Featured Insight: Supreme Court Reaffirms Appellate Limits on Interim Injunctions

In a crucial judgment for litigators and corporate counsel, the Supreme Court has underscored the delicate balance of judicial discretion in granting interim injunctions. The Court reversed a High Court Division Bench's decision that had set aside an interim injunction, reiterating that appellate courts should not ordinarily substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of appellate review in interlocutory matters, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo without conducting 'mini-trials' on the merits. This decision reinforces the principle that a prima facie case for an injunction merely requires a serious and substantial question to be tried, not a definitive proof of title, safeguarding the efficacy of final judgments.

Read the Full Article: Here

SHRUTI MANAV SHARMA & ANR. VS SUNA NINA SINGH & ORS., decided on 12-08-2026

Other Supreme Court Decisions You Might Find Interesting:

Pay Scale Fixation for Presiding Officers: Executive Domain Affirmed

The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the pay scale fixation for Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals, affirming that pay fixation is primarily an executive function with limited judicial review. The Court highlighted that re-employed government officers constitute a distinct class that can be rationally treated separately, validating their grouping with the District Judiciary based on expert committee recommendations. This decision reinforces the judiciary's deference to executive bodies in matters of public service compensation and classification.

Read the Full Article: Here

R.K. Yadav & Anr. VS Union of India and Others, decided on 12-08-2026

CGST Arrests: Communication of Order is Mandatory Pre-Arrest

In a significant ruling for tax professionals and those navigating indirect tax investigations, the Supreme Court clarified that an order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act must be communicated to the person *before* any arrest is made. This reinforces principles of natural justice and ensures an opportunity to seek anticipatory bail. The Court also held that High Courts cannot grant interim protection from arrest after dismissing a pre-arrest bail application on grounds of maintainability, emphasizing that interim relief must aid the main relief.

Read the Full Article: Here

UNION OF INDIA VS SUNIL BIYANI, decided on 12-08-2026

Electrocution Cases: Strict Liability, Not Absolute; Writ Petitions Not for Disputed Facts

For entities involved in inherently dangerous activities like electricity transmission, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle of 'strict liability' (subject to exceptions) applies, rather than 'absolute liability'. The Court also cautioned against maintaining writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in electrocution cases when disputed questions of fact are involved, directing litigants to pursue alternate remedies. Furthermore, it ruled that the multiplier method from the Motor Vehicles Act is unsuitable for determining compensation in such cases, though 'just and reasonable' compensation remains the goal.

Read the Full Article: Here

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VS REKHA & ORS. AND MUIZZ AHMAD SHARIFF, decided on 12-08-2026

Commercial Disputes: Quashing Criminal Charges of Cheating & Breach of Trust

The Supreme Court intervened to quash an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in what it identified as an essentially commercial dispute. The Court reiterated that mere breach of contract does not automatically constitute a criminal offense unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is proven from the outset. It emphasized that "entrustment" is a prerequisite for criminal breach of trust, and crucially, that cheating and criminal breach of trust are often antithetical, cautioning against their simultaneous allegation on the same facts. This judgment provides critical guidance for businesses facing criminalization of contractual disagreements.

Read the Full Article: Here

PARAG KISHORE SATOSKAR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER, decided on 12-08-2026

Juvenility Claims: Post-Conviction Benefits Under Juvenile Justice Act

In a criminal appeal affirming conviction for murder and robbery based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court highlighted the enduring impact of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court confirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and, if proven, mandates that the matter be dealt with under the JJ Act, even if it means setting aside an adult sentence. This reaffirms that a juvenility finding impacts sentencing, ensuring statutory protections for rehabilitation without necessarily annulling the conviction on merits.

Read the Full Article: Here

DINESH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF HARYANA, decided on 12-08-2026

Compassionate Appointment: Employer's Delay Cannot Disqualify Age-Eligible Applicant

The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment for HR professionals and public sector employers, ruling that administrative delays by the employer cannot prejudice an applicant's age eligibility for compassionate appointment. The Court held that if the process commenced when the applicant was age-eligible, subsequent delays in processing should not be attributed to the applicant to deny the claim. This decision underscores the welfare objective of compassionate appointments and the need for expeditious processing of such applications, reinforcing fairness and preventing arbitrary rejections.

