Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

ARAVIND KUMAR

26 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARYversusMARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS.

2024 INSC 8831 January 2024Dismissed

The Government of Goa filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against Maria Julieta D’Souza, which the trial court dismissed for lack of a clear title document and alleged limitation. The High Court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiff's predecessor’s title was established through deeds and co

VEENA GUPTA & ANRversusCENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS.

2024 INSC 8930 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued an ex parte suo motu order holding the appellants guilty of environmental violations and directing compensation, without issuing any notice to the project proponent. A review petition filed by appellant No.2, alleging denial of a hearing, was dismissed by the NGT. The Supreme Co

SMT. BHAGWATI DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 105129 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bhagwati Devi, a mother‑in‑law, was convicted under Section 498‑A IPC for allegedly subjecting her daughter‑in‑law to dowry‑related cruelty that led to the latter's suicide by hanging. The trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction based primarily on the testimony of the deceased's

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14versusJASJIT SINGH

2023 INSC 88226 September 2023Dismissed

The Delhi High Court had ordered notices to be issued to a third‑party assessee after documents belonging to him were seized in a search of another entity's premises. The third‑party argued that the six‑year period for filing returns should commence from the date the seized materials were handed over to his Assessing O

OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS.versusPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS.

2024 INSC 9324 January 2024Dismissed

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration in 1982 alleging that their father had illegally sold family property in 1980. The suit was dismissed for default because the petitioners failed to pay the process fee for serving notice, and subsequent applications for restoration of the suit and the revision petition were

IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 5924 January 2024Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the challenge by the Goa Foundation to the criteria adopted by the State of Goa for identifying private forest land, specifically the canopy density threshold of 0.4 and a minimum area of 5 hectares. The Court traced the historical development of these criteria from the 1991 guidelines, the 1

MANMOHAN GOPALversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

2023 INSC 95320 October 2023Disposed off

The daughter‑in‑law (R2) filed applications seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance from her father‑in‑law, Manmohan Gopal, after her husband Varun Gopal abandoned her and obtained a foreign divorce. The Supreme Court noted that the father‑in‑law and the husband had repeatedly defied earlier

AMOD KUMAR KANTHversusASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ANR.

2023 INSC 39720 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Deputy Commissioner of Police and licensing officer, ordered the removal of extra seats in the Uphaar cinema in 1979‑80 following a revocation of a prior notification. After the 1997 fire that killed 59 people, the CBI filed a closure report finding no criminal act by the appellant, which the ma

M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 103219 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd., exported corn starch and filed 54 shipping bills between July and October 2017 under the Foreign Trade Policy. Due to a clerical omission by its customs broker, the declaration of intent to claim the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) was entered as “No”

SEBIL ELANJIMPALLYversusTHE STATE OF ODISHA

2023 INSC 55718 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sebil Elanjimpally, was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and had been in judicial custody for nearly three years. He applied for bail for the second time, but the High Court rejected the application, stating that a co‑accused who had been released on bail had failed to surrender. The ap

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERSversusDINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 107014 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the eligibility of Dinesh Singh for inclusion in Register A‑1 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) under Rule 9 of the 2008 Rules. The State argued that the cut‑off date of 1 November 2018 applied uniformly to all eligibility criteria, including the condition that a candidate must not b

SAGARversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2026 INSC 69213 July 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a minor of 16½ years at the time, was charged with murder (IPC s.302) and related offences. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment under JJ Act 2015 s.15 and ordered that the case be transferred to the Children’s Court as an adult trial under s.18(3). The Children’s Court tri

ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS

2024 INSC 3612 January 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction over a property, alleging an oral gift, while the defendants contested the suit's maintainability under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court, ignoring the written statement of one defendant and the pending jurisdictional objecti

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusYOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 3011 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh prepared a draft development plan for the Shimla Planning Area under the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977, which was stayed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2014 and again in 2022. The State challenged the NGT orders before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while th

RAJESH JAINversusAJAY SINGH

2023 INSC 8889 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Rajesh Jain alleged that he had advanced loans to Ajay Singh, who later issued a post‑dated cheque for repayment that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Jain filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the trial court acquitted Singh and the High Court upheld the acquittal. The Sup

RAJNI AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 12018 October 2025

The deceased, Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik, purchased a second‑class ticket for travel from Indore to Ujjain on 19 May 2017 but was allegedly pushed out of the moving train due to overcrowding, sustaining fatal head injuries. His widow and minor son filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation

M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

2025 INSC 12028 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Aroush Motors, sued Anvita Auto Tech Works for recovery of monies after terminating a dealership agreement. The defendant failed to file its written statement within the statutory 120‑day period and sought multiple extensions, eventually filing the statement

NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWALversusE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 948 February 2024Dismissed

The Bank of Rajasthan complained that the audit firm Ramesh C. Agrawal & Co. failed to flag suspicious transactions, leading the Director (Discipline) to give a prima facie opinion that the appellant was not guilty of professional misconduct. The Board of Discipline disagreed and, relying on Rule 9(3)(b) of the 2007 Ru

GURWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 927 February 2024Dismissed

The appellant, Gurwinder Singh, was arrested along with co‑accused for alleged involvement in a terrorist module of the banned organization ‘Sikhs for Justice’, including raising funds, conspiracy and attempts to procure weapons. The investigation, taken over by the NIA, resulted in charges under the UAPA, IPC and Arms

NADEEM AHAMEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2025 INSC 9935 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Nadee m Ahamed was seized with approximately 125 g of heroin while a co‑accused was found with about 130 g, leading the trial court to treat the combined 255 g as a commercial quantity and convict both under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the

GULFISHA FATIMAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2026 INSC 25 January 2026Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined bail applications of several accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It balanced the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 against the statutory bail restriction in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, considering the length of pre‑trial de

ADANI POWER LTD. & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2026 INSC 15 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

Adani Power Ltd., operating a coal‑based power plant in the Mundra SEZ, challenged the levy of customs duty on electricity exported from its SEZ unit to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under several notifications issued between 2010 and 2016. The Gujarat High Court, in a 2015 judgment, held that no lawful charging event

BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJUversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 9344 August 2025Dismissed

The father was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his ten‑year‑old daughter. The trial court, relying on the victim's testimony, corroboration from her elder sister, and forensic DNA evidence, sentenced him to life imp

P. SURESHversusD.KALAIVANI & ORS

2026 INSC 1213 February 2026Case Allowed

The appellant, P. Suresh, filed a suit for permanent injunction over disputed land before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. The defendants contested the title and alleged the plaintiff's documents were forged, seeking to have the plaint struck off. The High Court of Madras, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction unde

SHANKARversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2024 INSC 3662 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Shankar and Vishal, were named in an FIR for the murder of Vijay Singh based solely on the mother’s (PW‑1) suspicion arising from a long‑standing family enmity. PW‑1 later clarified in her Section 161 statement and during trial that the names were included falsely and that she was not an eyewitness. No

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS.versusSURESH CHAND AND ANR.

2025 INSC 10591 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property on the basis of an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a receipt of consideration, an affidavit and a registered will executed by his father, Kundan Lal. The trial court and High Court had upheld his claim, but the Supreme Court examined whether these document

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