Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 12, 2026 To January 18, 2026

JudgmentsWhile Bail Is Not To Be Refused Mechanically, It Must Not Be Granted On Irrelevant Considerations: Supreme CourtCase Details: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & AnotherCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 36The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to a man in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly committing rape and sexual assault on a minor girl. The Court noted that the bail order was perverse, unreasonable, and ignored the relevant material.“It is settled law that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application for bail. However, while assessing such an application, the Court is duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation. The offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave involving repeated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim committed under armed intimidation and accompanied by recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail. Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while allowing the appeal of the complainant/victim against the bail order.The prosecution's case was that the accused, known to the victim, along with his friends, had sexually assaulted the minor repeatedly over six months. The assaults were allegedly committed under the threat of a country-made pistol (katta), and the acts were recorded on a mobile phone to blackmail the victim. The FIR was registered on December 02, 2024, after initial police reluctance.When Can Shares Received After Company Amalgamation Be Taxed As Business Income : Supreme Court ExplainsCase Details: M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi – Ii, New DelhiCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 37The Supreme Court has ruled that shares received in a corporate amalgamation are immediately taxable as business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act if they represent a "real, commercially realizable benefit."“where the shares of an amalgamating company, held as stock-in-trade, are substituted by shares of the amalgamated company pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, and such shares are realisable in money and capable of definite valuation, the substitution gives rise to taxable business income within the meaning of Section 28 of the I.T. Act.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.The dispute arose from a scheme of amalgamation under which Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited (JFAL) merged into Jindal Strips Limited (JSL). The assesses had held shares of JFAL and, upon amalgamation, were allotted shares of JSL in substitution. The controversy centred on whether this allotment constituted a taxable event when the original shares were held not as investments (capital assets), but as trading assets (stock-in-trade).Workers Hired Through Contractors Can't Claim Equal Status As Regular Employees : Supreme CourtCase Details: Municipal Council v. K. Jayaram and Others Etc.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 38The Supreme Court held that contractual workers engaged through third-party service providers are not entitled to equivalent employment benefits as regular employees, observing that such parity would undermine the foundational principles of public recruitment and transparent hiring processes.“If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required.”, the Court observed.The court observed that regular employment under a State entity is a public asset and cannot be equated with contractual engagement through contractors. It held that if distinctions between regular and contractual employees are blurred, the very purpose of different modes of hiring would be defeated. While regular appointments are governed by transparent procedures ensuring equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, engagement through contractors is left to the contractor's discretion, making the two categories fundamentally distinct in law.Appeal Won't Abate For Not Adding Legal Heirs If Interest Of Deceased Is Sufficiently Represented By Others : Supreme CourtCase Details: Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 39The Supreme Court (January 12) ruled that mere non-substitution of one of the legal heirs of a deceased party wouldn't render the suit abated if the deceased party's interest is adequately represented by other legal heirs.A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan set ...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 12, 2026 To January 18, 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags