The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal arising from testamentary proceedings before the Madras High Court, holding that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of its contents.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Madras High Court's order which had refused to exclude documents and averments contained in a proof affidavit at the threshold.The Court clarified that while documents may be marked or exhibited during the course of proceedings, their contents must still be proved in accordance with law.
Dispute Over Proof Affidavit in Will Proceedings.
A division bench of Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu has stayed the operation of the Rajasthan High Court order dated 16 July 2026, which had vacated interim protection granted to 59 agriculturists whose agricultural lands in Chak 21 SDS, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, are proposed to be acquired for establishment of a Forward Composite Aviation Base for the Ministry of Defence.
The Special Leave Petition challenges the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had vacated its earlier order dated 29 January 2026 permitting the affected agriculturists to continue cultivation and directing that their standing crops should not be disturbed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Central government on a petition seeking a CBI investigation into alleged fake advocates, fraudulent law degrees and activities linked to the satirical online group ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ (CJP).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on the plea filed by advocate Raja Choudhary.
The petition also seeks action against the alleged commercial exploitation and monetisation of oral observations made by judges during Supreme Court proceedings.
The matter stems from proceedings on May 15, when the Court had expressed concerns over the misuse of judicial processes, the conferment of Senior Advocate designations and declining professional standards in the legal profession.
During those proceedings, CJI Surya Kant had used the term “cockroaches” while referring to certain young people who, according to the Court, were unable to find employment in the legal profession and were turning to social media and RTI activism.
The Supreme Court has held that a defendant facing a trademark infringement claim is entitled to question the plaintiff regarding the period from which the disputed brand name has been used, even where the defendant’s written statement has not been taken on record.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, in Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited, set aside the High Court order which had expunged a question put to the plaintiff during cross-examination.
The dispute arose from a suit seeking, among other reliefs, a permanent injunction against alleged infringement of trademark and trade dress, a declaration concerning the plaintiff’s trademarks and damages.
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Srinivasa Reddy Velagala v. Sravanthi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. on August 12, 2026, allowing Civil Appeal No. 876 of 2021 and setting aside concurrent rulings by the NCLAT and NCLT. The dispute originated from an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contract awarded in December 2010 to set up a 225 MW gas-based combined cycle power station in Andhra Pradesh. After work was suspended in July 2011 due to non-payment of milestone advances, the operational creditor issued legal notices between 2014 and 2015 and eventually filed a Section 9 insolvency application under the IBC in October 2018, which was admitted by the tribunals.
The Supreme Court has acquitted Ram Singh, who had been convicted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Section 376 of the IPC, holding that the prosecution evidence fell short of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar restored the trial court’s order of acquittal, observing that the High Court had failed to properly consider the medical evidence and forensic science laboratory (FSL) report while reversing the acquittal.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a fresh public advisory cautioning citizens and stakeholders against a fraudulent website allegedly impersonating the official online presence of the apex court.
The advisory, issued by the Registry on August 13, 2026, is in continuation of earlier public notices dated July 16, 2025, and April 28, 2026, concerning deceptive websites created to clone the Supreme Court’s official website and defraud members of the public through targeted phishing mechanisms. The Registry has specifically flagged the fraudulent domain “sp-court-in.com”, stating that it is currently being used to impersonate the official online presence of the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court cautioned that cybercriminals operating through the fraudulent website may attempt to obtain sensitive personal information and confidential credentials from users.
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed a private criminal complaint pending in Uttar Pradesh against Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over remarks he allegedly made about Hindutva ideologue VD Savarkar.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the criminal proceedings after noting that the Uttar Pradesh government had not granted the mandatory sanction required for prosecuting Gandhi under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Gandhi had challenged the summoning order issued by the trial court, which had directed him to face proceedings for alleged offences under Sections 153A and 505 IPC. The Allahabad High Court had earlier declined to quash the proceedings, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy