noted signif India Law Library Docid # 2441219
(4) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 — Section 5A — Withdrawal of exemption from electricity duty — State Government has the power to withdraw or modify exemptions granted under Section 5A of the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2441220
(5) M/S. STEAG ENERGY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. GSPC PIPAVAV POWER COMPANY LTD. (GPPC) AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Contract Law — Award of Tender — Judicial Review — High Court should exercise restraint when reviewing tender evaluation processes, especially in technical matters, unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, arbitrariness, or irrationality — A marginal difference in scores, as seen in this case, does not automatically warrant interference, especially India Law Library Docid # 2441221
(6) SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. GREEN INFRA WIND SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not India Law Library Docid # 2441222
(7) ANDANAYYA AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court's award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners India Law Library Docid # 2441223
(8) SHARADA SANGHI AND OTHERS Vs. ASHA AGARWAL AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 99 to 101 — Execution proceedings — Objection to possession — Appellants sought specific performance decree and possession against a defendant — Respondents, claiming independent title through sale deeds executed during the pendency of the specific performance suit, objected to execution — The Executing Court dismissed the objections, but the Appellate Court set aside the order, directing appellants to file a separate suit — The India Law Library Docid # 2441224
(9) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, India Law Library Docid # 2441225
(10) LALI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 15 and 25 — Bail — Appellant incarcerated for about a year with no prior criminal antecedents and only 2 out of 34 witnesses examined — Co-accused granted bail — Considering these factors, especially the absence of prior criminal history, bail granted by setting aside the impugned order and imposing terms and conditions as per the Trial Court's satisfaction. India Law Library Docid # 2441395
(11) DHEERAJ JHA @ DHEERAJ KUMAR @ RAGHAV Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 306, 302, 328, 376(D) & 34 — Bail — Appellant seeking bail in FIR initially registered for offences including Sections 302, 328, 376(D) and 34 IPC, but chargesheeted only for Section 306 IPC — Appellant was superior of the deceased and deceased allegedly committed suicide due to an extra-marital affair — Considering period of incarceration and facts, bail granted to the appellant — Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-2] India Law Library Docid # 2441414
(12) BIKRAM PATRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Section 20(b) — Bail — Grant of bail to an accused facing charges under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, considering no recovery was effected from the appellant, alleged implication based on co-accused's statement, period of incarceration undergone, and absence of prior criminal antecedents. [Paras 1-2] India Law Library Docid # 2441424
(13) JITENDRA GOVINDBHAI CHAVDA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Anticipatory Bail — Grant or Refusal — Considerations — While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the court takes into account factors such as the nature of the allegations, the cooperative attitude of the accused during the investigation, and the existence of prior criminal antecedents — The age of the applicant can also be a India Law Library Docid # 2441432
(14) SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Anticipatory Bail — Appellant, accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, sought anticipatory bail after his application was rejected by the High Court — The Supreme Court, noting the appellant's cooperation with the investigation and the India Law Library Docid # 2441488
(15) MANRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 5(l) and 6; Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 363 and 366 — Suspension of substantive sentence — Supreme Court suspended the substantive order of sentence of 20 years imposed by the Trial Court and ordered the petitioner's release on bail, considering the nature of the evidence on record, despite the petitioner being convicted for offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, and the victim being 17 years old at the time of the India Law Library Docid # 2441501
(16) XXX Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-03-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 6 and 10 — Assault on a minor girl — Police investigation described as insensitive, reckless and irresponsible, attempting to discredit victim's version and dilute the offence from Section 6 to Section 10, despite prima facie case — Judicial Magistrate also failed to ensure correct legal premise — Court expresses serious reservations about Child Welfare Committee's ability and expertise — Special Investigation Team cons India Law Library Docid # 2441518
(17) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HUKUM CHAND ALIAS MONU[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 — Offences Against Women — Sexual Assault — Trial Court convicted accused for sexual assault based on victim's testimony corroborated by parents, medical witnesses, and others — High Court acquitted accused, citing improbabilities like distance traveled by victim and family animosity, and contradictions in witness testimonies — Supreme Court, while acknowledging the scope of interference in acquittals, analyzed India Law Library Docid # 2441206
(18) M/S BHARAT UDYOG LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S JAI HIND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.) Vs. AMBERNATH MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2026 Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 2(a), Sections 30 & 33 — Arbitration agreement — Validity — Held, a clause in a contract that refers disputes to the Collector for a final decision and allows for appeals within the government hierarchy does not constitute an arbitration agreement — For a valid arbitration agreement, there must be mutual consent between parties India Law Library Docid # 2441207
(19) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BALAKRISHNAN MULLIKOTE (EX HAV 256812 M)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2026 Army Pension Regulations, 1961 — Condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for second pension for Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel — The Union of India's contention that condonation for shortfall in qualifying service for a second pension is not applicable to DSC personnel is rejected— The court finds that the Pension Regulations for the Army, specifically Paragraphs 125 ( India Law Library Docid # 2441208
(20) M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX (LTU)[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2026 Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 11A(1) proviso — Extended period of limitation — Invocation of extended period of limitation for recovery of excise duty on Naphtha — Requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty — Revenue failed to establish any deliberate act of suppression India Law Library Docid # 2441209