The Supreme Court restored the 2002 acquittal of a telephone department cashier accused of criminal breach of trust over Rs 8.73 lakh of bill collections in 1993. The cashbook, daily registers and audit report that would have shown entrustment were never produced, the seizure from his house was not proved, and the High Court wrongly shifted the burden to him and sentenced him without hearing him on sentence (paras 13-25).
The Supreme Court held that when a private college in Rajasthan dismisses a probationer before getting the State's approval required by Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993, the dismissal takes effect from the date of approval rather than failing altogether. It upheld a Khetri college's 1998 termination, set aside reinstatement, and awarded ₹5 lakh compensation (paras 11-16).
The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that released two men convicted for a 2003 knife and gun attack in Bahraich on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused had never spent a day in custody, had a string of later criminal cases, and the victim remains disabled; the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders ruled out release on good conduct (paras 13-14).
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court deleted the part of its order of 27.04.2026 that required trial courts to call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in every case punishable with death. On an application by NALSA, it accepted that the direction was unworkable where death is not even contemplated and that trial courts may lack the resources; the direction for High Courts was not touched (paras 1-6).
Hearing a challenge to a Bombay High Court order requiring Liberty Investments to furnish a bank guarantee for a USD 66,92,500 claim or stop dealing with its property, the Supreme Court relegated the parties to the FOSFA arbitral tribunal, already deep into its hearing. The tribunal is best placed to decide interim relief, including any admission of liability and set-off; the injunction runs only until 20.11.2026 (paras 11-15).
The Supreme Court held the income-tax reassessment of LG Electronics India for AY 2006-07 to 2008-09 unenforceable. It rested only on an alleged failure to deduct TDS on remittances to the Korean parent and the resulting Section 40(a)(i) disallowance, but the ITAT had held that LG India was not an assessee-in-default under Section 201. Once that ground failed, no other ground could sustain the reassessment (paras 7-8).
The Supreme Court altered a conviction for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery (Section 394 IPC) to grievous hurt (Section 325), because the robbery rested only on the complainant's word, with no recovery or proof of the jewellery. Identification was upheld despite no test identification parade. Applying the cognate-offence rule in Section 222 CrPC, the Court cut the sentence to the time already served and ordered the appellant's release (paras 7-15).
In cross-appeals against a Gujarat High Court interim order staying a land acquisition award and its execution, the Supreme Court declined to decide disputed questions of fact pending in the first appeals. It continued the stay on JK Paper depositing a further Rs 15 crore, rejected the company's late plea that a nala reduced the usable land, and asked the High Court to expedite the dispute over the 2005 acquisition (paras 12-17).
The Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court order reinstating a Trained Block Teacher whose 2007 appointment was terminated because his 1995 training certificate came from an institution not recognised by the NCTE. Eligibility is judged on the last date for applications or at the latest on the date of appointment, and the 2006 Bihar Rules then required an NCTE-recognised certificate, which he did not have (paras 3.3-4.2).
The Supreme Court restored an attempt-to-murder charge under Section 307 IPC that the Rajasthan High Court had replaced with Section 308 because the victims' wounds were on non-vital parts of the body. At the charge stage the court only checks for a prima facie case; intention is gathered from all the circumstances, and the trial court can alter the charge under Section 216 CrPC if the evidence falls short (paras 8-13).
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's dismissal of an election petition against a 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly result because it was presented by the petitioner's counsel, not by the petitioner. Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires presentation 'by' the petitioner, non-compliance means dismissal under Section 86(1), and the High Court's rule requiring presentation in person is valid (paras 6-7, 18-19, 24).
The Supreme Court held that a Pondicherry power subsidy, paid as a percentage of actual energy charges for five years after production began, was a revenue receipt taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Applying the 'purpose test' from Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars, it looked at how the subsidy actually operated, not at the scheme's broad aim of fostering industry, and dismissed Mepco Industries' appeal for Assessment Year 1997-98 (paras 14-24).