Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Supreme Court Rules, 2013

48 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWALversusSTATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.

2023 INSC 96331 October 2023Dismissed

A batch of five review petitions was filed challenging the Supreme Court's common judgment and order dated 06‑09‑2022 in Civil Appeals No. 1661 of 2020 and No. 2568 of 2020, which interpreted the interplay between Section 48 of the Gujarat Value‑Added Tax Act, 2003 and Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOOversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 63030 August 2016Dismissed

The petitioner, Ashiq Hussain Faktoo, was convicted by the Supreme Court in 2003 under TADA and the IPC for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Review and curative petitions filed earlier were dismissed. He subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking release on the ground of the doctrine of ex de

JASMINBHAI BHARATBHAI KOTHARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 17230 January 2025Dismissed

Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, convicted under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34 and the Arms Act, sought an extension of temporary bail, which the Gujarat High Court refused. While filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, he also filed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from surre

IN RE: MEPUNG TADAR BAGE, MEMBER, ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus

2025 INSC 104728 August 2025Reference answered

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution seeking the removal of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), alleging misbehaviour in connection with the leakage of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination question paper in

RAJENDRA KHAREversusSWAATI NIRKHI AND ORS.

2021 INSC 4528 January 2021

Rajendra Khare, who lodged FIR No.39/2016, was not made a party to a transfer petition filed by the accused seeking to move the trial of Criminal Case No.3483 of 2017 from Delhi to Allahabad. The Supreme Court transferred the case on 18 May 2018 without issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2, and the petitioner’s subs

GOPAL JHAversusTHE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2018 INSC 99825 October 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined challenges to the Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, specifically the block period for meeting eligibility criteria, the requirement that applicants be members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and the residence requirement of being in Delhi/New Delhi.

VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring

P R ADIKESAVANversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 62523 May 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a practising advocate, was charged with criminal contempt after he and about fifty other lawyers obstructed police officers attempting to execute a non‑bailable warrant issued by a Madras High Court judge. The High Court found a prima facie case of contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Cour

SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJANversusSTATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2023 INSC 26421 March 2023Disposed off

The petitioner, Sundar, was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a seven‑year‑old child and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. He filed a review petition alleging errors in the evidence, especially the admissibility of call‑detail records (CDRs) without

BHAGWAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 70820 September 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined criminal appeals filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, who alleged that his son‑in‑law and daughter had fabricated vakalatnamas, affidavits and other documents to lodge a Special Leave Petition and related proceedings without his knowledge, thereby attempting to falsely implicate Ajay Katara, a

JITENDER @ KALLAversusSTATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2025 INSC 24920 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years without remission, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court but suppressed the fixed‑term nature of his sentence, leading the Court to initially treat the case as a simple life sentence. The SLP was drafted by senior advocate Rishi Malhot

IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.versus.

2021 INSC 3420 January 2021

Advocate-on-Record Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka filed a writ petition seeking to use the style "Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka" on his letterhead and Vakalatnama, arguing that such a designation is permissible and that other High Courts allow it. The petition raised two ques

TEHSEEN POONAWALLAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2018 INSC 36919 April 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined petitions filed under Article 32 seeking an inquiry into the death of Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, who died on 1 December 2014 while presiding over the Sohrabuddin case. The petitioners relied on media reports alleging foul play and questioned the conduct of the judges who accompanied the

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 21318 March 2024Dismissed

Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. filed a miscellaneous application seeking a direction that the Rajasthan distribution companies pay a late payment surcharge of Rs.1376.35 crore, alleging that the Supreme Court's earlier judgment on the matter was incomplete. The application was filed after the main appeals (Civil Appeals No

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.5 OF 2017 IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATEversus.

2017 INSC 75517 August 2017Disposed off

Advocate-on-Record Mohit Chaudhary, who had been practising since 2009, made an agitated mention before the Supreme Court alleging that the Court's Registry colluded with the opposite party to hastily list a matter for the purpose of bench hunting. He produced a letter to the Chief Justice containing false averments th

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusM/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR.

2024 INSC 45517 May 2024

The Supreme Court examined a massive batch of land‑acquisition disputes involving the Government of NCT of Delhi and its agencies versus private landowners, notably M/s BSK Realtors LLP. The core issues were whether the dismissal of a civil appeal by one authority in the first round barred other authorities from filing

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 45617 May 2024Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority and other government bodies filed a batch of appeals and petitions seeking condonation of delay for challenging High Court orders that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued that subsequent judici

AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2023 INSC 25717 March 2023Directions issued

The petitioner, brother of a murder victim, sought transfer of the criminal trial from West Bengal to Assam, alleging bias, witness intimidation, and procedural irregularities including a state‑issued notification to withdraw prosecution. The High Court set aside the withdrawal order and directed the trial to continue,

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHERversusM/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 25917 March 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority sought review of several civil appeals that had been dismissed on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which interpreted Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. After the Consti

NANDINI SHARMA AND ANR.versusREGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 120916 November 2022Dismissed

Nandini Sharma and another filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Rule 1(b), Rule 5 and Rule 7(c) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, alleging that conferring exclusive rights to practice before the Supreme Court on Advocates on Record (AOR) is unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 91816 October 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, practising advocates, filed a writ under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, alleging that the designation of senior advocates creates an unlawful class violating Articles 14, 19

SAUMYA CHAURASIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2023 INSC 107314 December 2023Dismissed

The appellant, Saumya Chaurasia, a Deputy Secretary in the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister’s Office, was arrested in connection with an extortion‑linked money‑laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. She sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., but the High Court rejected her application, prompting

KANTARU RAJEEVARUversusINDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR. ITS GENERAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

2019 INSC 124814 November 2019Directions issued

The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's 28 September 2018 judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which struck down the exclusion of women aged 10‑50 from the Sabarimala temple. The Court examined whether any material error or patent mistake existed in the earlier judgment, parti

YASHWANT SINHA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR.

2019 INSC 124214 November 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a review application filed by the Union of India seeking correction of two sentences in paragraph 25 of its 14‑December‑2018 judgment on the Rafale fighter‑jet procurement, and also considered the petitioners' claim that the Court had failed to order registration of an FIR and CBI investig

KAMINI JAISWALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 111214 November 2017Dismissed

The petitioners, including a member of the Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, filed successive writ petitions alleging that an FIR implicated senior judicial functionaries and that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should not hear or assign the matter. They sought a Special Investigation Team and the re

MS. INDIRA JAISINGversusTHROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

2017 INSC 103112 October 2017Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the practice of designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, alleging violations of Articles 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the power to confer the designati

MS. INDIRA JAISINGversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL

2023 INSC 52412 May 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court revisited the guidelines it had laid down in 2017 for the designation of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It held that voting by secret ballot should be an exception rather than the rule and that the reasons for resorting to such a vote must be recorded. The Court refined

SURENDRA KOLIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 130811 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Surendra Koli, a former domestic help at the Nithari residence, was convicted for the murder, rape and related offences of a minor based on a Section 164 confession and alleged discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court had earlier affirmed his conviction and death sentence in 2011, and a revie

ASOK PANDEversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR. ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 32611 April 2018Dismissed

Asok Pandey, a member of the Bar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking mandamus directing the Supreme Court to prescribe a fixed procedure for constituting benches—three‑judge benches to consist of the Chief Justice of India and the two senior‑most judges, and Constitution benches to consist of the five senio

CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 109110 November 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court clarified that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the sole authority to constitute benches and allocate cases, a principle derived from the State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand judgment and applicable to the Supreme Court. The Court held that a two‑judge bench cannot direct the composition of a bench

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 50210 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Union of India’s registration of cases by the CBI after the State withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is unconstitutional, and asked for an injunctio

SAJEEVversusSTATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 9989 November 2023Dismissed

The case concerned the conviction of two accused, Sajeev (A10) and Roy (A11), for their role in a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit and sell it as illicit liquor, which caused seven deaths, eleven cases of blindness and injuries to over forty persons. The trial court and Kerala High Court convicted them unde

SANJIT SAHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2023 INSC 10859 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha, convicted under IPC 376(2)(g) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) together with an application for exemption from surrender. The Chamber Judge rejected the exemption, gave them six weeks to surrender and later two weeks to file surrende

VEDANTA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SESA STERLITE LTD.)versusTHE GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.

2021 INSC 3289 July 2021Dismissed

The State of Goa and Vedanta Ltd. filed review petitions against the Supreme Court's judgment in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. (2018) more than 650 and 907 days, respectively, after the judgment was delivered on 7 February 2018. Under Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review must be filed

MUKESHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5909 July 2018Rejected

The case concerns the infamous Nirbhaya gang‑rape and murder, where the accused Mukesh was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. Mukesh filed a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, alleging illegal arrest, police‑induced

VINAY SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 5919 July 2018Dismissed

The petitioners, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal appeals in the Nirbhaya gang‑rape case. They raised numerous grounds, including the abolition of the death penalty, alleged errors in the assessment of eye‑witness testimony, the i

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2016 INSC 328 January 2016Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court had earlier held that there is no reservation in promotion by selection for Group‑A posts (salary up to Rs 5700) in banks, only a concession, but the judgment also contained a contradictory paragraph stating that reservation applies to posts with salary less than Rs 5700 (pre‑revised) and thus directe

JANHIT ABHIYANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 4755 August 2020Directions issued

The petitioners challenged the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which inserted clauses 15(6) and 16(6) permitting a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and public employment. They argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution

ARUN DEV UPADHYAYAversusINTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 6105 July 2023Dismissed

The dispute arose from a representation agreement between D.M.C. Management Consultants Ltd. and Integrated Sales Service Ltd., which contained an arbitration clause. After the arbitrator awarded US $6.9 million against DMC, the award was sought to be enforced against non‑signatory parties, including Arun Dev Upadhyaya

SUPERTECH LIMITEDversusEMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 5994 October 2021Dismissed

Supertech Ltd constructed Towers 16 and 17 in Emerald Court, NOIDA. The Allahabad High Court ordered their demolition for violating minimum distance requirements, green‑area norms, and provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act, 2010 and the Uttar Pradesh Ownership Flats Act, 1975. The Supreme Court affirmed the dem

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

2026 INSC 1132 February 2026Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution against Karnataka and the Union of India, seeking a declaration that Karnataka's construction of check dams and diversion structures on the Pennaiyar River without Tamil Nadu's consent was illegal and violated the fundamental rights of its inhab

CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARYversusADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2026 INSC 6291 June 2026Dismissed

The liquidator of a corporate debtor filed an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the 45‑day filing period but within the 60‑day grace period, and the appeal was marked defective. The liquidator failed to cure the defects within the 28‑day period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rul

UNION OF INDIAversusHARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION (INDIA) INC

2018 INSC 8651 May 2018Directions issued

The Union of India challenged an international commercial arbitration award in favour of Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent argued that Indian courts lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement s

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