Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

231 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 1–200.

SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR.versusARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY & ORS.

2019 INSC 12031 January 2019Dismissed

The appeal concerned a dispute over entries of mutation in revenue records for a piece of land. The petitioners challenged the mutation, arguing it affected their title, while the respondents contended that mutation merely enabled payment of land revenue. The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that mutation i

SHRI RAJENDRA LALITKUMAR AGRAWALversusSMT. RATNA ASHOK MURANJAN & ANR.

2019 INSC 12131 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 08‑08‑1984, which the trial court decreed in his favour. The first appellate court reversed that decree, dismissing the suit, and the plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that it did not raise an

N. SANKARANARAYANANversusTHE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

2019 INSC 11731 January 2019Dismissed

The appellant, N. Sankaranarayanan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and other authorities to restrain his family members (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) from operating a petrol pump and a marriage hall on a piece of land that was the subject

MAHADEV P KAMBEKAR (D) TR. LRS.versusSHREE KRISHNA WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 11631 January 2019Dismissed

The dispute concerned a lease of land in Bombay where Shree Krishna Woolen Mills, the lessee, sued Mahadev Kambekar (representing the lessor) for specific performance of the lease deed. The lessor filed a counter‑claim seeking eviction of the lessee and recovery of rent, which a Single Judge allowed along with the plai

MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTDversusGHANSHYAM SHARMA

2018 INSC 101630 October 2018Case Partly allowed

The respondent, Ghanshyam Sharma, worked as a casual helper for Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. from 10 June 1976 to 30 July 1977 and was terminated by an oral order on 31 July 1977. The termination gave rise to an industrial dispute that was referred to the Labour Court, which awarded reinstatement with conti

STATE OF KERALAversusRASHEED

2018 INSC 102130 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Kerala prosecuted eight accused, including Rasheed, for the murder of Satheesan. During trial, the defence counsel for accused No.2 sought to defer the cross‑examination of five prosecution witnesses under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., arguing that it would reveal its strategy. The trial court dismissed t

ASOKE KUMAR CHAUDHURI AND OTHERSversusKUNAL SAHA AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 107629 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that three doctors were negligent, leading to his wife's death, and that the Inquiry Committee of the West Bengal Medical Council deliberately ignored expert reports to shield the doctors. He filed a criminal complaint against the Committee members under IPC sections 201, 120B and 219, claiming

KALPANA VYASversusRAJ KUMAR RANGWANI

2018 INSC 101229 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, a landlady, sought eviction of her tenant under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide need to use the premises for construction for her children and guests. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding the landlady could meet her need elsewhere, but the Rent Appellate Tri

DHIANKAURversusEAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949

2014 INSC 102129 October 2014Disposed off

The landlady Dhiankaur filed eviction proceedings against tenant Prem Pal Sran under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging arrears of rent from December 1994. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both held that the agreed rent was Rs.1,500 per month and that the tenant was in arrears for

GOVT. OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusDAYANAND SINGH ETC. ETC.

2016 INSC 93129 September 2016Disposed off

The State of Bihar amended its judicial service rules in 2009 to introduce reservation for various backward classes, but the High Court quashed the amendments on the ground that the State had not undertaken the constitutionally mandated consultation with the High Court under Articles 233 and 234. The Supreme Court affi

MAUJI RAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2019 INSC 82529 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, seven accused persons, were charged with murder and several other offences for the killing of Sumit Kumar. Their bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Court but were later granted by the Allahabad High Court without recording any reasons. The complainant, father of the deceased, appealed to t

RUPA ROYversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 82429 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rupa Roy, and her 10‑year‑old son were injured when a high‑speed van collided with their rickshaw van, leaving the son with a medically certified 70% permanent disability. She filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of

KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 81929 July 2019Disposed off

The appellants, prospective buyers, entered into an agreement to purchase a 9,500‑sq‑yard plot with two godowns for Rs 99,84,500 and reported the transaction under s.269UC of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Department’s appropriate authority, after a valuation showing the market value to be about 15% higher than the

HARYANA STATE & ANR.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALEHRI

2016 INSC 45129 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana filed a second appeal against a judgment that declared a Gram Panchayat the owner of a 36-kanal piece of land. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that it did not raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the

JAGDISHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2016 INSC 45629 June 2016Dismissed

The case arose from a street fight between two families on 15 June 2001, during which the appellant Jagdish, armed with a lathi, struck the deceased Zile Singh, leading to his death, and caused injuries to three others. Jagdish was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304 Part II and Section 323 of the Indian

MAHIMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016 INSC 46629 June 2016Dismissed

The police stopped a jeep at a check post in Pithoragarh and, after offering to search and in the presence of a gazetted officer and a magistrate, seized 2.1 kg of charas from a boy identified as Mahiman Singh, constituting a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. He was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, convi

STATE OF HARYANAversusHUSSAIN

2016 INSC 44729 June 2016Dismissed

The State of Haryana charged Hussain and another accused with house‑breaking, theft and causing death under IPC sections 380, 457 and 460 after a night raid that resulted in the death of the complainant's husband. The trial court convicted both accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Co

M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITEDversusNOORJAHAN BEEVI AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 45229 June 2016Dismissed

M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd., a hire‑purchase financier, sued Noorjahan Beevi and her husband for the balance of Rs.40,138 after seizing and selling a financed vehicle. The borrowers defaulted on the instalment payment on 20 May 1984, after which the financier seized the vehicle on 9 February 1985 and sold it on 30 May 1

RAJU DEVADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2016 INSC 45529 June 2016Dismissed

The appellant Raju Devade was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for allegedly pouring kerosene on an 18‑year‑old girl (Baby) and setting her ablaze. The prosecution relied on the victim’s oral statement to the police and two dying declarations recorded by an Executive Magistrate in question‑answer form, both be

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAG RAJ SINGH @ HANSA

2016 INSC 44429 June 2016Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Jag Raj Singh (alias Hansa) for possession of opium recovered from a jeep. The Supreme Court examined whether the police complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act when they acted on secret information and conducted the search. It

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusLEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD.

2016 INSC 44529 June 2016Dismissed

Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (the respondent) purchased an open marine cargo insurance policy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the appellant) and later suffered loss of goods during transit to Moscow. The loss was reported, and the consignee (M/s Magna Overseas) authorized the respondent to file a claim. The responde

SEKHAR SUMAN VERMAversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF N.C.B. & ANR.

2016 INSC 44929 June 2016Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for possession of 250 grams of heroin seized during a raid by N.C.B. officers at his residence. The raid was led by a gazetted officer, and the appellant was offered in writing a choice to be searched by a gazetted officer or a magistrate, to which he consent

KALIDAS CHUNLLAL PATEL (DEAD) BY L.RS.versusSAVITABEN & ORS.