Read the Full Article: Here

RASPELLI BHAGYA KIS HAIYA & ORS. VS GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS., decided on 12-08-2026

Custodial Death: CBI Inquiry Ordered, Compensation Enhanced Due to State Inaction

In a scathing indictment of state authorities, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI inquiry into a custodial death, significantly enhancing compensation for the victim's family. The Court found the High Court's initial compensation 'meagre' and expressed dismay at senior State officials' 'disturbing disregard' for statutory procedures and attempts to mislead the Court regarding the death of an individual from head injuries sustained in custody. This ruling serves as a stern reminder of fundamental rights violations and the accountability of the State, setting a precedent for robust investigations and adequate reparations in such cases.

Read the Full Article: Here

LAHRA BAI TAMRE & ORS. VS STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND ORS., decided on 12-08-2026

Partnership Firms: Time-Barred Recovery Suits Despite Valid Registration

The Supreme Court affirmed the valid registration of a partnership firm but crucially dismissed its recovery suit as time-barred. The judgment clarifies that the period spent prosecuting a winding-up petition before a Company Court cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for a subsequent civil recovery suit, given their distinct reliefs and procedures. This serves as a vital reminder for businesses and legal practitioners about the strict adherence to limitation periods, especially when pursuing multiple legal remedies, and clarifies what constitutes a valid acknowledgment of debt to extend limitation.

Read the Full Article: Here

Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited VS M/s. Trade Centre, decided on 12-08-2026

Procedural Clarity: Composite Appeals Against Common Judgments Are Maintainable

In a significant ruling for civil litigators, the Supreme Court held that a composite appeal challenging a common judgment delivered in clubbed civil suits is maintainable. Overturning a High Court's technical dismissal, the Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not be fatal to substantive rights of appeal, especially when all aspects of the common judgment are under challenge by the same plaintiff. This judgment clarifies a long-standing procedural debate, favoring adjudication on merits over strict adherence to form.

Read the Full Article: Here

BASSANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. AND OTHERS VS BHIMANNA AND OTHERS, decided on 12-08-2026

Customs Duty: Laser Imagers Classified as Accessories Across Multiple Headings

For importers and customs professionals, the Supreme Court upheld the classification of imported 'Dryview Laser Imagers' as accessories under Customs Tariff Heading 9033 00 00, attracting higher duty. The Court meticulously analyzed Chapter 90 notes, determining that because these imagers are compatible with diagnostic machines falling under *different* tariff headings (e.g., MRI under 9018, CT/X-ray under 9022), they could not be classified solely with one specific heading. This decision provides critical guidance on the interpretation of "parts and accessories" when goods serve multiple machine types, impacting import duties and compliance strategies.

Read the Full Article: Here

M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, decided on 12-08-2026

NPA Settlements: High Court Erred by Ignoring Interest Component

In a significant victory for banks and financial institutions, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had erroneously directed a loan settlement for a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by ignoring the crucial interest component. The Court reiterated that 'debt' explicitly includes interest, and that standard banking practices for NPAs, such as maintaining interest in suspense accounts, must be respected. This judgment safeguards the recovery mechanisms for NPAs, preventing arbitrary judicial interference in bank-debtor settlements and reinforcing the financial integrity of lending institutions.

Read the Full Article: Here

Punjab National Bank VS M/s. Shree Jyoti Education and Management Trust World and others, decided on 12-08-2026

IBC Claims: Operational Debt, Limitation, and Pre-Existing Disputes Defined for EPC Contracts

For IBC practitioners, corporate lawyers, and construction companies, this judgment provides crucial clarifications. The Supreme Court dismissed a Section 9 IBC application as time-barred, emphasizing that the IBC is not for reviving dead debts. The Court clarified that claims for damages (like idling or demobilization charges) are not 'operational debt' unless crystallized by an adjudicatory forum. Crucially, it reaffirmed that a pre-existing dispute must be raised *prior* to the Section 8 demand notice, and a corporate debtor's passive silence cannot be deemed a genuine pre-existing dispute, but also does not extend the limitation period for the creditor.

Read the Full Article: Here

SRINIVASA REDDY VELAGALA VS SRAVANTHI INFRATECH PVT. LTD., decided on 12-08-2026

Labour Law: State Cannot Delegate Power to Refer Disputes Without Statutory Authority

This judgment holds significant implications for labor law practitioners, government agencies, and HR departments. The Supreme Court ruled that the State Government cannot delegate its power to refer disputes to Labour Courts under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act without explicit statutory authorization. Applying the 'unius est exclusio alterius' principle, the Court found the delegation invalid. However, exercising Article 142 powers, it directed the State Government to re-evaluate and issue fresh references for all existing cases, preventing wholesale termination of ongoing proceedings. This underscores the importance of clear statutory provisions for delegation of governmental powers.

Read the Full Article: Here

SUDHIR & ORS. VS. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP (D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS., decided on 11-08-2026