Supreme Court's Important Judgments of April 2026

 *Supreme Court's Important Judgments of April 2026*

1. Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash [2026] GCtR 285 (SC)
2. Samarendra Nath Kundu v. Sadhana Das [2026] GCtR 287 (SC)
3. Jai Prakash Saini v MD, UP Cooperative Federation Ltd [2026] GCtR 289 (SC)
4. Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari [2026] GCtR 288 (SC)
5. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. GNCTD [2026] GCtR 298 (SC)
6. J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director [2026] GCtR 299 (SC)
7. Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Rai [2026] GCtR 300 (SC)
8. A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand [2026] GCtR 301 (SC)
9. Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar  [2026] GCtR 302 (SC)
10. Commissioner Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar [2026] GCtR 304 (SC)
11. Sajal Bose v. State of WB [2026] GCtR 305 (SC)
12. Madan Singh v. State of Haryana [2026] GCtR 332 (SC)
13. Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natawarlal Shamji Gada [2026] GCtR 338 (SC) : "No doubt, the principle that the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated keeping in mind the rights existing at the commencement of the lis. Where however subsequent events having a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the same and moulding the relief in accordance with law." 
14. Home Care Retail Marts Pvt Ltd v. Haresh N. Sanghavi [2026] GCtR 339 (SC) : "The principle of contextual or purposive interpretation cannot be invoked where the statutory language is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning. It is trite law that where the expressions employed in a statute are clear, categorical, and leave no room for doubt, the Court must refrain from resorting to contextual or purposive construction. If Courts were to resort to contextual or purposive interpretation so as to arrive at a meaning contrary to the plain language of the statute, it would not only do violence to the statute but at a jurisprudential level would constitute a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers."
15. State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora [2026] GCtR 340 (SC) : "It is well-settled that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

*To obtain full text PDF Copies of Decisions with synopsis Free of cost directly on your email address, please take the following steps* : 

1. Click on "Follow" option to become the Follower of this blog.

2. Mention your Email address in the "Comments" of this blog post.