1. In a suit for specific performance, a decree is passed directing execution of the sale deed. Pursuant to the decree, the sale deed is executed through the court and possession of the property is delivered to the decree-holder. The decree-holder continues in possession for several decades. In subsequent appellate proceedings, the court considers the long lapse of time and instead of allowing the completed sale to stand, directs payment of an enhanced monetary amount to the decree-holder.

Which principle governing equitable relief in a suit for specific performance is most appropriate?

A. The court may always substitute specific performance with monetary compensation if substantial delay has occurred after the decree.

B. Once a decree for specific performance has been executed through a court sale and ownership and possession have passed to the decree-holder, mere passage of time cannot ordinarily be a ground to substitute the completed transaction with monetary compensation.

C. A decree for specific performance does not become final until the decree-holder has remained in possession for twelve years, after which adverse possession principles validate the transaction.

D. Where the vendor challenges the decree after execution of the sale deed, the court must restore the property to the vendor upon refund of the consideration, irrespective of the duration of possession.

Answer: B

Cause Title: Sobaran Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Versus Gordhan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 962

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the mere passage of several decades could not justify unsettling this completed transaction and replacing it with an enhanced monetary payment. The equities arising from the long lapse of time, in the circumstances, operated in favour of the plaintiff who had parted with consideration and obtained ownership and possession.

Inequitable To Undo Sale Executed Pursuant To Specific Performance Decree Decades Ago By Ordering Refund: Supreme Court

2. Statement I: At the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court can examine the defence raised by the defendant to determine whether the plaintiff's document is admissible in evidence.

Statement II: The question whether an unregistered document can be relied upon for a collateral transaction under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act may require evidence and adjudication at trial.

Which of the following is correct?

A. Both Statement I and Statement II are correct.

B. Both Statement I and Statement II are incorrect.

C. Statement I is correct, but Statement II is incorrect.

D. Statement I is incorrect, but Statement II is correct.

Answer: D

Case: Sheo Kumar Singh & Others v M/s Sharda Educational Society & Others, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 956

Explanation: Order VII Rule 11 requires the court to examine the plaint and determine whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law. The defendant's defence cannot ordinarily be relied upon for this purpose. Whether an unregistered document is admissible, including whether it can be received under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act as evidence of a collateral transaction, is ordinarily a matter for trial.

O 7 Rule 11 CPC | Admissibility Of Document Cannot Be Decided While Considering Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court

3. An arbitral tribunal passes an award directing A to pay B ₹1 crore with interest at 12% per annum. A challenges the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court stays enforcement subject to A depositing ₹50 lakh in court. The court further directs that B may withdraw the deposited amount only upon furnishing security. A subsequently deposits the remaining amount, but B is also unable to withdraw it immediately because the executing court imposes a similar condition.

After the award attains finality, B claims interest on the entire awarded amount for the period during which the amounts remained deposited in court. A contends that his liability to pay interest ceased from the dates of deposit because the money was no longer in his possession.

Which of the following is the most legally correct position?

A. Interest ceases immediately upon deposit because once the award-debtor deposits the awarded amount in court, the money is beyond his control and therefore the debt stands discharged.

B. Interest ceases upon deposit only if the deposit is unconditional and the award-holder/decree-holder is free to withdraw the amount; a deposit subject to a condition requiring security does not constitute payment in satisfaction of the award under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC.

C. Interest ceases upon deposit only when the award-holder actually withdraws the money; until physical withdrawal, interest necessarily continues irrespective of the terms of deposit.

D. Interest automatically ceases on deposit of 50% of the awarded amount because Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits such a deposit as a condition for stay, and the remaining amount alone continues to carry interest.

Answer: B

Cause Title: NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS NATIONAL AGRO SEED CORPORATION (INDIA), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Explanation: The decisive consideration is not merely whether the award-debtor has deposited the money in court, but whether the amount has been made unconditionally available to the award-holder for withdrawal.

Under the principle governing Order XXI Rule 1 CPC, a deposit qualifies as payment in satisfaction of the decree only when it is unconditional and freely withdrawable by the decree-holder. If withdrawal is conditional upon furnishing security or complying with another restriction, the award-holder does not have free access to the money. Consequently, the award-debtor's liability to pay interest continues for the period during which the amount remains so restricted.

Conditional Deposit Won't Stop Interest If Award-Holder Can't Freely Withdraw It: Supreme Court

4. With reference to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, consider the following statements:

1. Grievous hurt is not an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC.

2. Even simple hurt may attract Section 307 IPC, provided the act causing such hurt was accompanied by the intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 307 IPC.

3. Actual bodily injury is indispensable for conviction under Section 307 IPC, although the injury need not be grievous.

4. The mere fact that the injury sustained was grievous or potentially fatal is sufficient by itself to establish an offence under Section 307 IPC.

5. For Section 307 IPC, an overt act coupled with the requisite intention or knowledge is sufficient, even if the intended consequence of death does not occur.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A. 1, 2 and 5 only

B. 1, 2, 3 and 5 only

C. 2, 3 and 4 only

D. 1, 2, 4 and 5 only

Answer: A

Cause Title: Surender Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Ors., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 953

Explanation: Section 307 IPC does not make grievous injury, or even bodily injury capable of causing death, an essential ingredient. The focus is on the intention or knowledge of the accused, coupled with an overt act towards commission of the offence.

Grievousness Of Injury Not Necessary For Attracting Section 307 IPC : Supreme Court

5. Under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an accused may, in an appropriate case, be convicted by an Appellate or Revisional Court for an offence for which no charge was framed. Which one of the following correctly states the legal test governing such a conviction?

A. Conviction for an uncharged offence is permissible only where the uncharged offence carries a punishment lesser than, or equal to, that of the offence for which the accused was originally charged.

B. Conviction for an uncharged offence is permissible where the uncharged offence is cognate or minor and the evidence on record establishes its ingredients, irrespective of whether the accused had an opportunity to defend himself against that offence.

C. Conviction for an uncharged offence may be sustained where the accused was aware of its basic ingredients, the material facts constituting the offence were clearly put to him, and he had a fair opportunity to defend himself, so that no failure of justice was occasioned.

D. Conviction for an uncharged offence is impermissible unless the prosecution had specifically sought alteration of the charge before the Trial Court under the provisions relating to alteration of charges.

Answer: C

Cause Title: PYNCHEMALANGAKI BAREH VERSUS STATE OF MEGHALAYA, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Explanation: The provision does not treat every omission in framing a charge as automatically vitiating the conviction. The decisive consideration is whether the omission has occasioned a failure of justice. In determining this, the Court examines whether the accused understood the basic ingredients of the offence, whether the material facts were clearly brought to his notice, and whether he had a fair opportunity to meet the case.

Know The Law | When Can Court Convict A Person For A Charge Not Framed? Supreme Court Explains

6. A, a man, develops a romantic relationship with B, a woman. During their relationship, A expresses his desire to marry B and they engage in consensual sexual intercourse. Subsequently, A declines to marry B because his mother does not approve of the proposed marriage. B lodges an FIR alleging that A obtained her consent for sexual intercourse by a false promise to marry, invoking Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Which of the following most accurately states the legal position?

(A) Once a promise to marry precedes sexual intercourse and the marriage subsequently does not take place, Section 69 is attracted irrespective of A's intention when the promise was made.

(B) Section 69 is attracted only when the promise to marry was made with the intention of deceiving the woman from the outset; subsequent inability or refusal to marry, by itself, does not establish the requisite deceitful conduct.

(C) Section 69 applies only where the woman's consent was obtained under fear or misconception of fact, and therefore cannot apply to a promise to marry.

(D) A subsequent refusal to marry necessarily establishes that the original promise was false, shifting the burden upon A to prove that he genuinely intended to marry.

 Answer: B

Case: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v State of Gujarat & Anr., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 925

Explanation: Section 69 BNS creates a distinct offence concerning sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. The crucial inquiry is therefore whether the promise was dishonest/deceitful at the inception. A mere subsequent failure or refusal to marry does not automatically establish that the promise was false when made. Where the circumstances themselves indicate that the relationship was consensual and the marriage was subsequently not possible because of circumstances such as parental opposition, the foundational element of deceit may be absent.

Supreme Court Explains S.69 BNS : No Offence Of Deceitful Sex By Breach Of Genuine Marriage Promise

7. Consider the following propositions regarding Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the doctrine of in pari delicto:

1. For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the court must examine the averments contained in the plaint, treating them as true for that limited purpose.

2. Where the plaint itself discloses that the consideration or object of the underlying agreement is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy, Section 23 of the Contract Act may render the agreement void.

3. The doctrine of in pari delicto may preclude a plaintiff from obtaining judicial relief where the plaintiff's own claim arises from participation in an illegal transaction.

4. The fact that the defendant failed to perform his part of an illegal transaction necessarily entitles the plaintiff to recover the money already paid, since the illegal object was not completely achieved.

5. The principle recognised in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai concerning recovery where an illegal transaction has not been carried into effect is absolute and applies irrespective of the extent to which the illegal purpose has already been implemented.

Which of the following is correct?

A. 1, 2 and 3 only

B. 1, 2, 3 and 4 only

C. 2, 3 and 5 only

D. 1, 2, 4 and 5 only

Answer: A

Case: Poosa Sri Krishna & Ors v Gattu Kishan Rao & Anr, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 928

Explanation: The Supreme Court has recently held that where a plaint itself discloses that the money sought to be recovered was paid for an illegal and fraudulent purpose, the suit is barred by the of in pari delicto and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Suit Not Maintainable To Recover Money Paid For Illegal Purpose, Must Be Rejected Under O VII R 11 CPC : Supreme Court

8. A statute creates a criminal offence punishable upon proof of mens rea and permits prosecution of a corporation. The prosecution alleges that certain employees of the corporation acted in furtherance of a transaction constituting the offence, but does not identify or arraign any particular employee as an accused. The corporation seeks quashing of the proceedings at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC solely on the ground that no natural person has been arraigned. Decide.

A. The proceedings must necessarily be quashed because mens rea can exist only in a natural person, and identification and arraignment of that person is an indispensable precondition for prosecuting the corporation.

B. The proceedings cannot be quashed merely because no natural person has been identified or arraigned; however, the allegations must prima facie disclose that some natural person acted on behalf of the corporation, that the conduct is referable to the offence, and that the surrounding circumstances do not make the existence of the requisite mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable.

C. Once an employee is shown to have participated in the transaction, his conduct and mens rea are automatically attributable to the corporation, irrespective of the authority, delegation, or statutory scheme governing attribution.

D. Before refusing to quash the proceedings, the High Court must conclusively determine which individual controlled the corporation and establish that such individual possessed the requisite mens rea.

 Answer: B

Cause Title: SANOFI INDIA LTD. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Explanation: At the Section 482 CrPC stage, the prosecution need not conclusively establish the identity or precise role of the individual through whom the corporation allegedly acted. Non-identification or non-arraignment of a natural person, by itself, does not mandate quashing.

Companies Can Be Prosecuted Even Without Naming Individual Officers : Supreme Court

9. During the pendency of a civil suit, the defendant, who is the owner of the suit property, transfers the property by a registered sale deed to a third party. The suit principally seeks a declaration of the plaintiff's tenancy status over the property. The purchaser subsequently applies under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment as a defendant. The plaintiff objects, contending that no relief has been specifically claimed against the purchaser and that the dispute can be effectively adjudicated between the existing parties.

Which of the following is the most legally appropriate proposition?

(A) The purchaser can never be impleaded because a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree by virtue of lis pendens and therefore has no independent right to participate in the proceedings.

(B) The purchaser is merely a proper party because the transfer pendente lite does not confer any enforceable interest upon the purchaser until the suit is finally decided.

(C) The purchaser may be treated as a necessary party where the principal relief sought is a declaration of tenancy status, since such a declaration concerning the property cannot effectively be granted in the absence of its present owner.

(D) The purchaser cannot be impleaded unless the plaintiff amends the plaint and expressly seeks substantive relief against the purchaser.

Answer: C

Case: Rasilaben & Anr. v Dinesh Deumal Harani & Ors, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 957

Explanation: Where the principal relief is a declaration concerning tenancy rights in the property, the present owner has a direct legal interest in defending the claim. A declaration of tenancy status cannot ordinarily be effectively granted in the absence of the owner. Thus, the purchaser who acquired the defendant-owner's interest during the pendency of the suit can step into the shoes of the transferor and be impleaded as a necessary party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

Buyer Who Purchased Property From Defendant Is Necessary Party In Suit Seeking Declaration Of Tenancy Rights : Supreme Court

10. Consider the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R) in the context of incorporation of an arbitration agreement in a composite transaction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

Assertion (A): A person who executes a personal guarantee as an integral and contemporaneous component of a loan transaction may be bound by an arbitration clause contained in the principal loan agreement, even though the guarantor does not separately sign that loan agreement.

Reason (R): Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits incorporation by reference where a contract refers to a document containing an arbitration clause in such a manner as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract, and the court may examine the agreements collectively to determine whether they constitute a composite transaction.

Which one of the following is correct?

(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.

(B) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.

(C) A is true, but R is false.

(D) A is false, but R is true.

Answer: A

Cause Title: NATIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS SURYA WIRES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 930

Explanation: The Supreme Court has held that where parties structure a single transaction through several interconnected instruments, an arbitration clause contained in one instrument can bind a party through another instrument that is expressly integrated with it, even if the latter instrument does not itself contain an arbitration clause.

Arbitration Clause In One Agreement Can Bind Party To Another Instrument Forming Part Of Composite Transaction: Supreme Court