Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

AMITAVA ROY

12 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2017 INSC 115528 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were originally charged under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506. Two years later, following a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the Commission directed the police to add an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, resulting in a supplementary charge‑

VENUversusPONNUSAMY REDDIAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2017 INSC 40327 April 2017Dismissed

Venu filed a suit for partition against Ponnusamy Reddiar and obtained a preliminary decree on 23 November 1959. Thirty years later, on 3 October 1989, Venu applied for the appointment of a court commissioner to execute the preliminary decree. The appellant argued that the application was barred by the three‑year limit

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS.versusK. BALU AND ANR.

2018 INSC 18823 February 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered applications by the States of Mizoram and Assam seeking exemption from the 500‑metre distance requirement for liquor outlets imposed by its earlier judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu. The Court had previously exempted Meghalaya, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh on the ground of their hi

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORSversusK. BALU AND ANR.

2018 INSC 18823 February 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to interpret paragraph 7 of its 11 July 2017 order, which dealt with prohibiting the sale of liquor along highways but clarified that it did not apply to licensed establishments within municipal areas. The petitioners sought a further clarification to determine whether the same principle sho

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS.versusK. BALU AND ANR.

2018 INSC 18823 February 2018Directions issued

The State of Himachal Pradesh filed a petition seeking the same liquor‑sale concession that the Supreme Court had granted to the State of Uttarakhand for its hilly districts. The Court noted its earlier order of 31 March 2017, which limited Himachal Pradesh’s exemption to areas with local bodies of population not excee

JASWINDER KAUR (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH .versusGURMEET SINGH AND ORS

2017 INSC 128018 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase 10.75 acres of land, paying earnest money of Rs.50,000 and an advance of Rs.14,50,000, but failed to arrange the balance consideration and were not ready to perform their part of the contract. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit for speci

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWALAversusGENERAL MANAGER-II & APPOINTING AUTH. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 84217 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Pawan Kumaragarwala, a bank officer, was charged with misconduct for allegedly influencing a loan application and helping a borrower obtain a second loan from another SBI branch without disclosing an existing loan. A disciplinary enquiry found several charges proved and imposed dismissal. The High Court Single Judge se

ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 88912 September 2017Disposed off

The Royal Medical Trust, which runs Kerala Medical College, applied for a Letter of Permission (LOP) to admit 150 MBBS students for the 2017‑18 academic year. After a surprise inspection by the Medical Council of India (MCI) revealed several deficiencies, the Central Government barred the college from admissions and au

COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 6911 January 2017Dismissed

The petitioners, Common Cause and others, sought a court‑ordered Special Investigation Team to probe alleged hawala transactions and cash seizures involving the Aditya Birla and Sahara groups, relying on documents seized in raids such as loose sheets, pen‑drives and laptop data. The respondents opposed, contending that

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

IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 1016 February 2018Disposed off

IQ City Foundation, a medical college, applied for renewal of its permission under Section 10‑A of the Medical Council Act, 1956 to admit 150 MBBS students for the 2017‑18 academic year. The Medical Council of India (MCI) inspection and the subsequent Hearing Committee found a faculty deficiency of 15.9% and a resident

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