2016 INSC 44829 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Kalidas Chunnilal Patel, deceased and represented by his legal heirs, sued his tenant Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai for arrears of rent, notice charges, mesne profits and eviction on the ground of bona‑fide personal need. During the suit, a government notification brought the Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House) Rates Cont

PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARABversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2016 INSC 45329 June 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Praful Sudhakar Parab, a pay‑sheet clerk in the Maharashtra police, lured his colleague, Senior Clerk Prabhudas Narayan Raut, to the office on 7 December 1996 and the victim never returned. The victim’s wife and son testified that they saw the accused and the victim leave together after 9 p.m., and the a

M/S. EMM ENN ASSOCIATESversusCOMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER & ORS.

2016 INSC 45429 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Emm Enn Associates (contractor) completed a security‑fencing contract for the Government in July 2000 and received payment on 10 April 2001 for the undisputed portion of the final bill. The contract provided a two‑year defect‑liability period for the Government to recover any over‑payment, but the contractor later

UNION OF INDIAversusK.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.

2016 INSC 44329 June 2016Remitted to Lower Court

The Union of India filed a title suit claiming ownership of a plot of land, which the trial court dismissed on limitation and lack of evidence. The Union appealed under Section 96 of the CPC, also seeking to file additional evidence via Order 41 Rule 27, but the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine and rejected th

SUNIL KUMAR BISWASversusORDINANCE FACTORY BOARD & ORS.

2019 INSC 43629 March 2019Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Biswas and four other employees had worked for the Ordinance Factory Board for 25 years and sought regularisation of their services. They filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed their claim, leading them to file a writ petition in the Calcutta High Cou

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

SUSANTA DEYversusBABLI MAJUMDAR & ANR.

2019 INSC 41128 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque bounce, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 3 lakh. The appellant appealed, and the appellate court set aside the conviction, remanding the matter to the magistrate for f

RAJINDER TIWARIversusKEDAR NATH (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 41428 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Rajinder Tiwari filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against Kedar Nath (deceased) over a property. The trial court denied the defendant the opportunity to file a written statement, barred him from presenting documentary evidence, and decreed the injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appeale

CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS.versusMEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.

2019 INSC 41328 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined six civil appeals arising from a batch of second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had allowed the second appeals and altered the findings of the first appellate court without first framing any substantial question of law, as requi

SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2019 INSC 29228 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and Ramdeo Prasad, were officials/contractor handling urea bags for the Food Corporation of India. They were alleged to have conspired to misappropriate a total of 1,040 bags of urea and to falsify gate‑register, ‘G’‑Form and ‘O’‑Form entries to show that 500 bags had been deli

SATYA RAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 9728 January 2019Dismissed

The appellant Satya Raj Singh was convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on eyewitness testimony that he stabbed the deceased on the neck with a knife. He challenged the conviction on the grounds that the trial courts erred in accepting the eye‑witnesses' statements and that the

DR. H. K. SHARMAversusSHRI RAM LAL

2019 INSC 10028 January 2019Dismissed

The landlord, Shri Ram Lal, let a portion of his house to Dr. H.K. Sharma under a tenancy agreement dated 22 July 1985. In 2008 the landlord filed an eviction application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming bona‑fide need for the pre

VIJAY A. MITTAL & ORS.versusKULWANT RAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2019 INSC 9628 January 2019Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a 1979 agreement to purchase a property from defendant Amar Nath, alleging they had paid earnest money and were ready to perform, but Amar Nath sold the property to other defendants at a higher price. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Amar Nath

R.P.S. YADAVversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 95828 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Municipal Corporation of Delhi employee, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.1,500 for issuing a licence. The CBI organised a trap involving the complainant, a shadow witness and a middle‑man who handed over the money, after which it was recovered. The trial court and the Delhi High Court convicted

R. VENKATA RAMUDU & ANOTHER ETCversusSTATE OF A.P & OTHERS

2016 INSC 91727 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners were temporarily appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers by direct recruitment on 18‑April‑1992 and were placed on probation for two years within a continuous period of three years under Rule 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules, 1967. They were required to pass the Account test withi

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusGANGABISHAN @ VISHNU & ORS.

2018 INSC 64427 July 2018Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted nine accused for the death of Rajesh, who was shot in the left thigh during a dispute over cattle and crop damage. The trial court convicted all under sections 302/149, 325/149, 147, 148 and 440 IPC, but the High Court acquitted eight of them, retaining only a conviction of accuse

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IversusM/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF)

2019 INSC 28527 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) appealed an ITAT order that had allowed the assessee, M/s Rashtadrood (HUF), under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court dismissed the appeal after hearing both parties but neither framed any substantial question of law nor provided reasons for its conclusion.

RAMVIRversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2018 INSC 99926 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ramvir, was charged along with five others for surrounding a victim and firing shots that led to the victim's death. The Sessions Court acquitted all six accused of offences under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but convicted Ramvir under Section 302 IPC for murder. The State did not

HIYA ASSOCIATES & ORS.versusNAKSHATRA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 89326 September 2018Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from an eviction suit where the parties compromised, obligating the defendants to vacate the premises by a specified date and pay mesne profits for delay. The defendants failed to vacate, prompting the plaintiff to file an execution application which the executing court dismissed the defendants' objec

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEESversusM/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 64326 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Board of Trustees (CBT) issued summons under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, directing M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. to pay outstanding provident fund contributions for 2005-06 and later ordered damages under Section 14B. The EPF Appellate Tribunal set aside the damages

MALLIKARJUNAIAHversusNANJAIAH & ORS.

2019 INSC 57826 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑owner of a parcel of land that fell to him after his father's death, discovered in 1983 that the respondents, his brothers, had encroached upon 1 gunta of his share. He measured the land, obtained knowledge of the encroachment and filed a suit in 1992 for declaration of title and injunction. The res

N. RAMAMURTHYversusSTATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A.C.B., BENGALURU

2019 INSC 58226 April 2019Disposed off

N. Ramamurthy was convicted under several IPC provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to multiple terms, the trial court directing that all sentences run concurrently, resulting in a maximum imprisonment of seven years. He filed applications under Section 389 of the CrPC seeking suspension of the

V. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2019 INSC 39826 March 2019Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu State allotted a parcel of land to an Agricultural Horticultural Society in 1980 under certain conditions. In 1989 the State resumed the land under clause 4 of the allotment order, citing a public purpose of developing sports facilities and horticultural research. The Society challenged the resumption by

CTO, ANTI EVASION, CIRCLE III, RAJASTHAN, JAIPURversusM/S PRASOON ENTERPRISES, JAIPUR

2019 INSC 40426 March 2019Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan (CTO) challenged the tax rate applied by M/s Prasoon Enterprises on mobile crane wire ropes, arguing that the ropes should be taxed at 12.5% under the residuary entry of Schedule V of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The respondent contended that the ropes are parts of mobile cranes and t

GANGA PRASAD MAHTOversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2019 INSC 40226 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court and the High Court for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code based on the complaint of PW‑3, who alleged that the appellant entered her house at night, threatened her with a pistol and raped her. The trial court relied on the testimony of three prosecution wit

MODERN TRANSPORTATION CONSULTATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusCENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & ORS.

