Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

General Clauses Act, 1897

14 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M.S. SANJAYversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.

2025 INSC 17729 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a mortgaged property at an auction conducted on 31 July 2007 and received a sale certificate on 30 November 2007, thereafter developing the property. The guarantor of the original borrower challenged the auction before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which set aside the sale; the decision was later

NAGARAJAN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 70314 May 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA) for selling adulterated curd and various food items, receiving six months' imprisonment and fines. They sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that Section 20AA of PoFA, which excluded probation,

BHARTI ARORAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 104413 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Superintendent of Police, was implicated by a Special Judge for allegedly fabricating a false story that led to the recovery of opium and was issued a show‑cause notice under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge recorded adverse findings against her and other officers without giving the

PUJA FERRO ALLOYS P LTD.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 21713 February 2025Dismissed

The appellant companies, industrial units in Goa, claimed a 25% rebate on electricity tariffs under a 1991 notification that was later rescinded in 1995 and amended in 1996. They argued that their entitlement crystallised when they applied for power and that the State could not withdraw the benefit due to promissory es

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.versusPARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN

2024 INSC 27712 March 2024Disposed off

The respondent, Paresh Nathalal Chauhan, filed a writ petition seeking protection from arrest under the GST Act, prompting the Gujarat High Court to issue an interim order that criticised the prolonged presence of a search party at his residence as unauthorized. The High Court also observed that the good‑faith protecti

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRISM CEMENT LIMITED & ANR

2025 INSC 19912 February 2025Dismissed

Prism Cement Ltd., a unit that had been granted an absolute tax exemption under the Package Scheme of Incentives 1993 (PSI 1993) through an Eligibility Certificate (20‑02‑1998) and an Entitlement Certificate (24‑03‑1998), challenged the Maharashtra State's attempt to withdraw that benefit after the Finance Act, 2002 am

VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 12099 October 2025Case Allowed

The petitioners, three intending couples, had completed the embryo‑freezing stage of surrogacy in 2020‑2021, before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 25 January 2022. After the Act’s commencement, the statutory age limits (female ≤50, male ≤55) barred them from obtaining the eligibility certificat

M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

2025 INSC 12028 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Aroush Motors, sued Anvita Auto Tech Works for recovery of monies after terminating a dealership agreement. The defendant failed to file its written statement within the statutory 120‑day period and sought multiple extensions, eventually filing the statement

JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 866 February 2024Dismissed

The respondents, who had been tenants of an urban immovable property (a rolling mill) since 1949, filed a suit for pre-emption after the owners sold the property to the appellants in 1983, invoking the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellants contended that a State Government notification dated 08‑10‑1985, issued u

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOLKATA

2025 INSC 6091 May 2025Dismissed

Coal India Ltd., through its subsidiary Central Coalfields Ltd., imported spare parts for P&H shovels and was required to pay an additional 8% of the FOB value to the Indian agent Voltas Ltd. as engineering and technical service fees. The customs authorities held that these fees were part of the assessable value under

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search