Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Supreme Court Rules, 1966

73 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

NATHU@ PARAS RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2006 INSC 76931 October 2006Directions issued

A prisoner, Nathu @ Parasram, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) from jail, attaching a certified copy of the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court Registry delayed the first listing by sending for records from lower courts and awaiting translation of vernacular documents into English. The Court examined Order 21, R

SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS .

1994 INSC 34031 August 1994Dismissed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, claiming that a subsequent order dated 4 November 1985 had regularised the conversion of agricultural land to non‑agricultural use and vested title in them. They relied on this order, which was produced for the first time before

VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARYversusSUHAS JAYANT NATAWADKAR

2009 INSC 120830 October 2009Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court examined an application for restoration of a Special Leave Petition that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The petition was drafted by Advocate Vikas Mahajan and filed by Advocate‑on‑Record D.B. Vohra, who merely lent his name and did not take any responsibility for the case, including failing t

GAURAV JAIN AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 16030 March 1998Case Allowed

Gaurav Jain filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking separate educational institutions and other relief for children of prostitutes. A two‑judge Division Bench (Ramaswamy J and Wadhwa J) delivered differing judgments: Ramaswamy J ordered the establishment of a committee and measures to eradicate prostituti

MELEPURATH SANKUNNI EZHUTHASSANversusTHEKITTIL GOPALANKUTTY NAIR

1985 INSC 24529 November 1985Dismissed

M.S. Ezhlitassan filed a suit for defamation which was dismissed, appealed and obtained a decree for damages. The respondent appealed, the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. While the appeal before the Supreme Court was pending, the appellant died. His grandchildren filed petitions to be substituted

DR. VIJAY KUMAR KATHURIA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

1983 INSC 5429 April 1983Dismissed

The petitioners, Dr. Vijay Kumar Rathuria and another, filed two Special Leave Petitions seeking an interim order that the status quo of their postgraduate studies at Medical College, Rohtak be maintained as of 1 October 1982. A dispute arose over whether their provisional admissions had been cancelled before that date

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 71727 September 2011Hearing Adjourned

The State of Himachal Pradesh sued the Union of India and five other parties seeking its share of electricity generated by the Bhakra‑Nangal and Beas hydro‑electric projects, claiming entitlement based on the submergence of its territory and the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Court examined whether the suit was b

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERSversusB.D. KAUSHIK

2011 INSC 71426 September 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) amended its Rule 18 to introduce a "One Bar One Vote" principle, restricting voting rights to advocates who regularly practice before the Supreme Court. Two SCBA members, B.D. Kaushik and A.K. Manchanda, challenged the amendment and obtained an interim injunction restraining its

SATBIR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 26325 February 2009Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of several accused who, amid a long‑standing family feud, assaulted and murdered Jagbandhan and Randhir and injured Mithan. The prosecution proved the offences under Sections 302, 149, 148 and 323 of the IPC using eye‑witness testimony, medical evidence and the existence of a com

SHANTILAL MANGANLAL AND ANR.versusCHUNNILAL RANCHODDAS THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

1984 INSC 12824 July 1984Dismissed

In Shantilal Manganlal & Anr. v. Chunnilal Ranchoddas (1984), the petitioners filed a review application against the Supreme Court's order dismissing their Special Leave Petition, but the review petition contained no substantive grounds and merely promised to file them later. The petition was filed on 9 January 1984, a

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRASversusSTANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, ETC.

1989 INSC 7024 February 1989Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise, Madras filed statutory appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal and sought condonation of delay for those appeals. A Single Judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the condonation applications under Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, 19

RAM JETHMALANI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2011 INSC 70723 September 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners, led by Ram Jethmalani, sought a writ directing the Union of India to recover unaccounted money of Indian citizens held in foreign banks and the Court had earlier appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by two retired Supreme Court judges. The Union of India filed Interlocutory Application N

SMT. SAVITHRAMMAversusCECIL NARONHA & ANR.

1988 INSC 23723 August 1988Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined affidavits filed in a contempt petition where the complainant alleged non‑compliance with a prior court order. Both the complainant’s affidavit and the accused’s reply affidavit were found to be vague, lacking specific facts, and not verified in accordance with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the

UNION OF INDIAversusSANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS.

2013 INSC 27723 April 2013Disposed off

The Union of India filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, alleging that it was not given a chance to be heard because the special leave petition was not served and that the judgment misquoted the Expert Committee’s report. The petitio

SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

1984 INSC 8823 April 1984Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a writ of habeas corpus filed by Sebastian M. Hongray seeking the production of two missing persons, C. Daniel and C. Paul, who were alleged to be unlawfully detained. The respondents – the Union of India, the Ministry of Defence and the commanding officer of the 21st Sikh Regiment – faile

SMT. POONAMversusSUMIT TANWAR

2010 INSC 16122 March 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, married on 30‑Nov‑2008, filed a dissolution suit under Section 13‑8(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Delhi Family Court ordered them to wait six months before filing a second motion under Section 13‑8(2). The wife filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a decree of div

NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) LTD.versusLT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI

1979 INSC 27421 December 1979Dismissed

Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd., which runs a hotel and restaurant, challenged a Delhi sales‑tax assessment on the ground that meals served to casual diners were taxable as a sale. The Supreme Court had earlier held that such service was not a sale because diners could not take away unconsumed food and the transac

SUKH DEO NARAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1984 INSC 12520 July 1984Dismissed

The petitioner filed a transfer petition under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution seeking to move a writ petition pending before the Rajasthan High Court to the Supreme Court, alleging that the High Court petition raised the same questions as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) already pending before this Court. The petiti

REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHANversusBANI KANT DAS AND ORS.

2010 INSC 79619 November 2010Case Allowed

The petitioner, Remdeo Chauhan, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Assam after a recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Relatives of the victims challenged the commutation, arguing that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction a

RAM JETHMALANI, ETCversusUNION OF INDIA, ETC.

1984 INSC 11519 June 1984Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners, members of the Sikh community, challenged their detention under the National Security Act, 1980, by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Justice Venkataramiah observed that these matters were not ordinary criminal cases but involved serious questions of national security and the

YOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2011 INSC 40619 May 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting a maid on fire by pouring kerosene on her, leading to her death. The prosecution's case relied on the victim's multiple dying declarations and circumstantial evidence, as there were no eye‑witnesses. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court,

CHHIDDA SINGHversusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

1998 INSC 10419 February 1998Dismissed

The petitioner, Chhidda Singh, filed a review petition (No. 315 of 1998) after the Supreme Court dismissed his Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6347 of 1997, which challenged orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the High Court. The review petition merely reproduced verbatim the same grounds that had been ra

DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMYversusRAMAKRISHNA HEGDE

1989 INSC 31218 October 1989Case Allowed

Ramakrishna Hegde filed a defamation suit in the Bombay High Court against Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, seeking Rs 1 crore in damages for alleged defamatory statements made at a Delhi press conference. Swamy petitioned the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the suit to the City Civi

DELHI ADMINISTRATIONversusGURDIP SINGH UBAN AND ORS. ETC.

2000 INSC 40518 August 2000Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the Delhi Administration and DDA sought to enforce acquisition of land in several villages. The Court held that claimants who did not file objections to the Section 4 notification cannot challenge the Section 

DEVENDER PAL SINGHversusSTATE N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 54417 December 2002Dismissed

The petitioners filed review applications under Article 137 of the Constitution seeking to set aside death sentences imposed by the Supreme Court in three criminal appeals. They argued that because one of the three judges on the bench had either acquitted the accused or suggested life imprisonment, the death penalty sh

MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA ETC.versusRETURNING OFFICER FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND ORS. ETC.

1992 INSC 25317 September 1992Dismissed

Two election petitions were filed challenging the election of Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma as President of India. Petition 1, filed by Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, claimed his nomination was wrongly rejected for not having the required ten proposers and ten seconders and argued that the signatures of common electors should remai

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2011 INSC 58317 August 2011Disposed off

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution challenging the Central Government's notifications issued under sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, which dissolved the M.P. Electricity Board and apportioned its assets. In 2009, the State soug

ASHOK KUMAR THAKURversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC.

2007 INSC 62317 May 2007Matter referred to larger bench

Ashoka Kumar Thakur filed writ petitions challenging the 93rd Constitution Amendment (which inserted Article 15(5)) and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. The Union of India argued that the matters raised substantial questions of law and constitutional interpretation, invoking Ar

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1983 INSC 20316 December 1983Disposed off

The petition, filed by a social welfare organisation, alleged that thousands of migrant workers in stone quarries and crushers in Faridabad were subjected to inhuman conditions, forced labour and bondage, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The Court treated the letter addre

SANT RAMversusDHAN KAUR & ORS.

2015 INSC 79116 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner sought clarification of a Supreme Court order dated 21‑04‑2009, which recorded his statement that he would not press the prayer for mesne profits. The lower courts had awarded mesne profits of Rs.30 per month (with 10% increase every three years) and interest, while the petitioner had given up his claim

MITHILESH KUMARversusSRI R. VENKATARAMAN & ORS.

1987 INSC 28616 October 1987Dismissed

In the 1987 Presidential election, R. Venkataraman was declared elected. Candidate Mithilesh Kumar filed an election petition under the Presidential and Vice‑Presidential Elections Act, 1952, alleging that a whip issued by the Congress (I) party amounted to undue influence and vitiated the election. The petition, howev

PATNAIK & CO. LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA

1986 INSC 13716 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Patnaik & Co., an automobile dealer, claimed a loss of Rs.53,650 on the sale of its subscription to the Orissa Government Loan 1972, arguing it was a revenue loss deductible against future profits. The Income Tax Officer treated it as a capital loss, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held it was a business loss bec

DHARAMBIR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1979 INSC 11716 July 1979Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Dharmabir and another appellant challenging their conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the imposition of life imprisonment. While upholding the conviction and sentence as beyond judicial interference, the Court expressed conce

MAYURAM SUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASANversusCBI

2006 INSC 37416 June 2006

The appellants filed criminal appeals under Section 10 of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992, but had not surrendered to their sentences. The Court examined whether Order XXI Rule 13A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which requires surrender before an appeal can be p

STATE OF HARYANAversusPREM CHAND AND ORS.

1989 INSC 38714 December 1989Dismissed

The State of Haryana sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed the conviction of Prem Chand and others for rape under IPC Section 376 but reduced their sentences from ten to five years by invoking the proviso to Section 376(2) on the basis of the victim's conduct. The Court examined the scope of review i

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusLALLOO & OTHERS.

1985 INSC 17413 August 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Laloo and three others with the murder of Babu Jaleshwar Singh on 24 September 1974. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses (PW1‑3), corroborative statements of PW5 and PW6, medical evidence of a fatal neck wound, and a First Information Report (FIR) prepared b

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSURENDER KOTIANKAR

1984 INSC 13913 August 1984Dismissed

The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 for special leave to challenge the Karnataka High Court's dismissal of its appeals against the conviction of Surender Kotiankar under Sections 408 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had rejected the State's request for enhanced senten

CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusPAWAN K. SARAF AND ANR.

1999 INSC 913 January 1999Dismissed

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order that quashed prosecution of Pawan K. Saraf for alleged adulteration of compounded asafoetida under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court had relied on a Public Analyst’s report finding the sampl

H.S.L.D.C.versusPRAN SUKH & ORS.

2015 INSC 76512 October 2015Disposed off

The Manesar Industrial Welfare Association, representing beneficiaries of land acquired for the Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSI/DC), challenged a High Court order that enhanced compensation based on sale deeds of two private companies. The Supreme Court upheld that order, but the Asso

RANVEER YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 31612 May 2010Dismissed

Ranveer Yadav, a witness in a criminal trial, along with five others disrupted court proceedings, forcing the judge to leave the courtroom. The High Court, acting under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, held Yadav to be the main culprit and convicted him of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii), sen

N. SATYANARAYANAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

1986 INSC 3812 March 1986Dismissed

M. Satyanarayana, a meritorious student, applied for admission to the MBBS first year under the special category for sons of political sufferers/freedom fighters as defined in Rule 4(iii) of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1984. His father had participated in the 1942 movem

A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.versusABDUL KAREEM

2007 INSC 3812 January 2007Dismissed

The applicant, who was the respondent in a civil appeal, filed an application for clarification of a judgment dated 2 August 2005, claiming financial hardship and seeking recovery of a balance after his pension was attached. The opposing party argued that the application was in substance a review of the judgment. The S

PURNO AGITOK SANGMAversusPRANAB MUKHERJEE

2012 INSC 57311 December 2012Dismissed

In the 2012 presidential election, petitioner Purno Agitok Sangma challenged the election of Pranab Mukherjee on the ground that Mukherjee held two "offices of profit" – Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) and Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha – at the time of filing his nomination, which would disqua

AMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 38211 May 2011Dismissed

Amar Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that his telephone conversations were intercepted by the Government of India and the Delhi administration at the behest of a political party, and sought an injunction and damages. The petition relied on annexes that were later shown to be forged and were obtain

HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 23411 May 1999Disposed off

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and another imported asbestos fibre before 1986 and were demanded additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants argued that the fibre, obtained by merely separating it from the parent rock, was not a manufactured article and therefore not liable to

BOLIN CHETIAversusJOGADISH BHUYAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 13611 March 2005

Bolin Chetia, a losing candidate in the Assam Legislative Assembly election, appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 after his election petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Court considered whether a statutory first appeal of right must automatically be ad

RAMDEO CHAUHAN@ RAJ NATHversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2001 INSC 27210 May 2001Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered a review petition filed by R.D. Chauhan, who claimed he was a juvenile at the time of committing murder under Section 302 IPC and therefore could not be sentenced to death. The petition argued that the trial and appellate courts failed to apply the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and that the c

RUPA ASHOK HURRAversusASHOK HURRA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 18910 April 2002Heard

The Supreme Court considered whether a writ petition under Article 32 could be filed to challenge a Supreme Court judgment after a review petition had been dismissed, and whether the Court could correct such a judgment using its inherent powers. It held that a final order of the Supreme Court is not amenable to a writ

KHATRI & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1981 INSC 6110 March 1981

The petitioners, undertrials, alleged that police blinded them while in custody and sought compensation under Article 21. They requested CID reports and related documents, which the State refused to produce citing protection under Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the repo

METAL BOX INDIA LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

1995 INSC 1710 January 1995Case Partly allowed

Metal Box India Ltd., a manufacturer of metal containers, sold its goods to Ponds (I) Ltd., a wholesale buyer, under agreements that allowed interest‑free advances and trade discounts. The tax authorities treated the contract price as the net price after discounts and omitted the value of the advances, leading to a sho

STATE OF M.P.versusSUGHAR SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 1329 March 2010Disposed off

Eight persons were tried by a Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh for murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court set aside their convictions, and the State appealed, but only four of the accused were impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The Supreme Court, in a 2008 judgment, reversed the ac

KAMLESH VERMAversusMAYAWATI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5268 August 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a petition filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking a review of its July 6, 2012 order that quashed FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 against Mayawati, finding that the order was correctly based on the earlier judgment that the 18 September 2003 direction did not authorize a separate FIR on disproportionate asse

VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2017 INSC 5947 July 2017Dismissed

The petitioners Vikram Singh, Jasvir Singh and a third accused were convicted under Sections 302, 364A, 201 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced to death, with the death sentence of the female co‑accused later commuted to life imprisonment. They filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s 2010 judgment on groun

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORSversusB.D. KAUSHIK

2012 INSC 2037 May 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had been directed by the Supreme Court in 2011 to identify regular practitioners for voting rights under the "One Bar One Vote" principle. While the Implementation Committee was carrying out this task, the SCBA held a General Body Meeting on 16 January 2012 that passed resolutio

ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHEIKH AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC.

2004 INSC 3737 May 2004

The State of Gujarat and an accused, Tulsibhai Bhikhabhai Tadvi, filed applications seeking modification of a Supreme Court judgment that ordered a fresh trial of the Zahira Habibullah Sheikh case outside Gujarat. They contended that such a transfer was unlawful, alleging lack of a specific prayer, violation of Section

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

JAHID SHAIKH & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2011 INSC 4636 July 2011Disposed off

The petitioners, accused in the 2008 Ahmedabad‑Surat bomb blast cases, sought transfer of the Sessions trial from Gujarat to another state under Section 406 of the CrPC, alleging bias by police, jail authorities and the judiciary and a hostile communal atmosphere that would deny them a free and fair trial. The State op

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAversusMADAN MOHAN PRASAD & ORS.

2011 INSC 6525 September 2011Disposed off

The respondent, a former Munsif in the Bihar State Judicial Service, was dismissed, reinstated, and later suspended, after which he was posted as an Additional Munsif. He repeatedly sought promotion to higher judicial posts on the basis that his juniors had been promoted between 1971 and 1978, filing numerous writ peti

LILY THOMAS, ETC. ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2935 May 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition and several writ petitions filed by Lily Thomas and others seeking to set aside the earlier judgment in Sarla Mudgal’s case, which held that a Hindu husband who converts to Islam without dissolving his first marriage commits bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The Court held that

GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.versusB. SATYANARAYANARAO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2000 INSC 1895 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned whether vacancies for Regional Transport Officer in Andhra Pradesh could be filled by transferring Section Officers of the Secretariat and Superintendents of the State Transport Authority, as permitted by Rule 3(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Transport Service Rules and paragraph 5(2) of the 1975 Preside

PRADIP CHANDRA PARIJA AND ORS.versusPRAMOD CHANDRA PATANAIK AND ORS.

2001 INSC 5904 December 2001Directions issued

The case arose when a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court, disagreeing with a prior three‑judge decision in Nityananda Kar v. State of Orissa, ordered that the matter be placed before a five‑judge bench. The petitioners challenged whether such a referral was permissible under the Constitution and Supreme Court Rules.

STATE OF HARYANAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2004 INSC 3904 June 2004

The Supreme Court upheld a 2002 decree that mandated the State of Punjab to complete the Sutlej‑Yamuna Link (SYL) canal within one year, directing the Union of India to intervene if Punjab failed. Punjab’s subsequent suit challenging the decree, the constitutionality of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966

VIVEK RAI & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.

2015 INSC 964 February 2015Dismissed

The petitioners, convicted under IPC 498‑A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, had their appeal dismissed and filed a revision petition under CrPC ss. 397 and 401 before the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court refused to register the revision because the petitioners had not surrendered to custody as mandated by Rule 159 of

CINE EXHIBITION PVT. LTD.versusCOLLECTOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 64 January 2013Dismissed

Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. filed Interlocutory Applications No.5 and 6 under Order XVIII Rule 5 seeking clarification or modification of a Supreme Court judgment dated 11 January 2012. The applications aimed to alter specific paragraphs, obtain official records, and modify operative directions concerning the Gwalior Dev

UNION OF INDIAversusNAMIT SHARMA

2013 INSC 5873 September 2013Case Allowed

The Supreme Court reviewed its own September 2012 judgment that upheld Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground that the earlier decision contained a manifest error of law. The Court held that the provisions merely require persons of eminence with wide knowledge and ex

GURCHARAN SINGHversusSURJIT SINGH AND ANR.

2012 INSC 5072 November 2012Disposed off

The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.7735 of 2010 against respondent Surjit Singh, who had actually died on 09‑06‑2009, a fact discovered only later. The petitioner then moved Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.2 seeking substitution of the deceased respondent’s legal representatives and I.A. No.3 seek

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.versusTUNCAY ALANKUS & ANR.

2013 INSC 2032 April 2013Dismissed

National Fertilizers Ltd. (NFL) paid $38 million for urea to a Turkish company, Karsan, but never received the product. The manager of Karsan, Tuncay Alankus, was extradited to India and faced criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court, on 4 September 2006 and again on 14 December 2006, restrained Alankus from withdrawing

SURAZ INDIA TRUSTversusUNION OF INDIA

2017 INSC 4261 May 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Suraz India Trust, which had repeatedly approached the Court with 64 public‑interest litigations and several contempt petitions, none of which resulted in any relief. The Court found that the Trust’s actions amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, wasting valuab

P. N. ESWARA IYERversusTHE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1980 INSC 171 February 1980Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the amendment to Order XL, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, which allows review petitions to be disposed of by circulation without oral arguments, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19, 21 and the right to a public hearing under Article 32. The Court examined whether the rule was ultra vir

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