IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.versusIN RE:
2020 INSC 48931 August 2020Disposed off
The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu criminal contempt petition against senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, affirmed his conviction for scandalising the judiciary through tweets and an affidavit alleging misconduct by judges. The Court held that the defence of truth under Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r…
M.C. GUPTAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN
2012 INSC 36831 August 2012Disposed off
The appellants, M.C. Gupta and Mohan Lal Gupta, were convicted for misappropriating company funds by issuing a bank draft in 1988, an offence that occurred before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came into force. An FIR was lodged in 1990 under the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the trial court …
SUKH SAGAR MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
2020 INSC 47431 July 2020Dismissed
The Gujarat Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital Trust obtained an Essentiality Certificate in 2014 to establish a medical college in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Despite conditional permission for the 2016‑17 academic year, the Medical Council of India (MCI) repeatedly denied renewal of permission for three successive s…
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusMAGNUM EQUITY SERVICES LTD. & ORS.
2015 INSC 87130 November 2015Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether Magnum Equity Services Ltd., a corporate entity formed by converting a stock‑broking partnership, was entitled to a fee‑continuity exemption under Paragraph 1(4) of Schedule III of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers) Regulations, 1992, after three of its original partners resigne…
SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS.versusTHE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS.
2018 INSC 102030 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioners challenged a show‑cause notice issued under the Gold Control Rules, arguing that it should not survive the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990. The central issue was whether a repeal simpliciter without an explicit saving clause automatically invokes Section 6 o…
SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
2013 INSC 66330 September 2013Disposed off
The petitioners, accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, had their trial transferred to Karnataka where the Supreme Court directed the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP). After a seven‑month tenure, the Karnataka Government withdrew the a…
BIR SINGHversusDELHI JAL BOARD & ORS.
2018 INSC 76630 August 2018Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether the Presidential Orders under Articles 341 and 342, which list Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for each State or Union Territory (UT), limit a State or UT's power under Article 16(4) to provide reservation for backward classes. It held that reservation must be confined…
LIC OF INDIAversusINSURE POLICY PLUS SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
2015 INSC 94629 December 2015Dismissed
The petitioners, a company dealing in the purchase and resale of life‑insurance policies, challenged LIC's circulars of 2003 and 2005 that refused to register assignments of policies to firms engaged in trading such policies. They argued that Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938 makes policies transferable and assigna…
R.S. SUJATHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
2010 INSC 83229 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an IAS officer, challenged disciplinary proceedings by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking quash of a charge memo dated 30‑11‑1999, asserting she received it only on 19‑6‑2002 and thus was within the limitation period. The respondents contended the memo…
POONAMversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2015 INSC 81329 October 2015Dismissed
The appellant, a visually‑handicapped allottee of a fair‑price shop, challenged an appellate order that restored the original allottee's licence and cancelled her own allotment. The High Court dismissed her writ petition on the ground that she was not a necessary party. The Supreme Court examined whether a subsequent a…
M/S. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITEDversusTHE CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.
2022 INSC 103629 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL) sought a distribution licence for its captive power plant to supply electricity to an industrial park and two villages in Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission granted the licence, but the Appellate Tribunal later cancelled it on the ground that JSPL did n…
VISHWABANDHUversusSRI KRISHNA AND ANR.
2021 INSC 57029 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed
Respondent No.2 sued Respondent No.1 for refund of part sale consideration. Summons sent by registered post were returned with a "refusal" endorsement, which under Order V Rule 9(5) and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is deemed to have been served. An ex‑parte decree was passed in favour of Respondent No.2, and t…
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.)versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
2022 INSC 87929 August 2022Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, which amended the definition of “employee” in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and inserted Section 13A with retrospective effect from 3 April 1997 to extend gratuity benefits to teachers in private schools. The pe…
SHABINAABRAHAM & ORS.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
2015 INSC 52829 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a show‑cause notice issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for alleged short levy of excise duty by a sole proprietor who died in 1989. The legal heirs challenged the notice, arguing that the Act contains no provision to continue assessment against a dead person’s estate. The Supreme Cou…
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 …
FERAversusM/S. PREMIER LIMITED (FORMERLY PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD.) & ORS.
2019 INSC 10229 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India appealed against a High Court order that had upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Director (Appeals) under FEMA to hear appeals against an adjudication order passed under Section 51 of the repealed FERA. The adjudication order, dated 5 December 2003, imposed a penalty on Godrej Industries Ltd. and …
STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS.
2015 INSC 61828 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) bought 17% NPCL bonds from Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd (ABFSL) and later discovered that the bonds had been misappropriated by broker Hiten P. Dalal and Canara Bank Mutual Fund (CMF). SCB filed a suit for conversion and amended it to implead Dalal and CMF, but the Special Court held…
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusMR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ORS.
2022 INSC 76728 July 2022Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the meaning of “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) with reference to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). The petitioners (HSIIDC and other…
P. V. NIDHISH & ORS.versusKERALA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR.
2023 INSC 45228 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, long‑time tenants of premises that later became part of a Wakf, were facing civil eviction when the Wakf Act, 1995 was amended in 2013 adding a penal provision (Section 52A) and a definition of "encroacher". The Wakf Board filed a criminal complaint under Section 52A alleging the appellants were encroac…
S. KHUSHBOOversusKANNIAMMAL AND ANR.
2010 INSC 24728 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The actress S. Khushboo made remarks in a 2005 news‑magazine survey endorsing societal acceptance of premarital sex and live‑in relationships. Several members of the PMK political party filed criminal complaints alleging defamation, obscenity, indecent representation of women and incitement under the IPC and the Indece…
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA
2019 INSC 128927 November 2019Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed by Hindustan Construction Company Ltd seeking to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the deletion of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, arguing that they revived an automatic‑stay of arbitral awards and removed th…
M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2014 INSC 81627 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Magnum Promoters Ltd., the owner of land in Delhi, challenged acquisition notifications issued under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that no physical possession was taken and compensation was not paid, invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re…
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR.versusM/S. KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR.
