(81) RAMASREY @ FAKKAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 45, 53 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 2(17), 4 — "Life imprisonment" — Meaning — Life imprisonment under Section 53 read with Section 45 IPC (and correspondingly under the BNS) means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's natural life, terminable only by India Law Library Docid # 2448277
(82) CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. RISHI RANJAN MISHRA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28), S. 2(34) — "Motor vehicle" — "Public place" — Inland Container Depot — A Reach Stacker weighing 71.8 to 102 metric tonnes, far exceeding the permissible gross vehicle weight for vehicles on public roads, is a vehicle of special type adapted for use only within enclosed premises and falls within the exclusionary limb of Section 2(28); the internal roads of an ICD, being a customs-bonded area accessible only to authorized personnel, do not constitute a "pu India Law Library Docid # 2448278
(83) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN Vs. ABHAY JAIN[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Rules 49, 50 — Full Court Resolution dated 15.01.2011 — Selection Scale/Super Time Scale — Application on facts — Applying the valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014 (Parts I & II) — all rated "Very Good"/"Good" with integrity certified — the Judicial Officer, having completed five years' notional service considering reinstatement with continuity, was held entitled to Selection Scale with India Law Library Docid # 2448279
(84) THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 — Rule 24(4) — Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Regulations, 2003 — Regulation 5(a) — Nature of Requirement — Requirement of consulting Commission before continuation of officiating appointment beyond one year held directory, not mandatory, applying the classic test of statutory construction; non-compliance does not invalidate the appointment where treating it as void would cause India Law Library Docid # 2448280
(85) M/S OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (INDIA) LTD. Vs. RASHMI HANDA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency of Service — Maintenance Contractor's Liability — Elevator Malfunction — Comprehensive maintenance contractor, being both manufacturer and repair contractor with exclusive technical knowledge of safety interlocks and brake mechanisms, held principally deficient in service for failing to act on its own identified remedy (voltage stabiliser) despite India Law Library Docid # 2448281
(86) NAKHAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Armed Forces — Air Force Order No. 33/2017 — Prior Permission for Civil Post — Mandatory Nature — Requirement of seeking prior permission before applying for a civil post, and subsequent grant of NOC, held mandatory and not merely procedural/directory, since AFO 33/2017 has necessary nexus with regulating premature discharge of Airmen and its object of maintaining India Law Library Docid # 2448282
(87) MARAGADHAM Vs. PERIYARAJA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 15(1)(a) — Devolution of Female Intestate's Property — Properties of a Hindu female dying intestate devolve, in the absence of sons/daughters' issue predeceasing her, upon her husband and daughter in equal shares under Section 15(1)(a); such undivided share in the husband's hands does not partake the character of coparcenary property. India Law Library Docid # 2448283
(88) VANASHAKTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word "prior" and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, India Law Library Docid # 2448300
(89) MUNU SEN Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 29-07-2026 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — Conviction based solely on "last seen" theory — Impermissibility — Absence of corroborative incriminating circumstances — Conviction for murder cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the "last seen" theory in the absence of any other incriminating circumstance — Where the testimony of witnesses relied upon to establish the last seen theory lacks India Law Library Docid # 2448454
(90) KHALIL PASHA AND OTHERS Vs. ABDUL RASHEED AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 401(4), 372 proviso, 378 — Revision at instance of victim against acquittal — Maintainability — After insertion of proviso to S. 372 by Act 5 of 2009 conferring victim a statutory right of appeal against acquittal without need for special leave, no revision is maintainable at victim's instance where such appellate remedy is available — Section 401(4) bars revision India Law Library Docid # 2448195
(91) MUMBAI PORT AUTHORITY Vs. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-07-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 338(5)(b), (8) — National Commission for Scheduled Castes — Nature of powers — NCSC's power to inquire into deprivation of "rights and safeguards" of Scheduled Castes is recommendatory/advisory and not adjudicatory — Civil court powers under clause (8) (summoning witnesses, India Law Library Docid # 2448196
(92) STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Vs. ZAFAR ALI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 28-07-2026 U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 — Rules 14, 15 — Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ) — Annual vs monthly compliance — Where a licensee has lifted the entire annual MGQ, penalty cannot be levied for isolated monthly shortfall by ignoring the "credit balance" of licence fee earned through excess lifting in prior months — Definition of "licence fee" under R.2(m), being equal to duty on annual MGQ, does not support demand based solely India Law Library Docid # 2448197
(93) TEJAS J.SHAH & AMISHA T. SHAH AND OTHERS Vs. MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BUOYANT TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD.) AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-07-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 14 — Moratorium — Scope and ambit — Held, moratorium under S.14 operates against the corporate debtor alone and cannot be judicially enlarged to cover other categories such as subsidiary companies, directors/managers, promoters or co-respondents, unless specifically provided by statute — Adjudicating authority or Court cannot expand the India Law Library Docid # 2448130
(94) KRISHNAN NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 451 & 457 — Interim custody of seized property — Nature of Court's power — Held, Court's power under Ss.451/457 CrPC is discretionary, to be exercised judicially and expeditiously, with limited object of preventing waste, misuse or deterioration of seized property pending trial — Exercise involves only prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to India Law Library Docid # 2448131
(95) SANJIV KUMAR Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res judicata — Applicability to interlocutory applications and erroneous decisions — Held, doctrine of res judicata applies to subsequent stages of same proceedings where issue has been decided at an earlier stage, and a judicial decision binds whether right or wrong — An error of law or fact by a judicial/quasi-judicial body cannot be India Law Library Docid # 2448132
(96) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 27-07-2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 187(2) & (3) — Police custody — Statutory window enlarged — Held, unlike erstwhile S.167 CrPC, S.187(2) & (3) BNSS enlarges the window during which police custody (aggregating up to fifteen days) may be sought in parts during first 40/60 days of permissible detention, rather than confined to first fifteen days of remand — Intended to meet situations where fresh facts/discoveries/leads emerge during investigation — Rigid or India Law Library Docid # 2448133
(97) TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. M/S POLIMER CABLE NETWORK AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-07-2026 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 — Section 11, 13, 14, 29, 34 & 36 — Adjudicatory jurisdiction — Distinction between regulatory/enforcement functions of TRAI and adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT — Held, TRAI's power under Ss. 11(1)(b) and 13 to issue directions for compliance with regulations is regulatory/administrative, not adjudicatory — Direction issued to MSO to restore signals pursuant to IC Regulations, and consequent show cause notice under S. India Law Library Docid # 2447943
(98) ARVIND KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-07-2026 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 — Rules 9(B), 16(3)(a)(iii) and 17(3) — Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate reduced from essential to preferential qualification — Challenge thereto — Appellants having participated in selection process without objection, held estopped from challenging validity India Law Library Docid # 2447944
(99) RUTVIJ BHAGAT SINGH WAKHARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-07-2026 Cyber Fraud — Multiple FIRs across States — Clubbing declined — Clubbing/consolidation of FIRs registered in different States was declined where each FIR was lodged by a different complainant induced to part with money on separate occasions, with distinct victims, amounts and transactions, notwithstanding a common bank account India Law Library Docid # 2447945
(100) N. DAMODARAN Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-07-2026 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) — Trap case — Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe — Conviction upheld where complainant's testimony regarding demand was corroborated by an accompanying witness and an independent trap witness, and recovery of tainted currency from accused's pocket was confirmed by positive chemical test — Defence of prior enmity India Law Library Docid # 2448198