2019 INSC 39926 March 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether retired railway employees who had withdrawn their full superannuation benefits, including provident fund, and were later re‑employed on a retainer basis by a private limited company could be treated as “excluded employees” under Paragraph 2(f)(i) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Schem

POORANLAL & ANRversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017 INSC 105125 October 2017Dismissed

The case arose from the beating of Hariya on 30 August 1990 by five persons, including Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad, who later died after 14 days of injuries. The trial court acquitted all five accused, but the High Court set aside the acquittal of Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad, convicting them under Section 304 Part II read

BISWAJIT SUKULversusDEO CHAND SARDA & ORS.

2018 INSC 87425 September 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The plaintiff, a landlord, sued the tenant for arrears of rent and eviction of a shop premises under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The trial court held that the tenant was indeed the plaintiff's tenant but found no default in rent payment, leading to dismissal of the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court

THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.versusGOURI & ORS.

2018 INSC 86925 September 2018Dismissed

The State of Kerala appealed a High Court order that had allowed landowners (respondents) to claim exemption from vesting of their land under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The dispute centered on whether the land was acquired by the respondents before the appointed day of 10 May 1971 an

STATE OF KERALA & ANR.versusJOSEPH & ANR.

2018 INSC 87025 September 2018Dismissed

The State of Kerala challenged the exemption granted by a Forest Tribunal to landowners (Joseph & others) over 14 acres of private forest, arguing that the land should vest in the State under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The Tribunal had held that the owners' title pre‑dated the appoin

VILASINIversusSTATE OF KERALA

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 125 September 2018Leave granted

Vilasini, a woman living below the poverty line, was convicted under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari (Amended) Act, 1997 for possessing three litres of arrack. The trial court sentenced her to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh, with a default three‑month simple imprisonment for non‑p

UDE SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 81025 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the continuous humiliation and taunting of an 18‑year‑old girl by her relatives amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court held that the accused’s repeated insults, aimed at destroying the victim’s self‑esteem, constituted instigation

PRASHANTI MEDICAL SERVICES & RESEARCH FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 81325 July 2019Dismissed

Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation, a charitable trust, obtained approval for its heart hospital project under Section 35AC of the Income Tax Act, enabling donors to claim tax deductions for contributions. After receiving large donations in 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Finance Act, 2016 inserted sub‑section (

HIRABAI (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.versusRAMNIWAS BANSILAL LAKHOTIYA (D) BY L.RS. & ORS

2019 INSC 57125 April 2019Dismissed

The case arose from a sale deed executed in 1965 by defendant No.3, the Karta of the family, transferring a family house to Bansilal. After Bansilal's death, defendants No.1 and No.2 inherited the property and obtained a decree in 1975 confirming their title. The sisters of defendant No.3 later filed a suit claiming th

M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 57325 April 2019

The Union of India issued an order on 30 June 2016 concerning an exploration licence, which was challenged by a writ petition (W.P. No.5734 of 2016). The Delhi High Court set aside that order, not on the merits, but because the counsel for the Union had made a statement that was later disclosed to be based on incorrect

RAMESH SANKAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 9225 January 2019Dismissed

Ramesh Sanka, a former CEO of a limited company (Respondent No.12), filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the CBI to investigate alleged financial irregularities of the company and its associates. The petitioner claimed the company had contravened various statutes and c

SMT. BAYANABAI KAWAREversusRAJENDRA S/O BABURAO DHOTE

2017 INSC 113623 November 2017Dismissed

The plaintiff purchased a plot from a housing cooperative society by a registered sale deed dated 29‑12‑1981 and was placed in possession. The defendant later encroached on the land and erected a hut, prompting the plaintiff to sue for possession and mesne profits. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed th

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RANCHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.versusJHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

2018 INSC 97323 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Jharkhand State Housing Board allotted 192 flats to Ranchi University for its employees. The University was to pay 10% upfront and the balance in 180 installments, but defaulted, leading the Board to cancel the allotment and re‑allocate some flats to retired employees on the University's request. The University lat

G H SHIV KUMAR JATIAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2019 INSC 94923 August 2019Disposed off

The case arose from a fall of a guest from the terrace of the Hyatt Regency hotel in Delhi, leading to charges under Sections 336, 338 IPC read with Section 32 and Section 4 of the COTPA 2003 against the hotel company, its Managing Director (Shiv Kumar Jatia) and its General Manager (Aseem Kapoor). The High Court refus

MONTHI MENEZES (D) BY LR.versusDEVAKI AMMA (D) BY LR. & ANR.

2019 INSC 55623 April 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, successor to Shri Bona Menezes, applied for occupancy rights over 3.07 acres of Survey No.119/2A1 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The landlord contended that the land was ‘Punja’ (non‑cultivable) and not subject to tenancy. The Land Tribunal, after spot inspection, held that the parcel was us

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMANNAT JOHAL & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2019 INSC 56123 April 2019Dismissed

An oil tanker collided with a car driven by Rajpal Singh Johal, killing him and injuring his family. The claimants (his parents, wife, and children) sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while the insurer challenged the quantum of award and the interest rate. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initial

M/S GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.&ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2016 INSC 120922 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd (GSFC) and Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd (GACL), both public sector undertakings, receive hydrocyanic acid (HCN) from Reliance Industries Ltd through a common pipeline and share the raw material in a 60:40 ratio. To handle the HCN, handling and incineration facilities were in

NAGARAJversusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 25021 February 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a bus driver for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, collided with a railway level‑crossing gate on 3 August 2006, breaking it. He was convicted under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the appel

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS.

2015 INSC 95521 January 2015Disposed off

The case concerned the promotion of thousands of Junior Telecommunication Officers (Junior Engineers) to Assistant Engineer posts and whether seniority for promotion should be based on the order of passing a departmental qualifying examination or the order of recruitment/entry. Earlier Supreme Court decisions had given

STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPURversusSHRI PHOOL CHAND(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2018 INSC 84320 September 2018Case Partly allowed

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation dismissed driver Phool Chand for dereliction of duties. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal, modified the punishment, reinstated him and ordered full back wages for 13 years, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that back wages are not a matter

M. L. SINGLAversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

2018 INSC 84120 September 2018Dismissed

The employee M.L. Singla was dismissed by Punjab National Bank after a domestic enquiry that found him guilty of consuming liquor on duty and causing a cash shortage. He challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, which set aside the dismissal and awarded 50% back wages, but the High Court reversed that award and

GHEWARCHAND & ORS.versusM/S MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.

2018 INSC 84020 September 2018Case Allowed

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit in 1978 seeking declaration of title, a permanent injunction and possession of a property that had been attached by a City Magistrate on 23‑12‑1966. The trial court held the suit was within the limitation period and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The High Court reversed this, hol

MUNI REDDY & ANR.versusC. NAGARAJU & ORS.

2018 INSC 84220 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by two appellate courts. The parties later compromised, and the High Court disposed of the second appeal on that compromise. Defendant No.2 challenged the validity of the compromise, but the High Court dismis

UNA NAGAR PALIKAversusKALIBEN BALUBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.

2018 INSC 84720 September 2018Dismissed

The Una Nagar Palika (municipality) refused to grant pension benefits to five former employees who had retired after more than ten years of service and were members of the Gujarat Government Pension Scheme (GPF). The employees filed petitions in the Gujarat High Court, which directed the municipality to pay the pension

SUDARSAN PUHANversusJAYANTA KU. MOHANTY & ANR. ETC.

2018 INSC 85020 September 2018Case Partly allowed

The claimant, Sudarsan Puhan, suffered paraplegia after a motorcycle accident and obtained a compensation award of Rs.24,62,065 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both the claimant and the insurer appealed to the Orissa High Court; the insurer's appeal was partially allowed, red

STATE OF HARYANAversusRAJESH AGGARWAL & ANR.

2018 INSC 72220 August 2018Dismissed

A blast in the factory of M/s Kee Pharma Private Limited in Gurgaon on 27 June 1996 caused a stampede that killed seven workers. An FIR was lodged against the company’s shareholders/directors under Section 302 of the IPC, and the accused sought to quash the FIR by invoking Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court partia

SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLSversusRADHEYSHYAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2018 INSC 72120 August 2018Dismissed

Savatrm Rampratap Mills, a government-owned textile mill located in Akola, issued notices under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to evict an alleged unauthorized occupant, directing the occupant to appear for proceedings in Mumbai. The occupant challenged the notices, arguing that sinc

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusGEN. SECY. FCI INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

2018 INSC 72020 August 2018Dismissed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) employed 955 workers at its Chennai branch and disputed whether they were its employees or contract labourers hired through a cooperative society. The workers' union claimed they were permanent employees entitled to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter w

K.K. SURESH & ANR. ETC.versusFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 72020 August 2018Dismissed

The appellants, who worked as clerical staff in the premises of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) since 1997, filed writ petitions seeking regularisation and absorption as FCI employees. FCI contended that the appellants were appointed by the Head Load Workers Co‑operative Society and not by FCI, thus no employer‑emp

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.versusHEAD LOAD LABOUR CONGRESS (REGN. NO336/85) & ANR.

2018 INSC 72020 August 2018Dismissed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) was directed by an Industrial Tribunal in Chennai to regularise its workers after abolishing the contract labour system, an award that the Supreme Court later upheld. The workers' union filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to extend the same regularisation benefits to employees wo

KEHAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS & ORS.versusNACHITTAR KAUR & ORS.

2018 INSC 71920 August 2018Dismissed

The case concerned a sale of ancestral land by the father (Pritam Singh), who was the Karta of the Hindu joint family, to Tara Singh and Ajit Singh. The son, Kehar Singh, challenged the sale alleging that the father had no right to alienate the property without his consent and that there was no legal necessity. The def

CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR.versusN. N. SARDESAI & ORS.

2018 INSC 62520 July 2018Dismissed

The Currency Note Press, a government-owned corporation, was sued by 17 former employees who claimed overtime wages for work done between 1986 and 1990 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court dismissed their applications, but the Bombay High Court set aside that order and granted th

THANGASAMYversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2019 INSC 23420 February 2019Dismissed

The appellant, a government bus driver, was accused of driving negligently on 24 February 2001, causing a collision that killed four persons and injured three. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court convicted him under IPC sections 279, 337 (three counts) and 304A (four counts) based on consistent eyewitness

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSURESH

2019 INSC 24020 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Suresh for the fatal assault on his father, resulting in death and a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, along with a false information charge under Section 201 IPC. The Trial Court convicted Suresh under Section 304 Part II and sente

SALEEM AHMEDversusSTATE & ANR.

2019 INSC 91919 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a house owner, was charged with electricity theft after BSES issued a bill of Rs.97,786 and filed a criminal case. The parties settled the dispute in a Permanent Lok Adalat, agreeing that the appellant would pay Rs.83,120 as full and final settlement, which he duly paid. Despite the settlement, BSES late

G H M/S TREATY CONSTRUCTION & ANR.versusM/S RUBY TOWER CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.

2019 INSC 78019 July 2019Case Partly allowed

Treaty Construction built a residential‑commercial project whose flats were purchased by members who formed the Ruby Tower Co‑op Housing Society. The society alleged that the builder failed to complete interior works, did not obtain a Completion or Occupancy Certificate, and collected excess possession charges, seeking

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusAVTAR CHAND ETC. ETC.

2019 INSC 22519 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Skilled workers at the Western Base Workshop, GREF, Pathankot alleged that they were paid less than the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. They filed applications under Section 20(3) of the Act, and the Specified Authority ordered the Union of India to pay each worker the wage shortfall of Rs.4

SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICESversusUNION OF INDIA

2016 INSC 43318 May 2016Disposed off

Private tour operators (PTOs) filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India to accept their applications for registration as PTOs for the 2016‑17 Hajj tours and to grant them a right of first registration. The petitioners feared that their pending applications would be rejected w

RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR @ DULAL KARMAKARversusHARI SHANKAR DAS

2019 INSC 54218 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, which the trial court dismissed. The first appeal was allowed, overturning the trial court's decision. The defendant then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, and the High Court set aside the first appellate j

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.versusRAFIQUNNISA M. KHALIFA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR MR. MOHD. MUQUEEN QURESHI & ANR.

2019 INSC 22118 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Six food stall owners on Bandra Station Road were operating without permission of the Municipal Commissioner and had erected their stalls on a public sewer line, causing obstruction. The Municipal Corporation removed the stalls on 26 May 2016 under Section 314(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and the o

RAJINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 88417 December 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant Rajinder Singh was convicted for the murder of Suraj Mal and Shri Ram and for violating Section 27 of the Arms Act after a violent altercation following a Holi celebration. The incident involved a quarrel between a juvenile and another party, after which the appellant allegedly fired his licensed double‑b

BIR WATI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 76217 August 2017Disposed off

The appellants, legal representatives of a deceased landowner, sought to challenge the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after their reference application under Section 18 was dismissed as time‑barred. They argued that, despite the dismissal, they were entitled to file an application under Sect

HAMEED KUNJUversusNAZIM

2017 INSC 62317 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) owned eight shops and sought eviction of tenants, including the respondent, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of bona‑fide need. After a protracted litigation spanning more than a decade, the trial court finally passed an eviction order, which was execu

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusFIROZ KHAN @ ARIF KHAN

2016 INSC 42917 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Firoz Khan, who was charged with murdering an 11‑year‑old girl under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court had acquitted him on the basis of a benefit of doubt. The State filed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the

MAHESH JOGIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 104316 December 2014Disposed off

Mahesh Jogi was convicted for an offence committed on 20 January 1985 when he was 17 years and 4 months old. The conviction and sentence were imposed before the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Jogi qualified as a juvenile und

NAND KLSHOREversusSTATE OF M.P.

2014 INSC 104116 December 2014Case Allowed

The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for a murder committed on 18 June 1997, claimed that he was only 17 years old at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court examined documentary and oral evid

SANTOSH @ SANTOSH KUMARversusSTATE OF KERALA

2018 INSC 106916 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

Santosh Kumar was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for the illegal seizure of spirit, along with two co‑accused, and was sentenced by the Sessions Court to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment term to

VIMLA DEVI & ORS.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2018 INSC 107616 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The claimants, the wife and two minor children of a deceased bus passenger, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the insurer, driver and owner of the offending truck, seeking compensation for death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2versusM/S A.A. ESTATE PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 54416 April 2019

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed a decision of the High Court that had dismissed the appeal against an addition of Rs.1,70,94,000 made under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court complied with the mandatory procedure of section 260-A, which requires the court to fra

MANJU DEVIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2019 INSC 53816 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, mother of a woman who died in Nigeria, sought to summon Dr. I. Yusuf, the pathologist who performed the first post‑mortem, under Section 311 of the CrPC, either through the Nigerian High Commission or by video‑conferencing. The trial court rejected the application, citing the case's long pendency, and th

SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT. LTD.versusSHASHI MOHAN KAPUR (DECEASED) THR. L.R.

2019 INSC 75615 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd, a landlord, obtained a consent order on 1 June 2012 in a suit for eviction of the respondent, the legal representative of the deceased tenant. The respondent failed to vacate the suit house despite extensions and the appellant filed an execution petition. The respondent challe

MD. ALLAUDDIN KHANversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 53115 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 323, 327, 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC alleging assault and theft by the respondents, who were also parties to a pending civil landlord‑tenant dispute. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, but the High Court quashed it on the ground tha

ASHOK KUMAR MEHRA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

2019 INSC 52515 April 2019Disposed off

The father (Ashok Kumar Mehra) and son (Kushwant Kumar Mehra) were convicted of murder under IPC s.302/34 by the High Court, overturning an earlier acquittal. The son was 17 years and 5 months old at the time of the offence (born 14‑06‑1980, offence on 04‑01‑1998) and raised a plea of juvenility for the first time befo

BIHARI LALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2019 INSC 52815 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The accused persons (respondent Nos. 2‑4) were charged with offences under Sections 307, 323, 325, 336 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They contended that the two medical reports filed by the prosecution did not establish a case under Section 307, and the trial court discharged them from that cha

HARVEER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2019 INSC 39115 March 2019

Harveer Singh and another were acquitted by a Judicial Magistrate of offences under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The State appealed, and the Appellate Court convicted them on three of those sections, imposing rigorous imprisonment and fines. The convicts filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High C

SUGREEV KUMARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2019 INSC 38615 March 2019Case Partly allowed

The prosecution, in a trial for three accused under the IPC and Arms Act, sought to summon eight additional persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on a witness statement that eleven persons were involved. The trial court summoned only one of the eight and dismissed the rest; the High Court af

RAFIQ AHMEDBHAI PALIWALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2019 INSC 38415 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed a Gujarat High Court order that, under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed an FIR in part for serious offences of dacoity (IPC ss. 392, 395, 397) while upholding it for lesser offences. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its inherent powers to quash the FIR at a pr

KAIKHOSROU (CHICK) KAVASJI FRAMJIversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 37815 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of Kaihosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji, claimed ownership of a 1.52‑acre property in Pune that had been leased to the Government and later requisitioned. The Union of India, asserting title, issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking

MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.versusMANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 37615 March 2019Dismissed

The suit land in Sirsa, Haryana was subject to ceiling proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and the prescribed authority issued an order on 17 October 1978. Two separate civil suits were filed challenging the legality of that order and seeking its declaration as null and void. The High Cour

ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2019 INSC 39315 March 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, issued seven post‑dated cheques of Rs.3 lakh each to the complainant, which were later dishonoured for insufficient funds or a closed account. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the complainant had not proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt, but the High Cou

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS & ORS.

2019 INSC 38115 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The All India Trade Union Congress and affiliated unions filed a writ petition seeking regularisation and statutory benefits for casual workers employed by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in Uttarakhand. The High Court initially granted the petition and, on appeal, directed the Union of India to frame a detailed sc

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8versusM/S YES BANK LTD.

2019 INSC 39215 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Income Tax Department appealed against a High Court order that dismissed its challenge to the applicability of Section 35-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Yes Bank Ltd. The core issue was whether Yes Bank, as an industrial undertaking, could claim the deduction under Section 35-D for the assessment year 2007-2008.

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusAHSANUL GHANI

2019 INSC 20415 February 2019Dismissed

Mehboob-ur-Rehman filed a suit for specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell a house, alleging the defendant failed to obtain required land‑ceiling permission. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed, holding the plaintiff had not shown continuous readiness and willingness t

MADAN MOHANversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2017 INSC 123314 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Madan Mohan filed an application under Section 193 CrPC seeking the summoning of Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena as accused in a case already pending against two other persons. The Sessions Judge issued non‑bailable warrants against the two respondents. They filed a revision under Section 197 CrPC in the High Court, but t

ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLYM/S U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. & ANR.versusM/S U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. & ANR.

2019 INSC 90314 August 2019Remitted to Lower Court

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, demanding that the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation pay EPF contributions for 159 workers who performed loading and unloading in its godowns through contractors

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusSHIV DAYAL & ANR.

2019 INSC 90014 August 2019Remitted to Lower Court

The State of Rajasthan challenged a civil suit in which Shiv Dayal, the mining lessee, obtained a permanent injunction restraining the State from interfering with mining on land he claimed was revenue land, not forest land. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the injunction. The High Court dismissed th

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusKANSHI RAM & ORS.

2019 INSC 90614 August 2019Remitted to Lower Court

The Himachal Pradesh government acquired 18-15 bighas of land for a road project after taking possession in 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed rates based on land classification, but the Reference Court later fixed a uniform compensation of Rs 7 lakhs per bigha relying on a sale deed (Ex.PW‑1/A) of only one biswa

RAMESHWAR DASSversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2019 INSC 36614 March 2019Disposed off

The State of Punjab acquired 14.49 acres of land in nine villages for the Satluj‑Yamuna canal project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation rates, which were enhanced by the Civil Court and subsequently by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the latter relying on the lead judgment in Hari Singh v. State of Punj

CEMENT WORKERS’ MANDALversusGLOBAL CEMENTS LTD. (HMP CEMENTS LTD.) & ORS

2019 INSC 19714 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Cement Workers' Union filed a Special Civil Application (SCA) in the Gujarat High Court seeking to compel Indian Bank and Global Cements Ltd. to pay outstanding wages to workers of a cement factory in Porbandar, Gujarat, and to set aside a Debt Recovery Tribunal order that transferred sale proceeds to the bank. The

GAGAN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2019 INSC 20114 February 2019Case Partly allowed

Gagan Kumar was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two separate terms of rigorous imprisonment with fines. He appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge and then to the High Court, both of which affirmed the conviction and sentence. The s

MADHUKAR NIVRUTTI JAGTAP & ORS.versusSMT. PRAMILABAI CHANDULAL PARANDEKAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 89213 August 2019Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs entered into agreements dated 20‑09‑1965 and 28‑04‑1966 for the sale of 50 acres of agricultural land, paying part of the consideration and taking partial possession. The defendants contended that the documents were merely collateral security for a loan. The Supreme Court held that the agreements were un

NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 89513 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land owners of about six kilometres of land in Surat, Gujarat, challenged the acquisition of 131 kilometres of land for the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor, arguing that the Competent Authority failed to comply with Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 by not passing a reasoned order after the pe

AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAOversusINDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 34513 April 2017Dismissed

The plaintiff, a holder of agricultural land exceeding the ceiling prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, sold the land to the respondents on 16 July 1975, after the Act had come into force. The Land Ceiling Tribunal in 1976 declared the sale void and the land dee

P. KARUPAIAH (D) THRversusTHE GENERAL MANAGER THRUUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

2017 INSC 103512 October 2017Dismissed

P. Karupiah, a driver employed by the General Manager Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd., was dismissed after being convicted in a murder case, but was later acquitted by the High Court and reinstated. The employer refused to pay back wages for the period of dismissal, prompting the employee to file a writ petiti

ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusGOPI CHAND ATREJA

2019 INSC 34712 March 2019Dismissed

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) lost a civil suit and its first appeal, and subsequently filed a second appeal in the High Court after a delay of 1,942 days. HUDA sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arguing that its lawyer’s negligence caused the lapse. The High Court

STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTDversusM/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDING LIMITED & ORS.

2019 INSC 35512 March 2019

The State Trading Corporation of India (STC) and Global Steel Holding Ltd (GSHIL) entered into settlement agreements in 2010 and 2012 under which GSHIL was to pay interest of Rs 600 crore at 8% p.a. by 28 February 2019. The amount was paid, and STC declared that all liabilities under the settlements were fully satisfie

DILIP MANI DUBEYversusM/S SIEL LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 34512 March 2019Dismissed

The workman Dilip Mani Dubey was terminated by his employer M/S SIEL Ltd. An Industrial Tribunal under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 awarded reinstatement and back wages, holding that he had been in continuous service for one year as required by Section 6‑N. The employer challenged the award in a writ

TANUKU TALUK VILLAGE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATIONversusTANUKU MUNICIPALITY & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 34912 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tanuku Taluk Village Officers’ Association, filed two civil suits against the respondents concerning a piece of land, both of which were decreed on 14 August 1996. It also obtained a decree from the Rent Controller ordering the handover of the land, but subsequent applications and appeals led to the Seni

MUKESH CHANDversusTHE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR

2019 INSC 35412 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a consumer of electricity, was issued a bill of Rs.3,54,598.21 by BSES for alleged theft of electricity and a FIR was filed against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The parties later settled the dispute in a Special Lok Adalat, agreeing on a payment of Rs.1,60,000, and the appellant fi

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURversusM/S GOPAL SHRI SCRIPS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 35112 March 2019

The Income Tax Department appealed an assessment order, but the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous after learning that the assessee company, Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd., had been struck off the register under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The question before the Supreme Court was whet

MALA SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 18012 February 2019Case Partly allowed

Eleven accused were tried for murder under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 506/149 IPC, and the trial court convicted all of them. The High Court acquitted eight of the accused, but upheld the conviction of three appellants by altering the charge from Section 149 to Section 34 IPC, convicting them under Section 302/

C.B.I.versusPRATAP CHANDRA REDDY

2018 INSC 118611 December 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal filed by the CBI against Pratap Chandra Reddy challenging a High Court order that had held the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA) applicable to offences also punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The matter was pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

SRI PRABIN RAM PHUKAN &ANR.versusSTATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

2014 INSC 86011 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, co‑landholders of a 59‑bigha estate in Assam, failed to pay Rs 731.70 land revenue, leading the Deputy Commissioner to auction the land under Section 70 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. No proper notice of demand or sale was served on the appellants, and the auction attracted no bidders,

NARAYANA GRAMANI & ORS.versusMARIAMMAL & ORS.

2018 INSC 80211 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over a parcel of land, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The defendants appealed, first unsuccessfully, and then filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal by framing a single substantial questi

VIJAY ARJUN BHAGAT & ORS.versusNANA LAXMAN TAPKIRE & ORS.

2018 INSC 49111 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership of certain properties. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set it aside in their favour. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which admitted the second appeal and framed six substantial questions of law under Section

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRANVANCORE LTD. & ANR.versusGENERAL SECRETARY FACT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2019 INSC 51411 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Government directed the public sector undertaking FACT to reduce the retirement age of pre‑1978 employees from 60 to 58 years. Trade unions challenged the order in the Kerala High Court; the Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed the petitions and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitio

BILAL HAJAR @ ABDUL HAMEEDversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2018 INSC 94510 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant, A-6, was convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC for participating in a criminal conspiracy to murder Siva. The prosecution alleged that nine accused met at A-6's house on 1 September 1991, decided to kill Siva, and the murder was carried out on 5 September 1991 by some of the accused. The conviction re

THE CORPORATION OF MADRAS & ANR.versusM. PARTHASARATHY & ORS.

2018 INSC 68910 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed four suits for permanent injunction over a 3600 sq. ft. land parcel, which the trial court dismissed. In their first appeals they sought and were granted permission under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence, which the appellate court admitted and relied upon to set aside the trial c

VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusPREM DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2018 INSC 69210 August 2018Case Partly allowed

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of a second appeal in a civil suit on the basis of an alleged compromise, subsequently decreeing the suit. The appellants filed a review petition challenging this disposal, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not properly examined th

VILAS DINKAR BHATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2018 INSC 69110 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Vilas Dinkar Bhat, claimed that he belongs to the Thakar caste, a Scheduled Tribe, and sought a declaration to that effect. He approached the relevant Committee and the Bombay High Court, but both dismissed his claim, allegedly without considering all the documentary evidence he submitted (about 50 docum

K.S. RAJAN (D) THROUGH LRSversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2018 INSC 69310 August 2018Case Partly allowed

The case involved the acquisition of 4.30 acres of land belonging to K.S. Rajan in Kottayam, Kerala, under a 1980 notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs.4631 per cent for dry land, Rs.1725 per cent for chira land and Rs.203

MRLGANK JOHRL & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 59610 July 2017Dismissed

The appellants, junior engineers (Electrical) originally appointed in All India Radio, were deputed to the Postal Department and later opted for permanent absorption on terms that they would be deemed new recruits and their seniority would not be counted. After the seniority list was published, they challenged the excl

DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2018 INSC 9409 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a DESU employee, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000 from a complainant and to have directed the complainant to give the money to a co‑accused, who accepted it. The trial court acquitted both accused of conspiracy under Section 120‑B IPC but convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2)

R. JAYAPALversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2019 INSC 8859 August 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant R. Jayapal was convicted of murder (s.302 IPC) for stabbing the deceased Poondhaisezhiyan, who later died from a chest wound. He claimed he acted in private defence to protect his wife from the deceased, who allegedly intruded into their house with a group and attempted to assault her. The trial court rej

KARUNA KANSALversusHEMANT KANSAL & ANR.

2019 INSC 6629 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Hemant Kansal, had two wives: his first wife, who obtained an ex parte decree of dissolution, and his second wife, Karuna Kansal, the appellant. The first wife appealed the Family Court's refusal to condone the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte decr

OMANAKUTTANversusTHE STATE OF KERALA

2019 INSC 6619 May 2019Dismissed

The appellant, OMANAKUTTAN, was convicted for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by pouring acid on his neighbour, Sunil Kumar, in 1997, resulting in extensive burns and permanent disfigurement. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment and a fine, a conviction affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Sup

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2019 INSC 14139 January 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Birla Institute of Technology against the State of Jharkhand on 7 January 2019, relying on the decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer. During the hearing it emerged that Parliament had subsequently amended the definition of “employee” un

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. SUSAKA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 12038 December 2017Dismissed

The Union of India entered into a works contract with Mis. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. and, after disputes arose, the matter was referred to an arbitral tribunal which awarded damages and interest on several claims. The Union challenged the award of interest under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.versusCANARA BANK & ORS.

2019 INSC 8818 August 2019Case Partly allowed

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) entered into a bond transaction with CANFINA, a wholly‑owned subsidiary of Canara Bank, which later transferred the bonds to its parent. MTNL cancelled the bonds alleging non‑payment of consideration and sought arbitration. The parties exchanged letters and a draft arbitration agre

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6versusNOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 4768 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1999-2000, which the assessee (Nokia India) contested on the ground that it was based merely on a change of opinion. The ITAT upheld the assessee's objections, declaring the notice bad in law, and the Revenue appealed

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusSATPAL SAINI

2017 INSC 12608 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State Government to amend Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, within ninety days so that non‑agriculturist Himachalis could purchase agricultural and non‑agricultural land. The State challenged this direction, arguing that it infringed upo

SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2015 INSC 9508 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the appointment of High School Assistant (Physical Sciences) in Kerala. The appellants, who held Chemistry degrees (some with post‑graduation) and B.Ed. in Physical Sciences, were initially placed in the Service Commission’s ranking list but later had their names deleted. The High Court and Tribunal

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusK.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 7987 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had undertaken a land acquisition scheme which was later challenged by several writ petitioners. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings, prompting MUDA to file intra‑court appeals before the Division Bench. The respondents filed an

VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC.versusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2017 INSC 5957 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The State acquired about 30 acres of land in Mudhol village for a rehabilitation centre under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land owners challenged the market value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the reference court, claiming a higher rate based on sale deeds of nearby plots. The High Court re‑d

ARULMIGHU NELLUKADAI MARIAMMANversusTAMILARASI (DEAD) BY LRS.

2019 INSC 6427 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction which was decreed by the District Munsif and affirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC, which set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff challenged this on a special leave petition, arguing that the High

MANIK KUTUMversusJULIE KUTUM

2019 INSC 3327 March 2019Disposed off

The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The trial court awarded Rs.2,000 per month for the daughter but rejected the wife's claim, holding she was not the legally married wife of the husband. The wife appealed to th

SHODA DEVIversusDDU/RIPON HOSPITAL SHIMLA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 3347 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Shoda Devi, a 45‑year‑old woman from a poor rural background, was admitted to DDU Hospital for a minor gynecological procedure. A paramedic administered an intravenous injection of Phenergan directly into her right arm, causing excruciating pain that was ignored by the staff. The resulting acute arterial occlusion led

ISHA DISTRIBUTION HOUSE PVT. LTD.versusADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 3307 March 2019Directions issued

The plaintiff, Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd., filed a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court seeking declaration, damages and injunction, and applied for leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865. The defendants contested the suit's territorial jurisdiction, filing an application to revoke the lea

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2019 INSC 187 March 2019Dismissed

The Birla Institute of Technology (BIT) appealed against the State of Jharkhand and other respondents after a teacher who retired in 2001 claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The High Court had upheld the gratuity award, and BIT challenged the applicability of the Act to teachers, arguing that the

M/S ANJANEYA JEWELLERYversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 3337 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Anjaneeya Jewellery, filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others. The Presiding Member dismissed the complaint in limine under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, without giving notice to th

SUKUMARANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 3277 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sukumar, a Forest Range Officer, chased a lorry he suspected of sandalwood smuggling. The lorry occupants attacked his jeep with stones and shouted “fire them”. Sukumar fired his DBL‑gun, killing the driver. He later loaded sandalwood and a gun from the lorry and claimed he acted in private defence. He w

DEEPAK TANDON & ANR.versusRAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

2019 INSC 1597 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a house in Allahabad, filed an eviction application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide need to use the premises for their own commercial business. The Prescribed Authority and the District Judge

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2019 INSC 187 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Birla Institute of Technology (BIT) employed Respondent No.4 as an Assistant Professor from 1971 until his superannuation in 2001. He claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which BIT denied. The controlling authority allowed the claim, but the appellate authority and the High Court upheld BIT's r

MAHADEVAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2019 INSC 157 January 2019Dismissed

Mahadevappa, a police constable, was married to Rukmini Bai who died within 17 months of marriage from severe burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that Mahadevappa, an alcoholic, repeatedly demanded dowry money, ill‑treated his wife and, on 2 October 1995, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, constituting a do

MONUversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2019 INSC 247 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Monu appealed to the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court Single Judge dismissed his Section 482 application seeking quashal of a charge‑sheet filed under IPC sections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The High Court dismissed the petition with a terse order stating there was

KAMAL KUMARversusPREMLATA JOSHI & ORS.

2019 INSC 167 January 2019Dismissed

Kamal Kumar filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract concerning a piece of land. The trial court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and was not entitled to a refund of earne

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusGRAM VIKAS SAMITI, SHIVDASPURA

2019 INSC 177 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Gram Vikas Samiti filed a civil suit against the State of Rajasthan seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the State from interfering with its possession of a disputed land. The trial court granted the injunction, and the State's first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The State then filed a

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERversusKUBERBHAI KANJIBHAI

2019 INSC 197 January 2019Case Partly allowed

The respondent, a daily‑wage worker in the R&B Department of the State, was terminated in 1981 after working intermittently for about two years. After a lapse of fifteen years he filed a claim before the Labour Court, which ordered his reinstatement but awarded no back wages. The State appealed; the High Court upheld t

RAGINI SINHAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 207 January 2019Dismissed

Two workers, Santosh Kumar and Hira Singh, filed claim petitions under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against their employer, Ragini Sinha, alleging non‑payment of wages for the period 1 January 1991 to 30 October 1992. The competent authority allowed the claims and imposed a penalty; the appellate authority affirmed this

SUSHIL THOMAS ABRAHAMversusM/S. SKYLINE BUILD. THR. ITS PARTNER & ORS.

2019 INSC 257 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking to be treated as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC, but the trial court rejected his application and the High Court upheld that rejection. He later filed an appeal against the trial court's decree and sought permission to file the appeal as an indigent person u

PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusM/S PAULBRO LEATHERS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 267 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, M/s Paulbro Leathers, defaulted on a loan from Punjab Financial Corporation and the parties entered into a One Time Settlement (OTS) on 1 April 2003. The High Court appointed Chartered Accountant Davinder S. Jaaj to calculate the remaining liability, but a dispute arose over the amount determined, leadi

DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 277 January 2019Dismissed

Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt Ltd was granted permission to operate as a multi‑system operator under Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 (as amended 2012). The permission was later cancelled because the Ministry of Home Affairs did not grant the required security clearance. The appellant challenged th

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.versusRAJ KUMAR

2019 INSC 287 January 2019Case Partly allowed

Raj Kumar worked as a daily‑wage beldar in the Uttarakhand PWD for about a year (June 1986‑May 1987) and was terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. After a lapse of roughly 25 years he approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement; the Labour Court awarded Rs 30,000

LAJPAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2018 INSC 11636 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Lajpat and others were charged under Sections 420, 406 and 504 of the IPC. They filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet. The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the application, relying solely on Supreme Court pronouncements about the scope of Se

STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusM/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDING LIMITED & ORS.

2018 INSC 11626 December 2018Disposed off

The State Trading Corporation (STC) entered into a tripartite agreement with Global Steel Holding Ltd. (GSHL) and Global Steel Philippines Inc. (GSPI) for the sale of steel coils, which later gave rise to settlement agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. GSHL and GSPI defaulted on the settlement p

NASIRUDDIN & ANR. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS

2017 INSC 11916 December 2017Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Meerut awarded contracts to several appellants for the collection of "Tehbazari" (a local toll) and parking fees. The appellants challenged the demand of the Collector of Stamps that the contracts be treated as leases and attract stamp duty at Rs.70 per thousand. The High Court upheld the C

BALWANT VITHAL KADAMversusSUNIL BABURAOI KADAM

2017 INSC 11705 December 2017Dismissed

The respondent sued the appellants for specific performance of two agreements to sell a share of land, having paid earnest money but no deed was executed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside that decree and ordered specific performance. The appellants appealed, arguing that the a

REVANASIDDAYYAversusGANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11715 December 2017Disposed off

The appellant purchased land from the original owner, Veerabasayya, and was given possession after paying earnest money, but the owner died before the sale deed was executed. The respondents, as legal heirs, sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, and the trial court declared them owners but denied possessi

LALIT YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2018 INSC 5855 July 2018Dismissed

The petitioner was convicted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court for offences under Sections 376 and 342 of the IPC. In both judgments, the victim (PW‑2) was named throughout, which the Supreme Court held to be inconsistent with Section 228‑A of the IPC that protects the identity of rape victims. The Cour

THE NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS (I) PVT. LTD.versusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & PRESIDENT DISTRICT SPORTS COMPLEX EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

2017 INSC 5905 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Navnirman Development Consultants, was awarded a contract to construct a sports complex for a government agency, completed the work, but was not paid for its bills. The parties' agreement contained an arbitration clause, and when the respondent failed to constitute an arbitral tribunal, the appellant inv

RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusN. MADHAVA RAO & ORS.

2019 INSC 4695 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs (sons of a co‑sharer) sued the defendants (purchasers of the suit land from another co‑sharer) for a perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The High Court revers

KAKADIA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) & ANR.

2019 INSC 3165 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Kakadia Builders Pvt. Ltd. and its promoter filed settlement applications before the Income Tax Settlement Commission while assessment proceedings were pending. The Commission, on 11 August 2000, added tax and waived interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C, but both the assessee and the Revenue filed rectification

AMBI RAMversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019 INSC 1425 February 2019Case Partly allowed

Ambi Ram, a Patwari in Uttarakhand, accepted a bribe of Rs.1,200 in 1985 and was caught in a sting operation. He was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 161 of the IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000, with an additional three

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. SARVESH

2019 INSC 1475 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (the Authority) appealed a civil suit decree against it, but its first appeal was dismissed in default when its counsel failed to appear. The Authority sought restoration of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the appellate court refused and

EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusVENUS ALLOY PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 1435 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) observed that Venus Alloy Pvt. Ltd., though covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, had not paid ESI contributions on the remuneration paid to its directors. ESIC issued an order on 6 April 2005 directing the company to make the contribution, which the c

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