2015 INSC 79927 October 2015Disposed off
The case concerned the validity of several amendments to the Export-Import (EXIM) Policy 2002-2007 made by Notification No. 28 (Jan 28, 2004) and subsequent public notices and notifications (Jan 28 2004 Public Notice, Apr 21 & 23 2004 Notifications). Exporters alleged that these changes were retrospective, ultra vires,…
STATE OF UTTARANCHALversusM/S. KHURANA BROTHERS
2010 INSC 74627 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Uttaranchal auctioned crude resin and the highest bid was placed by Khurana Brothers, leading to a formal contract of sale dated 24 March 2001 and an acceptance letter on 7 April 2001 requiring the resin to be lifted within 60 days. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether this contract amounted to a…
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC
2023 INSC 72327 March 2023Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether the day on which a magistrate orders remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be counted in the 60/90‑day period prescribed for filing a charge‑sheet, the expiry of which gives an accused an indefeasible right to default bail. Relying on the earlier d…
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2023 INSC 29827 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, convicted and sentenced to death for the 1994 murder of five women and two children, claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting an age of 12 years based on school birth certificates and other documents. After earlier petitions were dismissed, the Supreme Court referred the matter to …
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusVIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS.
2019 INSC 28727 February 2019Matter referred to larger bench
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of the proviso in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to determine whether it applies to sub‑section 24(1)(b) or to 24(2). The petitioners (Delhi Development Authority) sought to conti…
ECON ANTRI LTD.versusROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.
2013 INSC 56126 August 2013Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be filed within one month of the cause of action arising, and specifically whether the day the cause of action arose should be counted in the 30‑day period prescribed by Section 142(b). Relying on Section 9 of the Ge…
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2011 INSC 51626 July 2011Dismissed
The appellant, Narmada Bachao Andolan, challenged the amendment dated 7 June 1991 to Clause 5.1 of the 1991 Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy for the Upper Beda dam project in Madhya Pradesh, alleging it was ultra vires, arbitrary and violated the right of oustees to land in lieu of acquisition. The petition…
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.versusM/S. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINEERS & ANR.
2010 INSC 42926 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Himachal Pradesh entered into a construction contract and, after a dispute over extra work payment, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award on 5 November 2007, which was physically delivered to the office on 10 November (a holiday) but actually received by the Executive Engin…
THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR.versusM/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS.
2023 INSC 43126 April 2023Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator of a liquidated company, which conveyed land, building, civil works, plant and machinery, and other assets for a total consideration of Rs.8.35 crores. The first respondent, a nominee of the auction purchaser, sought registration of only the lan…
CONSUMER ONLINE FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2011 INSC 33626 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) and Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) could levy development fees on embarking passengers under Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, based on letters of approval from the Central Government. The petitioners argued that …
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2018 INSC 86625 September 2018Dismissed
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to bar Members of Parliament, Legislative Assemblies and Councils from practising as advocates while holding office, invoking Bar Council of India Rule 49 which prohibits advocates from being full‑time salaried employees. The Court examined wheth…
M/S PAHWA PLASTICS PVT. LTD. AND ANRversusDASTAK NGO AND ORS.
2022 INSC 34525 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and related firms, are MSME manufacturers of formaldehyde that obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board but did not secure prior environmental clearance (EC) as required by the 2006 EIA Notification. The Haryana governme…
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusAJAY AGARWAL
2010 INSC 12325 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a show‑cause notice and later a restraining order under Sections 11, 11(4)(b) and 11‑B of the SEBI Act, 1992, prohibiting Ajay Agarwal from associating with any corporate body and from dealing in securities for five years, based on alleged mis‑statements in a 199…
M/S. SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
2015 INSC 85524 November 2015Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals filed by M/s Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills and other assessees against the Commissioner of Central Excise. The core issues were whether Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules could levy interest and a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount when Secti…
RANDHIR KAURversusPRITHVI PAL SINGH & ORS.
2019 INSC 80624 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Randhir Kaur filed a suit for specific performance of a 2004 agreement to sell 193 kanals 18 marlas of land, having paid earnest money of Rs.13.5 lakh through her son Dhanwant Singh. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, set aside…
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2022 INSC 23024 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Central Excise Commissioner ordered the confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of Rathi Ispat Ltd. (RIL) under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in 2007, even though that rule had been omitted from the statute by a 2000 notification. RIL had earlier mortgaged the same assets to Punjab Nati…
SMT. NOORUNISSA BEGUMversusBRIJ KISHORE SANGH!
2015 INSC 96624 February 2015Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 operates prospectively or retrospectively and how it affects eviction suits pending when the amendment came into force. It also considered the effect of the 1983 Government Order (G.…
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusHARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI & ORS.
2014 INSC 5324 January 2014Dismissed
The Pune Municipal Corporation initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a notification in 2004, a declaration in 2005 and making an award on 31 January 2008. The award was not paid to the landowners nor deposited in court; the compensation amount was instead placed in the gov…
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S G S CHATHA RICE MILLS & ANR.
2020 INSC 56123 September 2020Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered whether Notification 5/2019, issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act to raise the import duty on goods from Pakistan to 200%, applied retrospectively to bills of entry that had been presented and self‑assessed before the notification was uploaded to the e‑gazette at 20:46:58 on 16…
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANKversusD. VISALAKSHI AND ANR.
2019 INSC 106723 September 2019Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in non‑metropolitan areas could entertain a secured creditor's application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for taking possession of secured ass…
M/S OM GURUSAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusM/S V.N. REDDY & ORS
2023 INSC 76023 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose when M/s OM Gurusai Construction Company (appellant) submitted the additional performance security for a water resources project two days later than the two‑working‑day deadline stipulated in Clause 2.22.0(ix) of the tender, due to a nationwide strike by employees of nationalised banks on the prescrib…
SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
2012 INSC 18023 April 2012Dismissed
The appellant was first prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque and was convicted, later acquitted on appeal, with the appeal still pending. Subsequently, the same complainant filed an FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging criminal …
GUNWANTLAL GODAWATversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
2017 INSC 113022 November 2017
In 1965 gold worth 240 kg was seized from the appellant's father's house under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and confiscation proceedings were initiated. The Rules were later repealed by the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968, which was subsequently repealed by the Gold Control Act, 1968, creating a statutory fiction that…
INDRA KUMAR PATODIA & ANR.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.
2012 INSC 53422 November 2012Dismissed
The appellants were charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring cheques. The complaint filed by the payee was not signed by the complainant but was later verified and signed on a verification statement before the magistrate. The legal issue was whether a complaint "in writing" under Sec…
BANGARU LAXMANversusSTATE (THROUGH CBI) & ANOTHER
2011 INSC 81422 November 2011Dismissed
Bangaru Laxman appealed against the order of a Special Judge that granted pardon to an accomplice (respondent No.2) before the charge‑sheet was filed. The appellant argued that the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) lacked jurisdiction to grant pardon at the investigation stage and that…
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORSversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
2019 INSC 117822 October 2019Dismissed
The appellant, whose father was a displaced person from Sindh, claimed the balance of his verified land claim (43.7 standard acres) after having received an initial allotment of 40.4 acres. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) allotted 19.26 acres in 2003, but the High Court held the CCLA lacked authori…
D. SWAMYversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ORS
2022 INSC 99822 September 2022Dismissed
The appellant, D. Swamy, challenged the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board's (KSPCB) consent to operate a Common Bio‑Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) on the ground that the facility lacked prior environmental clearance (EC) under the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification as amended. The …
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversus63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
2022 INSC 46522 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Maharashtra sought attachment of the properties of 63 Moons Technologies, which holds 99.99% of National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL), under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, alleging that NSEL is a financial establishment that accepted deposits and …
M/S APEX LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.versusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT - II
2022 INSC 21622 February 2022Dismissed
Apex Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company, claimed a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for expenses incurred in providing gifts, travel, hospitality and other "freebies" to doctors to promote its product Zincovit. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of a CBDT circular dated 01‑08‑2012 and the 2002 M…
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusCLASSIC CREDIT LTD.
2017 INSC 77821 August 2017Disposed off
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) filed criminal complaints against Classic Credit Ltd. and other private parties under the SEBI Act, 1992, which originally required trial before a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2002 altered Section 26(2) t…
MS. EERA THROUGH DR. MANJULA KRIPPENDORFversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
2017 INSC 65821 July 2017Disposed off
The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, where the appellant, a mentally retarded adult, argued that "age" should include mental age so that she could be treated as a child. The Court examined the POCSO Act's objects and reasons, its d…
VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL AVIATION UNIVERSITYversusJITENDRA SINGH & ORS.
2026 INSC 52021 May 2026Disposed off
The Vice Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University appointed Jitendra Singh as the First Registrar on the President of India's (Visitor's) recommendation. After a probationary termination in early 2020, Singh filed multiple writ petitions, leading to a High Court order reinstating him and later quashing t…
ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
2023 INSC 27121 March 2023Dismissed
The Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) was created in 1986 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but was abolished by a Union Government notification dated 2 August 2019, issued under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act in conjunction with Section 4(2) of the same Act, after the State of Odisha requested it…
RAM NATHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
2024 INSC 13821 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioners, Ram Nath and others, challenged prosecutions under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged adulteration and sale of noxious food, arguing that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) had an overriding effect. The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that simultaneous prosecut…
TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPURversusM/S BHAGAT SINGH
2021 INSC 3621 January 2021
M/s Bhagat Singh purchased a truck on 26‑12‑2009 and was served a summons under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1988 in July 2012. An assessment order was issued on 9‑Oct‑2012 levying entry tax, penalty and interest. The assessee appealed, arguing that the assessment was barred by the…
M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE
2024 INSC 88020 November 2024Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether mobile service providers (MSPs) could claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) used in their networks. The dispute arose from conflicting decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held the towers and PFBs to be immovable property a…
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.versusM/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED
2019 INSC 126820 November 2019Dismissed
The State of Uttar Pradesh rescinded a 1998 notification that granted a tax rebate to cement manufacturers using fly ash, by issuing a 2004 notification. Birla Corporation Ltd. and Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., which had set up units and begun production before the 2004 rescission, claimed that the rebate entitlement fo…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusAANJANEY ORGANIC HERBAL PVT. LTD
2012 INSC 41220 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Rajasthan challenged a sale of land by members of a Scheduled Caste to Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company, on the ground that Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 renders such a transfer void. The company argued that the term "person" in the provision should be given i…
M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS)versusSTATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT
2019 INSC 92120 August 2019Dismissed
M/S Natesan Agencies (a partnership firm) leased 197.36 acres of land from a Mutt for plantation. The land was included in a wildlife sanctuary by a notification under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in 1976, after which a second 25‑year lease was purportedly executed in 1978. The State later excluded…
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABADversusDR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
2022 INSC 61420 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Faizabad‑Ayodhya Development Authority acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Original landowners obtained interim stays that prevented the authority from issuing an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act for certain plots. When the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehab…
M/S. SHREE SIDHBALI STEELS LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
2011 INSC 5820 January 2011Dismissed
The petitioners, industrial units in the hill areas of Uttar Pradesh, claimed a 33.33% Hill Development Rebate on electricity charges granted under a 1996 notification issued pursuant to Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Subsequent notifications reduced the rebate to 17% and finally withdrew it entirely…
GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusMANJU JAIN. & ORS.
2010 INSC 52919 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority allotted a flat to Manju Jain under a hire‑purchase scheme, sending her an allotment letter by registered post and requiring acceptance and a 25% deposit within 60 days. Jain never responded, deposited no money, and after four years the Authority cancelled the allotment. Ja…
M/S REWA TOLLWAY P. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
2024 INSC 53919 July 2024Case Partly allowed
M/s Rewa Tollway entered into a BOT concession agreement with Madhya Pradesh Rajya Setu Nirman Nigam Ltd. in 2002, believing, based on executive clarifications, that no stamp duty would be payable. The State later amended the Indian Stamp (M.P.) Act in 2002, imposing a 2% stamp duty on the amount spent by the lessee, a…
K. C. NINANversusKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
2023 INSC 56019 May 2023Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals concerning whether electricity arrears of a previous owner can be recovered from a subsequent owner who acquired the premises through auction or other transfers. It held that the duty of a distribution licensee to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, …
PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
2024 INSC 32719 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed
Pernod Ricard India, a sub‑licensee under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, was issued a demand notice in November 2011 for a penalty on excess loss of foreign liquor during the 2009‑10 license year. The notice sought a penalty calculated at four times the duty, as prescribed by the original Rule 19 of the 1996 Foreign Li…
COMMON CAUSE & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2019 INSC 22819 February 2019Dismissed
Common Cause and an RTI activist filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking to quash the appointment of Mr. Nageshwar Rao as interim Director of the CBI and to compel the Union of India to appoint a regular Director in accordance with Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. They also demande…
MANISH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
2021 INSC 2819 January 2021Dismissed
The petitioners challenged Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, which introduced threshold requirements for allottees and certain financial creditors to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), clarified that a corporate debtor can initiate CIRP against anot…
P. MANIKANDANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
2024 INSC 100718 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, P. Manikandan, was originally convicted of kidnapping and murdering a four‑year‑old girl and sentenced to death, but the Madras High Court acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. The High Court, however, ordered the transfer of the case file to the CBI and directed a de‑novo reinvestigation and …
PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIAversusDHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @ DHIRAJ SAHU & ANR.
2020 INSC 71018 December 2020Disposed off
In the biennial Rajya Sabha election from Jharkhand, MLA Amit Kumar Mahto cast his vote at 9:15 a.m. on 23 March 2018, but was convicted later that afternoon. The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, challenged the validity of that vote, arguing that the conviction rendered Mahto disqualified under Article 191(1)(e) of…
SAGUFA AHMED & ORS.versusUPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
2020 INSC 55518 September 2020Dismissed
The appellants, shareholders of Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., sought winding up of the company before the NCLT, which dismissed their petition on 25 October 2019. They applied for a certified copy of the order, received it on 19 December 2019, and filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 20 July 2020 together with…
V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR.versusTHE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.
2012 INSC 40718 September 2012Dismissed
The case concerned land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where a Section 4 notification was issued in 1978 and a Section 6 declaration in 1981 covering a parcel of land (the suit land). The original tenure‑holders accepted compensation under protest, did not file any objection under Section 5A, and later t…
J.S. YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
2011 INSC 31118 April 2011Case Partly allowed
J.S. Yadav, a District Judge, was appointed a Member of the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission for a five‑year term in 2006 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. After the 2006 amendment to the Act introduced a seven‑year experience requirement for District Judges, the State Government issued a notif…
RAMESHCHANDRA AMBALAL JOSHIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
2014 INSC 10818 February 2014Dismissed
The appellant, Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi, issued a cheque dated 31 December 2005 to repay a loan of Rs.1,00,000. The cheque was presented for payment on 30 June 2006 and was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, leading to a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant contended th…
RAVINDER KUMAR DHARIWAL & ANR.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2021 INSC 91617 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, was subjected to multiple disciplinary enquiries after a complaint alleged that he made threatening statements and exhibited misconduct. He was later diagnosed with a permanent mental disability (40‑70%) and classified as unfit for duty. The appellant challenged the d…
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITEDversusANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS.
2021 INSC 91817 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The builder, Brigade Enterprises Ltd., appealed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order permitting 91 purchasers of 51 apartments to file a consumer complaint under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on behalf of all 1,134 buyers in the residential project. The Supreme Cou…
PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.versusRAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
2023 INSC 62517 July 2023Dismissed
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (PVVNL) supplied electricity to Raman Ispat Pvt Ltd, which defaulted on payments. PVVNL attached the debtor's assets and, after the corporate insolvency resolution failed, the matter proceeded to liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). PVVNL contended that secti…
VIPULBHAI MANSINGBHAI CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER
2017 INSC 35417 April 2017Disposed off
Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhary, who continued as Chairman of a district cooperative milk union beyond his three‑year term, was served a show‑cause notice under s.76B(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act, 1961. The Registrar removed him and disqualified him for three years; a later order extended the di…
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER & ANR.versusNOOR MOHAMMAD & ORS.
2021 INSC 90116 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (appellant) sought to cancel a notification dated 15 September 2005 that rescinded an earlier notification of 7 April 2003 which had released land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land owners (respondents) had obtained the 2003 notifi…
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA
2015 INSC 28516 October 2015
The Supreme Court of India considered the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, which sought to replace the collegium system of appointing judges to the higher judiciary with a six-member National Judicial Appointments…
STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHERversusANUP KUMAR SENAPATI & ANOTHER
2019 INSC 103416 September 2019Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether employees of non‑government educational institutions could claim grant‑in‑aid under the Orissa (Non‑Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant‑in‑aid Order, 1994 after that order was repealed by the 2004 Order (and subsequently by the 2008 and 2009 Orders…
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.versusPAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
2015 INSC 66516 September 2015Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), a statutory corporation that had acquired the assets and liabilities of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), could invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which grants a thirty‑year limitation period for suits by the Central Government.…
MIS. AJEET SEEDS LTD.versusK. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH
2014 INSC 49116 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque issued by the respondent bounced and that a demand notice had been sent by registered post. The High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that the complaint did not specifically state that the notice had be…
WIPRO LTD.versusASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
2015 INSC 32616 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed
WIPRO Ltd., an importer of computer components, challenged the customs valuation rule that mandates adding 1% of the FOB value of goods as loading, unloading and handling charges even when the actual charges are known and ascertainable. The issue was whether the proviso (ii) to sub‑rule (2) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs …
SIDHARTHA SARAWGIversusBOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATAAND OTHERS
2014 INSC 28416 April 2014Dismissed
The petitioners challenged notices terminating leases granted by the Kolkata Port Trust, arguing that the Land Manager lacked authority to issue ejectment notices. The Board of Trustees had, under Section 21 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, delegated to the Chairman the power to terminate leases and to issue ejectme…
NEENA ANEJA & ANR.versusJAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.
2021 INSC 18916 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on 18 June 2020 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a refund of Rs. 2.19 crores. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force on 20 July 2020, raising the NCDRC's pecuniary jurisdiction from Rs…
A. A. PADMANBHANversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
2018 INSC 16516 February 2018Dismissed
The appellants, managers of private aided schools, challenged the Kerala government's decision to take over their schools under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, arguing that the schools had already been closed and that the provision conflicted with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Ac…
LAL SHAH BABA DARGAH TRUSTversusMAGNUM DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 92515 December 2015Case Partly allowed
The Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust filed a suit before the single‑member Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal seeking injunction against alleged illegal development of waqf property. The respondents obtained a civil revision, arguing that the 2013 Wakf (Amendment) Act, which mandates a three‑member tribunal, rendered the one‑member t…
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIversusDHAR MA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
2017 INSC 91415 September 2017Case Partly allowed
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi issued a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on 25 March 1998 proposing to increase the rateable value of Dharma Properties' premises w.e.f. 1 April 1997; the notice was dispatched on 27 March but received by the assessee only on 4 April 1998. The ass…
R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS.versusTRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.
2016 INSC 86715 September 2016Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of agricultural lands by the Karnataka State Government for Trinity House Building Co‑operative Society, which had hired a middleman, M/s Srinivasa Enterprises, to secure the acquisition in its favour. The Court found that no housing scheme had been framed or approved by the G…
ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATIONversusMAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.
2023 INSC 53615 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The Alpha G184 Owners Association, a society of housing project allottees, filed several consumer complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking possession, compensation for delay and other reliefs against Magnum International Trading Company, the builder. The builder challenged the assoc…
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 MUMBAI.versusM/S. SARKAR BUILDERS
2015 INSC 42715 May 2015Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered whether the amendment inserting clause (d) into Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, effective from 1 April 2005, which limits the built‑up area of shops and commercial establishments in housing projects, applies to projects that were approved before 31 March 2005 but completed after the…
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIAversusKOCHI CRICKET PVT. LTD. AND ETC.
2018 INSC 23815 March 2018Dismissed
The Board of Control for Cricket in India filed a Section 34 challenge to arbitral awards dated June 2015, and the award creditors sought execution. The award debtor argued that the pre‑amended Section 36 imposed an automatic stay on execution until the Section 34 petition was decided, while the High Court applied the …
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAVINDRA KUMAR SINGHVI (DEAD) THR. LRS
2022 INSC 18415 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant authority allotted a residential plot in Sector 30, Noida to the respondent in 1981, while the respondent's wife had already been allotted a plot in Sector 15A. Both the wife and the respondent later filed affidavits falsely declaring that neither they nor their dependents owned any plot in Noida, Delhi o…
ECGC LIMITEDversusMOKUL SHRIRAM EPC JV
2022 INSC 18815 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
ECGC Limited, having obtained a construction contract with the Government of Basra, Iraq, paid a premium and later faced suspension of payments and withdrawal of the contract. It filed a complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whi…
MIS. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD. ETC. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.
2014 INSC 98214 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed
MIS Opera House Exports Ltd. and others were adjudicated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for alleged violations relating to export bill realizations. The adjudicating authority issued an order on 11 October 2007, which was served on the company on 25 October 2007. The company filed an appeal befo…
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, …
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA
2019 INSC 19414 February 2019Disposed off
The case involves multiple appeals arising from a Delhi High Court judgment concerning the division of powers between the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) under Article 239AA of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench had earlier interpreted Artic…
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…
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS
2023 INSC 36713 April 2023Dismissed
The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. denied fire‑insurance claims of Harsolia Motors, a commercial enterprise, which led the respondents to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA 1986). The Gujarat State Commission held the respondents were not "consumers" because the insurance was for a com…
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…
VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
2015 INSC 2713 January 2015Disposed off
Videocon International Ltd. appealed against SEBI's order that some of its second appeals to the High Court were not maintainable after the amendment of Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. The amendment, effective 29‑Oct‑2002, shifted the second appellate forum from the High Court to the Supreme Court and limited the scope to…
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORSversusNISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.
2022 INSC 107412 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The lands were acquired for BPCL under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The landowners challenged the acquisition and, after the 1990 Act was repealed, sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). …
THE INCOME TAX OFFICERversusURBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST
2018 INSC 97112 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed
The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) of Kota, created under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, claimed exemption from income tax under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that it qualified as a "local authority" within the meaning of clause (iii) of the explanation – i.e., a Municipal Committee. …
CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.
2017 INSC 89512 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a Central Excise Superintendent, filed a complaint alleging that Reliance Industries Ltd. evaded excise duty by taking credit without complying with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After Rule 56A was omitted by a 1994 notification, the respondent sought discharge, but the trial court framed a…
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH)versusMOHAN SINGH & OTHERS
2012 INSC 39012 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Uttarakhand appealed against the Board of Revenue’s order that had allowed a second appeal under Section 331(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, declaring that respondents had acquired Bhumidar rights by adverse possession. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 331(4) inc…
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusA. B. P. PVT. LTD. & ANR.
2023 INSC 52512 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India amended a customs exemption notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, withdrawing a 5% concessional duty for a high‑speed printing machine imported by A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd. The assessees challenged the amendment, arguing it was ultra vires and that the High Court correctly set it aside be…
UMA SHANKAR & ORS.versusR. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.
2017 INSC 46312 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The land was acquired by the State in 1959 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and possession was taken in 1975. Subsequent resolutions sought to reconvey portions of the land to R. Hanumaiah, but the Supreme Court held in 2005 that once possession is taken, Section 48 cannot be used to de‑acquire or reconvey the land…
ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
2017 INSC 34212 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a convicted history‑sheeter, was first detained under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 on 5 September 2016. That order was revoked on 17 September 2016, and a second detention order was issued on 21 September 2016 on the same grounds that existed before the revocation. The appellant challenged the s…
DEVENDER PAL SINGH BHULLARversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
2013 INSC 24912 April 2013Dismissed
The petitioners, convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and sentenced to death, sought commutation of their sentences under Article 72 of the Constitution. After a delay of about eight years in deciding the mercy petition, they argued that the delay itself warranted conversion o…
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…
RENU & ORS.versusDISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI & ANR.
2014 INSC 9512 February 2014Disposed off
The appeal arose from the appointment of Class IV staff in courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court on an ad‑hoc basis without proper advertisement, which the petitioners challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether such appointments could be regularised, wheth…
THE RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATIONversusSUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY JAIPUR & ORS,
2013 INSC 9412 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RILLCO) acquired a large tract of land after a Section 4 notification under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society entered into an agreement to purchase a portion of that land after the notification …
IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTIONversus.
2023 INSC 105811 December 2023Disposed off
The President of India issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273, which applied the entire Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogated Article 370. Simultaneously, Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, bifurcating the State into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashm…
DR. SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2010 INSC 77011 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The deceased, Neeru Gupta, committed suicide in 1985 and her brother filed a complaint alleging dowry demand and ill‑treatment by her husband and in‑laws. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding no proof of dowry demand or cruelty and noting the deceased suffered from mental illness. The High Court reversed the …
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
2023 INSC 81911 September 2023Disposed off
Religare Finvest Ltd. sued the erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) for alleged misappropriation of fixed deposits used as security for loans, leading to a criminal complaint and FIR under IPC sections 409 and 120B. LVB was placed under moratorium by the RBI and subsequently amalgamated into DBS Bank India Ltd. under a s…
CBIversusR.R. KISHORE
2023 INSC 81711 September 2023Matter referred to larger bench
The CBI registered a case against Dr. R.R. Kishore for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but conducted the investigation without the prior approval of the Central Government required by Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Delhi High Court allowed the trial …
M/S. FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD. BANGALOREversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE
2015 INSC 56111 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. sold its industrial undertaking in Thane (a notified urban area) and earned a capital gain of Rs 1,08,33,044. It paid advances of Rs 1,11,42,973 for purchase of land, plant, machinery and construction of a new factory in a non‑urban area and claimed exemption under s. 54G of the Income‑Tax Act…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPURversusM/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
2022 INSC 67911 July 2022Case Partly allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether the definition of “consulting engineer” in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, before its 2005 amendment, covered a body corporate. The CESTAT had held that it did not, thereby exempting M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corp. from service tax. Relying on a 1997 circular and …
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA
2023 INSC 51711 May 2023Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined a 2015 Union Ministry notification that gave the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi control over "services" in addition to public order, police and land. The Court held that, under Article 239AA(3)(a), the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) has legislative and co…
THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2011 INSC 29211 April 2011Disposed off
Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd imported goods in 1996 and, due to a bank error, the required exchange control documents were not forwarded to the RBI, leading to penalty orders under FERA. The company sought to appeal these orders after FEMA came into force, filing belated appeals in 2004 before the Appellate Tribunal under …
GIRNAR TRADERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
2011 INSC 2611 January 2011Reference answered
The case concerned a parcel of land in Jalgaon reserved for a development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The appellant claimed that the State Government and Municipal Council failed to acquire the land within the time limits prescribed by the MRTP Act and sought relief under the…
K.S. MANJUNATH AND OTHERSversusMOORASAVIRAPPA @ MUTTANNA CHENNAPPA BATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AND OTHER
2025 INSC 129810 November 2025Dismissed
The original vendors executed an unregistered agreement to sell (ATS) of 354 acres of land to the original vendees in 2000, but later issued a unilateral notice of termination in 2003 citing a pending suit and a vendor's death. The original vendees continued to perform their obligations and sued for specific performanc…
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusMAHESH AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 71110 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project (the State agency) acquired land under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, but the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act came into force before an award was made. The landowners challenged the award dated 30 October 2014, arguing that the two‑year …
GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGHversusSTATE OF GOA & ANR.
2022 INSC 54610 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Goa issued a notification on 23/24 May 2016 fixing minimum wages, including a basic rate and a special allowance, after consulting the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and following the procedure prescribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Subsequently, an Errata Notification dated 14 July…
BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITAversusWALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL)
2023 INSC 33510 April 2023Dismissed
The appellant, a cooperative society, sought to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but filed the application after the 90‑day statutory period and the additional 30‑day discretionary period had expired because the court was on winter vacation. The appellant argue…
MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusM/S FARIDABAD IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD.
2025 INSC 5610 January 2025Dismissed
The appellants received an arbitral award on 14 February 2022 and were required to file a Section 34 application within three months, extended by a COVID‑19 order to 29 May 2022, with a further 30‑day condonable period ending on 28 June 2022. The 30‑day period fell during the Delhi High Court's summer vacation (04 June…
HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
2016 INSC 11199 December 2016Dismissed
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by HDFC Securities Ltd. and its officers challenging the registration of an FIR and a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing police investigation into alleged unauthorized trades. The appellants argued that the order caused irreparable injury and should be q…
MONICA BEDIversusSTATE OF AP.
2010 INSC 7659 November 2010Disposed off
Monica Bedi and four co‑accused were convicted under the Indian Penal Code (sections 120‑B, 419, 420) and the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conspiracy to obtain a passport in an assumed name. Bedi argued that her conviction violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution because she had already been tried and sentenced…
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…
N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
2017 INSC 7259 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The State acquired Survey No.50 in 1977‑78 and took physical possession on 23 March 1984, handing it over to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The land owners repeatedly challenged the acquisition, but the Karnataka High Court dismissed their writ petitions, finding that possession had been taken and the acqui…
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.versusK. SHYAM SUNDER & ORS.
2011 INSC 5559 August 2011Dismissed
The Tamil Nadu government enacted the Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 to introduce a common syllabus and textbooks for all schools, which was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court after certain provisions were struck down. After a change of government in 2011, the new administration hurriedly pass…
K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
2011 INSC 5549 August 2011Dismissed
The case concerned lands in the Roerich estate that were exempted from Karnataka's Land Reforms Act, 1961 under Section 107 for linaloe cultivation. The State Government withdrew this exemption by issuing a notification under Section 110 of the Act in 1994, and later enacted the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (…
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusSANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS.
2010 INSC 3959 July 2010Dismissed
The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under s.95 CrPC ordering the forfeiture of every copy of the book "Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India" on the basis of an FIR alleging offences under s.153, s.153A and s.34 IPC. The High Court quashed the notification, holding it failed to state the grounds of the Gover…
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusM/S. KUMHO PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER
2017 INSC 4769 June 2017Dismissed
The case concerned the levy of anti‑dumping duty on imports of Acrylonitrile‑Butadiene‑Rubber (NBR) from Korea. The original notification imposing the duty was extended by a five‑year notification dated 02‑01‑2009, which expired on 01‑01‑2014. A third sunset‑review was initiated on 31‑12‑2013, and the Government issued…
RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR
2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off
The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe…
M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANYversusKHATOONBEE AND ANR.
2017 INSC 1229 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents' daughter died in a motor accident on 02‑02‑1977. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 23‑02‑2005, more than 28 years after the accident. The Tribunal entertained the claim, and the High Court upheld it, holding that th…
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…
J. THANSIAMAversusSTATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.
2015 INSC 6518 September 2015Dismissed
J. Thansiama filed a suit for declaration of title against the State of Mizoram. The trial court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to Mizoram and allowed the suit. The Gauhati High Court reversed this, holding that the Limitation Act was applicable and dismissed the suit as time‑barred. On appeal, the Su…
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.versusRAJPATH CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LTD.
2024 INSC 4778 July 2024Dismissed
The State of West Bengal appointed Rajpath Contractors to construct a bridge, and an arbitral award dated 30 June 2022 directed the State to pay Rs.2.11 crore. The State received the award on the same day and filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 31 October 2022, after the Calcutt…
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.versusM/S. MAR APPRAEM KURI CO. LTD. & ANR.
2012 INSC 2058 May 2012Reference answered
The State of Kerala amended its Chitties Act, 1975 to bring chitties registered outside the state but with substantial Kerala subscribers within its regulatory ambit. Private chit firms challenged the amendment as repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 under Article 254(1). The Supreme Court was asked whether re…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusSOLID & CORRECT ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.
2010 INSC 2028 April 2010
The case concerned whether the erection of an Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant using duty‑paid components constitutes the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the manufacturers of the plant’s parts were eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Supreme…
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
2018 INSC 1158 February 2018Directions issued
The case involved the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The main issue was whether non-deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act resu…
PARIMALversusVEENA @ BHARTI
2011 INSC 1108 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Parimal filed a divorce suit against his wife Veena. The wife repeatedly refused to accept the court's notice, after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and granted a decree of divorce. Four years later she applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, alleging improper service, fraud and lack of suf…
OM PARKASHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2010 INSC 858 February 2010Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined the validity of Section 6 declarations issued after Section 4 notifications for land acquisition in Delhi, where the notifications were dated November 1980 and the declarations were issued in 1985‑86. The appellants argued that the three‑year limitation for issuing a Section 6 declaration sho…
ALOK KUMAR VERMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2019 INSC 368 January 2019Disposed off
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India issued orders on 23 October 2018 divesting Director Alok Kumar Verma of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of his powers, functions and supervisory role. The Director challenged the legality of these orders, arguing that under Section 4B(2) of th…
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusKALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.
2010 INSC 258 January 2010Dismissed
Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., a sick industrial unit, sought a five‑year sales‑tax exemption under Bihar's Industrial Policy, 1995, as a condition for a financial restructuring package. The State repeatedly assured the company that a notification would be issued, but later withdrew the promise and issued orders on 6 January 2…
SATYA DEO @ BHOOREYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
2020 INSC 5777 October 2020Directions issued
The appellant Satya Deo was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (aged 16 years 7 months) and sought relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court examined the applicabi…
UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.
2014 INSC 3687 May 2014Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a large tract of land in Delhi. Tenure‑holders had filed objections under Section 5‑A, which were heard by one Land Acquisition Collector but the report was prepared by his successor, prompting the Delhi High Cour…
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA)versusA. P. STATE WAKF BOARD & ORS.
2022 INSC 1557 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) challenged an errata notification issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board that added 1,654 acres and 32 guntas of land to the list of Wakf properties, claiming the Board had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Wakf Act, 1995. The High Court had dismissed the Stat…
PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusPOST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS
2022 INSC 1567 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants purchased Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) in joint names and, relying on an agent named Rukhsana, handed the certificates to her for transfer. Rukhsana encashed the KVPs at a different post office and received Rs. 25,54,000 in cash, which she kept. The appellants filed a consumer complaint; the NCDRC dismissed…
K. LAKSHMINARAYANANversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
2018 INSC 11616 December 2018Leave granted
The petitioners challenged the nomination of three members to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly by the Central Government under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, arguing that the Central Government must consult the Union Territory’s Council of Ministers or Chief Minister, that a constitut…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERSversusM/S. BASANT AGROTECH (INDIA) LTD.
2013 INSC 8096 December 2013Dismissed
The State of Rajasthan issued a notification on 23 January 2009 amending a 2008 notification that levied an environment and health cess on mineral rights, increasing the rate for rock phosphate and applying it retrospectively from 1 April 2008. Mining lease‑holders challenged the constitutional validity of the amendmen…
LUDOVICO SAGRADO GOVEIAversusCIRILA ROSA MARIA PINTO AND ORS.
2016 INSC 8556 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a successful purchaser at a sealed‑tender sale, sought to enforce a sale certificate issued after the execution of an award under the Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act, 1984. The respondents, borrowers, had defaulted on a loan and the property was sold after multiple failed public auctions. The High…
UMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
2013 INSC 5906 September 2013Disposed off
The case arose from a complaint alleging that a senior police officer, V. Dinesh Reddy, had amassed disproportionate assets, which was later claimed to be forged and signed by a fictitious MP. An investigation led to a charge sheet against Umesh Kumar under IPC sections 468, 471, 120‑B and 201, and the appellant sought…
CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., COAL INDIA LTD., & ORS.versusANANTA SAHA & ORS.
2011 INSC 2766 April 2011Disposed off
A Medical Officer employed by Coal India Ltd and posted at its subsidiary Eastern Coalfields Ltd assaulted his senior officer and other staff, leading to disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his dismissal by the subsidiary's CMD. The dismissal was challenged in the Calcutta High Court, which quashed the order and …
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.
2020 INSC 2946 March 2020Reference answered
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the word 'or' in Section 24(…
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…
SHIVNARAYAN (D) BY LRS.versusMANIKLAL (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
2019 INSC 1526 February 2019Dismissed
The plaintiff filed a suit in the Indore court seeking declarations of nullity of a will, a sale deed, and transfer documents relating to two immovable properties—one in Indore and another in Mumbai—along with a claim of joint family ownership. Defendants 7 and 8, who were parties to the Mumbai sale deed, moved to dism…
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2020 INSC 6345 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed
A complaint was lodged in 1989 alleging adulteration of Dalda Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The trial magistrate initially absolved the company’s directors and continued prosecution against the nominated officer, Nirmal Sen, who was later convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulter…
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusTARINI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS.
2016 INSC 5005 July 2016Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether a tariff fixed under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is immutable and beyond the review of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC). The Court held that tariff determination is a statutory function of the SERC under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is subje…
SAI BHASKAR IRON LTD.versusA.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.
2016 INSC 5025 July 2016Dismissed
The petitioners challenged the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Regulation 45‑B, which prescribes a formula for calculating the fuel surcharge adjustment (FSA) and excludes agricultural consumption until metering is completed. They argued that the regulation was ultra vires the Andhra Pradesh Electric…
RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC.
2010 INSC 3525 July 2010Dismissed
The appellants, private bus operators, claimed that a 1999 notification under s.102(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which purported to modify the 1993 scheme and allow them to operate on the Saharanpur‑Delhi inter‑state route, was validly approved by a Hearing Authority and could not be rescinded. The State of Utta…
M/S S.R.S. TRAVELS BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.T. RAJASHEKARversusTHE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS & ORS.
2025 INSC 1525 February 2025Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, which repealed the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, and whether the State Transport Authority (STA) could delegate the power to grant contract carriage, speci…
KRISHNAMOORTHYversusSIVAKUMAR & ORS.
2015 INSC 9605 February 2015Dismissed
The appeal concerned the election of Krishnamoorthy as President of Thekampatti Panchayat, where he had filed a nomination affidavit disclosing only one pending criminal case while suppressing eight other embezzlement cases. The High Court had declared his election void on the ground of corrupt practice, holding that t…
ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC.versusTHE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.
2023 INSC 165 January 2023Dismissed
The petitioners, life‑imprisoned convicts in Goa, were released on parole under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and subsequently applied for premature release on the ground that they had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. The High Court held that the period spent on parole must be excluded from the calculation of t…
THE MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.versusBAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
2024 INSC 8294 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed
The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company and its officers entered into a supply agreement with Bapuna Alcobrew Private Ltd, which required the latter to consume a minimum amount of electricity. The respondent installed a turbo‑generating set contrary to conditions, leading the appellant to issue show‑cau…
M/S. OCL INDIA LTDversusSTATE OF ORRISA AND ORS.
2022 INSC 11634 November 2022Dismissed
The petitioners OCL India Ltd., SAIL and Hindalco challenged the levy of entry tax under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (and similar statutes in Uttar Pradesh) on the ground that industrial townships, which had been excluded from municipal limits by notifications under the proviso to Article 243Q, were not "local areas…
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESHversusRAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR.
2019 INSC 11264 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed against a Gauhati High Court order that road‑traffic offences must be dealt with solely under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was without legal sanction. The Supreme Court examined whether the special Motor Vehicles Act override…
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERSversusR.K.B.K. LTD. & ANR.
2015 INSC 6434 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The State of West Bengal appealed against an order of the Director of Consumer Goods that imposed a penalty on R.K.B.K. Ltd., a licensed kerosene oil agent, for alleged excess distribution. The dispute centered on whether the Director or the District Magistrate had authority under Paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosen…
U.P. HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELANversusSTATE OF U.P.
2014 INSC 5944 September 2014Dismissed
The appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan challenged the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1989, which added Section 3 to the 1951 Act and a notification declaring Urdu as a second official language for seven specified purposes. The issue was whether, after adopting Hindi as the …
ANKIT ASHOK JALANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2020 INSC 2664 March 2020Case Allowed
The petition challenged the continued detention of two persons under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) after the Detaining Authority, a specially empowered Joint Secretary, failed to consider their representations until after the Central Advisory Board’s re…
SHOBHABAI NARAYAN SHINDEversusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK & ORS.
2022 INSC 94 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, elected as Sarpanch and member of a village panchayat in Dhule, were alleged to have failed to lodge election expense accounts and were therefore subject to disqualification proceedings under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Collector, acting as delegate of the State E…
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusHIRENDRA PAL SINGH ETC
2010 INSC 8453 December 2010Disposed off
The Uttar Pradesh Legal Remembrancer Manual was amended on 13 August 2008 to reduce the retirement age of District Government Counsels from 62 to 60 years and to dispense with the requirement of consulting the District Judge. The Allahabad High Court stayed the amendment and directed the State to renew the services of …
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHERversusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
2013 INSC 6703 October 2013Disposed off
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission fixed electricity tariffs in 2001 and issued several directions to the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The Board did not fully comply and the Commission imposed a Rs 5,000 penalty. The Board appealed to the High Court under Section 27 of the Electri…
SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDEversusPUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND ORS.
2010 INSC 4663 August 2010Dismissed
The appellant, Sulochana Chandrakant Galande, challenged the acquisition of her land by the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was not within urban limits at the Act's commencement and that the later repeal of the Act should invalidate the acquisition. The Supreme Court…
N. RAJENDRANversusS. VALLI
2022 INSC 1403 February 2022Disposed off
The husband (appellant) filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty after his wife (respondent) left him and returned to her parental home. The Family Court granted the decree of dissolution, but the wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; the appeal was filed on 09‑09‑2004. The appell…
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
2010 INSC 8432 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a Congress party member, was accused of instigating party workers to fire on BJP supporters, resulting in a murder eight days later. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the High Court rejected. The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's cas…
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.
2018 INSC 5592 July 2018Dismissed
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, challenged income‑tax notices on the ground that it qualified as a "local authority" and was therefore exempt under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The ce…
DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2019 INSC 4572 April 2019Disposed off
The petitioners, led by Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2017 which introduced sections 35AA and 35AB, and contended that the RBI circular of 12‑02‑2018 directing banks and NBFCs to resolve stressed assets within six months was ultra vi…
SRIDEVI DATLAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2021 INSC 1412 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioner, Sridevi Datla, challenged the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) dismissal of her appeal against the environmental clearance for the Bhogapuram Greenfield Airport, arguing that the appeal was filed within the extended 60‑day period because the last day fell on a Sunday and that the NGT erred in refusing to…
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.versusHONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. A. MEHTA (RETD) & ORS.
2013 INSC 12 January 2013Dismissed
The Gujarat Lokayukta post remained vacant since 2003 and the State Government sought to appoint Justice R.A. Mehta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986. The Act requires the Governor to appoint the Lokayukta after "consultation" with the Chief Justice of the High Court and, where applicable, the Leader of Opposition.…
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusVIMAL KUMAR SURANA AND ANOTHER
2010 INSC 8401 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed
Vimal Kumar Surana, who had passed the Chartered Accountant examination but was not a member of the Institute, impersonated a chartered accountant, prepared audit reports and forged the Institute's seal before tax authorities. The Institute filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under the Chartered Accountants Ac…
DURYODHAN ROUTversusSTATE OF ORLSSA
2014 INSC 4431 July 2014Case Partly allowed
The appellant Duryodhan Rout was convicted of rape, murder and concealment of evidence of a ten‑year‑old girl based solely on circumstantial evidence and his own confession recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial court sentenced him to death for murder, rigorous imprisonment for the rape and concealmen…
RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
2013 INSC 3841 July 2013Dismissed
The State of Rajasthan acquired 15.5 hectares of land to set up a North‑Western Railway Zone complex and staff quarters. The landowners challenged the acquisition, arguing that because the project was a railway (a Union subject) only the Central Government could be the "appropriate Government" under Sections 4 and 6 of…
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 …
GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDINGversusCBI AND ANR
2012 INSC 1961 May 2012Disposed off
The CBI investigated a 2000 fake encounter at Pathribal in Jammu & Kashmir, where five alleged terrorists were killed by members of the 7 Rashtriya Rifles, and filed a charge‑sheet against several army officers. The officers invoked Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, claiming that…
N PARAMESWARAN UNNIversusG KANNAN AND ANOTHER
2017 INSC 1941 March 2017Disposed off
The appellant, N. Parameswaran Unni, presented two cheques drawn by the first respondent, G. Kannan, which were returned unpaid and received a bank intimation on 8 April 1991. He issued a statutory notice by registered post on 12 April 1991, which was returned marked "addressee absent," and a second notice on 4 May 199…
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.versusSURJAKUMAR OKRAM & ORS.
2022 INSC 1341 February 2022Disposed off
The Manipur Legislature enacted the 2012 Parliamentary Secretary Act to create the post of Parliamentary Secretaries, mirroring Assam's 2004 Act which the Supreme Court had struck down as unconstitutional in Bimolangshu Roy. After the Assam judgment, Manipur repealed its 2012 Act by the Repealing Act, 2018, inserting a…
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH & ANRversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
2017 INSC 11 January 2017Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined a series of seven ordinances issued by the Governor of Bihar between 1989 and 1992 to take over non‑government Sanskrit schools. None of the ordinances were laid before the state legislature as required by Article 213(2) and they were repeatedly re‑promulgated, violating the precedent set in …