The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court direction that the State absorb a lecturer of an unaided college whose faculty had closed, because the State of Maharashtra was never made a party; impleading an officer is not enough. On merits too, the surplus-absorption policy did not cover no-grant colleges. Under Article 142 it still ordered the State to pay him ₹10 lakh, as a non-precedent (paras 8-18).
The Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan High Court's Division Bench should not have decided for itself whether to exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for Continental Engineering's Section 34 challenge to a 2017 arbitral award involving Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation. Keeping the remand, it directed the Single Judge to decide that question first, after notice to Jaipur Metro, and to reach the merits only if the challenge is within time (paras 7, 19).
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against bank officers, lodged by an enterprise whose loan accounts had turned NPA. Non-compliance with RBI guidelines and circulars cannot found a criminal prosecution merely because the enterprise's directors belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; no officer was specifically alleged to have denigrated them for their caste, and the grievances belong before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (paras 9-10).
The Supreme Court quashed a prosecution in Muzaffarnagar against a woman accused of forging her mother's death certificate by giving the date of death as 21.11.2019 instead of 20.11.2019. The certificate was issued by the competent Panchayati Raj authority on her online application, the date was later corrected, and she was not alleged to have used it for any benefit, so no offence under Section 420 or 465 IPC arose (paras 5-6).
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in an SOG case under the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 after the Rajasthan High Court refused it. With 150 accused, 180 proposed witnesses and charges not yet framed, the trial will be long; he had spent almost 30 months in custody for offences carrying at most three years, and co-accused were on bail (paras 6-9).
The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had disposed of an insurer's interim application in a motor accident appeal without even issuing notice to the claimants, calling it a clear breach of natural justice. The application was revived for rehearing, preferably by December 2026, as the first claimant is 87 and lost his son in the accident (paras 2-4).
The Supreme Court suspended the 12-year sentence of a 28-year-old truck driver convicted over 204 kg of ganja seized by the Narcotics Control Bureau, pending his appeal before the Jharkhand High Court. He had been in custody for over four years and four months; the Court acted on a prima facie consideration and left bail conditions to the trial court (paras 1-5).
A Bench led by the Chief Justice directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to have a Special Investigation Team, headed by a DCP-rank officer, investigate a complaint by lawyers who allege they were violently assaulted by 20 to 30 persons during a night-time sit-in at the Bar Council of India premises in August 2026. The Delhi High Court had sent them to a Magistrate instead (paras 1-5).
The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of a construction company's bid for river-protection works on the Bikramshila-Katareah rail link, holding it perverse to reject a bid security paid by e-payment, with the digital receipt uploaded, merely because the ‘original’ was not produced, which was an impossibility (paras 2, 10). The money was already in the tendering authority's account (paras 8, 10).
The Supreme Court held, prima facie, that two later partners of a Mumbai firm who never signed the 1985 partnership deed containing the arbitration clause are veritable parties to the arbitration over the firm's commercial property, because their rights depend on whether the appellants' disputed 1995 retirement deed is valid (paras 15-17). Their limitation and estoppel objections were left to the Arbitral Tribunal (paras 16, 18).
The Supreme Court clarified that its common judgment of 12.02.2026 in Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar, which held ex-servicemen entitled to disability pension with broad banding and interest, cannot be read to mean that disability pension with arrears can be claimed in every case; each claim must be decided on its own merits (paras 2, 8). The Union had said courts and tribunals were extending it to settled cases (para 4).
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that where the arbitration clause names both Delhi and Goa, the named venue does not automatically become the seat, and the clause giving Goa courts exclusive jurisdiction shows that Goa is the juridical seat (paras 21-22, 24).