Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

B V NAGARATHNA

127 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

URMILA DEVI & OTHERSversusBALRAM & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 91531 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, daughters‑in‑law of a deceased landowner, obtained a mutation order based on an unregistered will and later secured an ex‑parte injunction against the complainant who had purchased a share of the land from the testator's third son. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal complaint alleging conspir

MANCHU MOHAN BABUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 91631 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Manchu Mohan Babu and his son, organized a rally and dharna on 22 March 2019 to protest the state government's refusal to reimburse student fees, despite a Model Code of Conduct prohibiting such gatherings without permission. The police registered FIR No.102 of 2019 alleging offences under IPC sections

MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAOversusMADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 99130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between Madduri Venkateswara Rao and Madduri Sunanda was dissolved by a California divorce decree in 2007. After returning to India, Sunanda filed a matrimonial suit, a domestic violence case, and an FIR under sections 494 and 498A IPC against her husband and his relatives. The parties later resolved all d

SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR.versusMOODUDULA SRINIVAS

2025 INSC 12930 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. N. Usha Rani, married her first husband in 1999, separated and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2005, and subsequently married the respondent twice, the second marriage being registered. The respondent obtained a decree declaring the first marriage void and later filed a criminal revi

SUNIL SAINI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2023 INSC 71530 January 2023Disposed off

The petitioners, who were witnesses to a 2016 Jat community agitation in Haryana that involved arson and loss of life, alleged that the trial in Jhajjar was compromised by the influence of a powerful advocate, threats to witnesses, and a biased prosecuting team. They filed a transfer petition under Article 139A(2) of t

SUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWANversusSTATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS

2025 INSC 96929 July 2025Disposed off

The appellant Sukhdev Yadav was convicted of murder, kidnapping and related offences and sentenced to life imprisonment fixed at twenty years without remission, along with fines. After serving the full twenty‑year term on 9 March 2025, he sought release but the Delhi High Court had earlier denied his furlough applicati

SHARDHAMMA & ANR.versusTHE DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS.

2025 INSC 58329 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased four acres of land that had been granted to Shri Ranga in 1946-47 and was subject to a Saguvalli Chit confirming a non‑alienation clause. Shri Ranga sold the land in 1969, but in 1992 a third party, Dodda Hanumaiah, filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Sche

SHANKAR LAL SHARMAversusRAJESH KOOLWAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 20029 January 2025Disposed off

Shankar Lal Sharma, a 73‑year‑old man of limited means, filed a Special Leave Petition against Rajesh Koolwal & Ors. The Court appointed Sanchar Anand as amicus curiae, who represented the petitioner pro bono on fourteen occasions. The Court examined the duty of advocates to assist indigent litigants and the broader co

CHUNNI BAIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 57728 April 2025Case Partly allowed

Chunni Bai was convicted of murdering her two young daughters after the trial court and High Court upheld a Section 302 IPC conviction. She claimed she acted under the influence of an invisible power, asserting unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness testimony, medical autops

GASTRADE INTERNATIONALversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

2025 INSC 41128 March 2025Disposed off

The appellants imported oil from the UAE and declared it as Base Oil SN 50, but the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence re‑classified it as High Speed Diesel (HSD) and seized it. The Adjudicating Authority, CESTAT and the High Court each held the oil to be HSD, relying on three laboratory reports that tested only a por

SARITA CHOUDHARYversusHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 28928 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the termination of two women judicial officers, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, who were dismissed during their probation on the basis of low case disposal rates, adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) remarks, and pending complaints. The petitioners argued that the adverse remarks

SACHIN YALLAPPA USULKAR & ORS.versusVIJAYATA & ORS.

2025 INSC 29028 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The case arose from a motor vehicle accident on 13 January 2016 in which the deceased, Vijay Jumnalkar, was killed after his vehicle was struck by a Bolero driven at high speed. The claimants, the deceased's wife and son, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation, which the Motor Acc

RAMESH BAGHELversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS

2025 INSC 10927 January 2025Disposed off

The appellant, a third‑generation Christian, sought to bury his deceased father, a pastor, in his native village of Chhindawada where his ancestors had been interred. Villagers objected, the Gram Panchayat refused, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition, directing burial at a designated Christian cemetery in Ka

GURMEET KAURversusDEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 96726 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a District Town Planner (Enforcement), ordered the demolition of unauthorized construction at Anupama College after a show‑cause notice and a restoration order under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The college’s chairman filed a private cr

MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2024 INSC 89726 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a self‑described social worker, was accused by a woman of having a decade‑long sexual relationship with her based on false promises of marriage, leading to an FIR under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the relationship was cons

JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC

2022 INSC 87626 August 2022Disposed off

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for land acquired by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority. The High Court had fixed Rs 7,80,000 per acre (or Rs 19,85,700 per acre in one case) relying on its earlier decisions in Kapoor Singh and Surjit Singh. Those earlie

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE AND ANR.

2023 INSC 85525 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (formerly ING Vysya Bank) sought settlement of tax liabilities for several assessment years, disclosing additional lease income that had been treated as a financial transaction under RBI guidelines. The Settlement Commission, after considering the bank's cooperation and full disclosure, granted

BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTREversusRANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 89925 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee and that three cheques totalling Rs. 14 lakh were dishonoured. After summons were issued and before the complainant's cross‑examination, the appellant sought to amend the complaint t

HEM RAJversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

2023 INSC 64425 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hem Raj, owned a vehicle insured by New India Assurance and sought reimbursement of INR 10,36,500 for death, funeral, and medical expenses arising from a road accident in Nepal. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Commission ordered the insurer to pay the claimed amounts, but the

AMOL BHAGWAN NEHULversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 78225 May 2025

The appellant, a 25‑year‑old student, was charged under IPC sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 for allegedly forcing sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage. The complainant, a previously married woman with a four‑year‑old child, claimed the appellant entered her house and had sexual relations after assuring

MAHAVEER SHARMAversusEXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 26825 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Mahaveer Sharma claimed death benefits under a life insurance policy taken by his father, Ramkaran Sharma, from Exide Life Insurance. The insurer repudiated the claim alleging that the father had materially suppressed information by not disclosing other existing life insurance policies at the time of prop

ANUKUL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2025 INSC 115324 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Anukul Singh, challenged a FIR and charge sheet filed under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC alleging cheating and forgery arising from a dispute over a loan and property ownership. He contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure linked to a civil dispute over land possession and that the complainant ha

M/S U.P. ASBESTOS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

2025 INSC 115424 September 2025

The Rajasthan government issued Notification S.O.377 on 9 March 2007, exempting VAT on asbestos cement sheets and bricks containing at least 25% fly ash, provided the dealer began commercial production in the state by 31‑December‑2006 and the exemption lasted until 23‑January‑2010 (later extended). The appellants, manu

SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWALversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER

2023 INSC 76424 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a leaseholder of a Delhi parcel, obtained a decree for possession against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) after the lease expired. While attempting to execute the decree, the MCD resisted, citing encroachment and pending land‑acquisition proceedings, leading the Executing Court to declare the de

ROHIT BISHNOIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

2023 INSC 64224 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves an alleged honour killing where the victim, Vikash Panwar, was shot dead by three accused who were related to his live-in partner. The accused were charged under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to all three accused in

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC

2023 INSC 109024 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking clarification of paragraph 51 of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 27 March 2023 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 701‑702 of 2020, which had upheld a default bail order granted by the Bombay High Court under proviso (a)(ii) of Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Court exami

SUNEETI TOTEJAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 26724 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior BIS officer deputed as Director of FSSAI, acted as Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) investigating a sexual harassment complaint. She filed a counter‑affidavit on behalf of the complainant without the complainant’s consent, and later amended it when the complainant wis

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 74723 September 2024Case Allowed

The respondents were convicted for murder and related offences arising from an incident on 17 January 2002. After being acquitted by the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the conviction in 2022, and the accused served more than four years of imprisonment. The accused then filed a miscellaneous application claiming

GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 54523 July 2024

The case concerns a challenge to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) approval dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 for the environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11. The petitioners argued that the approval suffered from procedural abnormalities, violated the righ

REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASversusTHE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI & ANOTHER

2022 INSC 22823 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined orders issued by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court that, after disposing a petition to transfer a single land‑grabbing case, on "special mentioning" directed the transfer of 864 other cases pending in special courts to ordinary jurisdictional magistrates. The Court held that the High Co

M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAMversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

2024 INSC 5323 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Mangalam Publications, a partnership engaged in publishing, filed returns for assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 without regular books of account, citing seizure of records. The assessing officer later compared a balance sheet submitted to a bank in 1989-90 with a later balance sheet for 1993-94 and conc

NAEEM BANO ALIAS GAINDOversusMOHAMMAD RAHEES & ANR.

2024 INSC 100022 November 2024Disposed off

The appellant landlord sought relief against a tenant's revision petition under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contending that the notice of ejectment issued on 24 July 2015 was valid. The dispute centered on whether the Uttar Pradesh State amendment of 1954, which changed the notice period from fif

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHERversusASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS

2025 INSC 75722 May 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered whether assessees engaged in broadcasting television signals to subscribers are liable to pay both entertainment tax under State enactments (Entry 62, List II of the Constitution) and service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 (Entry 97, List I). The Court held that the activity of broadcastin

M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 75522 May 2025Disposed off

M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter of soybean meal, claimed a 1% All‑Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback that it had been denied after availing CENVAT benefits. The dispute centered on whether Circular No. 35/2010‑Cus dated 17 September 2010, which clarified that the customs component of the d

LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM & OTHERSversusKOHLI BROTHERS COLOUR LAB. PVT. LTD. & OTHERS

2024 INSC 13522 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the statutory vesting of enemy property in the Custodian for Enemy Property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 amounts to an expropriation that transfers ownership to the Union of India, thereby invoking Article 285's tax exemption. It held that the Custodian acts only as a trustee fo

STATE OF PUNJABversusKEWAL KRISHAN

2023 INSC 58321 June 2023Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed the High Court's acquittal of Kewal Krishan, who had been convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: the deceased was last seen with the accused on 10‑12‑1998, the body was discovered on 12‑12‑1998, an alleged extra‑judicial confession to

BANK OF BARODA & ORSversusBALJIT SINGH

2023 INSC 58421 June 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bank of Baroda sought to overturn a High Court order that had restored a trial court decree appointing the respondent, Baljit Singh, on compassionate grounds. The respondent's father, a bank employee, died in 1999 and the 1998 compassionate appointment scheme required that the family’s monthly income be l

PINKY MEENAversusTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR.

2025 INSC 75621 May 2025

Pinky Meena, a former Government Teacher, applied for and was selected as a Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. After resigning from her teaching post, she completed her probationary training but was later served a show‑cause notice and discharged on allegations of simultaneously obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed. de

SACHINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 51821 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced by the Special Court to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court and the Special Court altered the sentence to life imprisonment with a fine, leading the appellant to serve eleven years and eight months, exceeding the original term. Th

SACHINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 71621 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC for penetrative sexual assault on a four‑year‑old girl and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. In his appeal against conviction, the High Court affirmed the conviction but, finding that the trial court had overlooked aggravated provisions, issued a sh

VIPIN KUMARversusJAYDEEP & OTHERS

2025 INSC 16921 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a resident of Village Fakarhedi, challenged the appointment of Defendant No.3 as a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor, alleging that the appointment was based on a fraudulent domicile certificate. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit ex parte, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismiss

LAXMI DASversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 8621 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. Laxmi Das, mother of Babu Das, was charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetment of suicide of Souma Pal. The High Court upheld the charge against her, finding prima facie material that she had allegedly told the deceased she need not be alive. On appeal, the Supreme Court e

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

2024 INSC 88020 November 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether mobile service providers (MSPs) could claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) used in their networks. The dispute arose from conflicting decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held the towers and PFBs to be immovable property a

PRASHANTversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2024 INSC 87920 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC for an alleged forceful sexual relationship and intimidation, based on an FIR filed in 2019. The complainant claimed the appellant had threatened her and refused to marry her after a consensual relationship that began in 2017. The High Court rejected

PRIYA INDORIAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

2023 INSC 100820 November 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined applications for anticipatory bail filed by the husband and his family in a matrimonial cruelty case where the FIR was lodged in Rajasthan but the bail applications were made in Karnataka. The Court considered whether a High Court or Court of Session can grant anticipatory bail for an FIR out

M/S MAGADH SUGAR & ENERGY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2021 INSC 64820 October 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application filed under Article 226 for correction of typographical errors in its earlier judgment dated 24 September 2021 in M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar. The application sought to amend the monetary figures erroneously recorded as Rs 56 crores and Rs 6

RAVI AGRAWALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 64820 August 2024Disposed off

Ravi Agrawal filed a writ petition seeking retrospective application of the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, which allows a subscriber to discontinue payments to a Jeevan Adhar scheme upon attaining the age of 60 and to use the accumulated benefit. He argued that the amendment should a

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. BISCO LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

2024 INSC 23120 March 2024Case Partly allowed

M/s Bisco Limited imported 595 cases of second‑hand steel‑mill machinery to be stored in a notified public bonded warehouse. Because heavy rain made the warehouse inaccessible, the appellant obtained permission from the Superintendent under Section 64(d) to unload 264 cases outside the warehouse but within its factory

DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL

2024 INSC 35519 April 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, both commercial pilots, claimed to have "solemnised" their marriage on 7 July 2021 and obtained a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti, which was later used to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In reality, no Hindu rites or saptapadi were perfo

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusM. DURAISAMY

2022 INSC 43619 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M. Duraisamy, a Postal Assistant, fraudulently withdrew funds from 85 recurring deposit accounts and failed to credit deposits in 71 accounts, cheating the Post Office of Rs.16,59,065. After the fraud was discovered, he repaid the amount with interest and was subjected to a departmental enquiry, which found him guilty

MAATR SPARSH AN INITIATIVE BY AVYAAN FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 30219 February 2025Disposed off

The NGO Avyaan Foundation filed a public‑interest writ seeking a mandamus directing the Union and State governments to construct feeding and child‑care rooms in public places for nursing mothers. The petition argued that lack of such facilities infringes the fundamental rights of mothers and children, invoking Article

RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA

2024 INSC 101418 December 2024Disposed off

The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties had a brief marriage o

YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2023 INSC 65218 July 2023Dismissed

The complainant filed an FIR for offences under the IPC and later applied under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to summon several persons whose names were not on the charge‑sheet. The trial court issued a summons, which the High Court affirmed. The appellants challenged the summons, arguing that, per

GOPAL DIKSHITversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 73118 May 2025

The appellant, owner of a Delhi premises insured under a household policy, claimed loss after heavy rains in August 2016 flooded his basement, causing extensive damage to contents. The insurer rejected the claim, asserting that the damage resulted from continuous seepage, a peril not covered under the policy, and commi

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERSversusAALAMGIR & OTHERS

2025 INSC 40718 March 2025Disposed off

The State of Haryana appealed against several Punjab and Haryana High Court orders that had set aside land acquisition notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following writ petitions by land owners and subsequent purchasers. The petitioners sought relief under Section 24(2) of th

SECUNDRABAD CLUB ETC.versusC.I.T.-V ETC.

2023 INSC 73617 August 2023Dismissed

The appellants, a group of social clubs including Secunderabad Club, deposited surplus funds in various banks, some of which were corporate members of the clubs, and earned interest on those fixed deposits. The central issue was whether such interest income fell within the ambit of the principle of mutuality and theref

NAGAR PANCHAYAT MOONAK AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2022 INSC 84217 August 2022Directions issued

The petitioners, representing 25 villages affected by recurrent flooding of the Ghaggar basin, sought relief from the Supreme Court. The Court had earlier directed the Central Water Commission (CWC) to convene a meeting and ordered the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune to prepare a Mathematical Mod

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSHYAM BIHARI & OTHERS

2023 INSC 62317 July 2023Dismissed

In 1987 three police constables were alleged to have shot dead Raj Kumar Baliyan during a night patrol. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, ballistic reports and an autopsy that indicated a .12 bore weapon, not the rifles issued to the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused because the eyewitnesses co

SHAJI POULOSEversusINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 45117 May 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, chartered accountants, challenged the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India's Guidelines dated 08‑08‑2008 that capped the number of tax audits a member could undertake under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. They argued that the restriction was beyond the Council's competence, vi

ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOORversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

2024 INSC 98616 December 2024Dismissed

The petitioner was arrested in Punjab for alleged NDNDPS offences and was granted bail, which was later cancelled by the High Court after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation of related scheduled offences under the UAPA. The Central Government, invoking Section 6(5) and Section 8 of the N

C.I.T., DELHIversusBHARTI HEXACOM LTD.

2023 INSC 91716 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned Bharti Hexacom Ltd. and other telecom operators who paid a variable annual licence fee to the Department of Telecommunications under the New Telecom Policy of 1999. The issue was whether these payments were capital in nature, requiring amortisation under Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or

BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMANversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2025 INSC 79616 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Baljinder Singh, alleged that the respondents, Mandeep Singh and Narinder Kumar, attacked him and his driver with wooden sticks, leading to the driver’s death. The respondents were charged under Sections 302, 323, 34, 427, 120B (with 148 and 149 later deleted) of the IPC and sought regular bail under Sec

S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERSversusS. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 37216 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the wife and daughters of a deceased property owner, filed a second suit challenging a power of attorney and seeking injunctions, after having earlier filed a first suit for similar reliefs. The defendants moved to reject the second plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the suit was

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10versusM/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD.

2023 INSC 83415 September 2023Dismissed

The case concerned M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., a multi‑state cooperative society in India, which held a 25% share in an Omani joint‑venture (OMIFCO) and earned dividend income from it. The dividend was exempt from tax in Oman under Article 8(bis) of the Omani Company Income Tax Law and a clarification letter

ROHIT CHATURVEDIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

2026 INSC 49015 May 2026Disposed off

The petitioner, Rohit Chaturvedi, was convicted for murder under Sections 120B and 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007. After serving more than twenty‑two years, he sought premature release, which was recommended by the Uttarakhand State Government but rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs in a letter

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusCHAMAN LAL

2026 INSC 5715 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh prosecuted Chaman Lal for allegedly pouring kerosene on his wife Saro Devi and setting her on fire, leading to her death. The trial court convicted him based largely on the wife's dying declaration recorded by a Tehsildar, but the High Court acquitted him, extending the benefit of doubt du

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KSCARDBversusTHE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM AND ORS.

2023 INSC 83014 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala State Co‑operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (KSCARDB) claimed a deduction under s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for profits earned by providing credit facilities to its member co‑operative societies. The Assessing Officer held that KSCARDB was a "co‑operative bank" within the meaning

VIBHOR GARGversusNEHA

2025 INSC 82914 July 2025Case Allowed

The husband filed a divorce petition and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations with his wife as evidence, submitting memory cards, a CD and transcripts. The Family Court allowed the evidence, but the High Court set aside that order on the ground that the recordings violated the wife's right to p

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, Dhanasingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of Rs.21 lakh to the respondents who were partners of the partnership firm “Mouriya Coirs”. The respondents issued a cheque in the name of the firm which was dishonoured, prompting the appellant to serve a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.versusTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 7214 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, senior civil judges in Jharkhand, qualified the suitability test for promotion to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service but were not selected because junior judges with higher marks were placed ahead of them in a merit list. They challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, arguing th

KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 69213 September 2024

The appellants, owners of land reserved for Development Plan Roads under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, constructed the roads at their own cost, surrendered the land to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and were granted 25% transferable development rights (TDR). They later claimed the balance 75% (or 10

MATHEW ALEXANDERversusMOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR.

2023 INSC 62113 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's son was driving a Maruti Alto that collided with a gas tanker lorry, killing him and five passengers. The police filed an FIR under IPC sections 279 and 304A, but the charges against the son abated due to his death. After a further investigation, the police submitted a final report stating the accident

MANOJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2026 INSC 15213 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for allegedly possessing and diverting government‑quota cement in 1994. The prosecution relied on the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 and the Cement Control Order, 1967, but the Supreme Court

AMAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2024 INSC 104012 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Amar Sardar was convicted by a Fast Track Court for offences under Sections 376, 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence. The appellant contended that the High Court had merely reiterated the trial cour

DASARI ANIL KUMAR & ANOTHERversusTHE CHILD WELFARE PROJECT DIRECTOR & OTHERS

2025 INSC 97212 August 2025Disposed off

The appellants, who had adopted four minor girls under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, had their custody seized by police on the basis of an FIR and the children were placed under the Child Welfare Project Director. The appellants challenged the police action, arguing it was illegal and violated Articles

THIRUNAGALINGAMversusLINGESWARAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 67212 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, but the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree after the defendants stopped appearing. The defendants later obtained condonation of delay for earlier applications under Order IX Rule 13, but the Supreme Court dismissed those condonation petitions i

RAJESH CHADDHAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2025 INSC 67112 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Rajesh Chaddha was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, who claimed physical and mental torture, including a miscarriage. The High Court, exercising revisionary jurisdiction, upheld the conviction despite the

PRABHA TYAGIversusKAMLESH DEVI

2022 INSC 56312 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widow, alleged that after her husband's death she was harassed by her in‑laws and denied her stridhana, prompting her to file an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection, residence and compensation orders. The trial magistrate granted p

KAMALKISHOR SHRIGOPAL TAPARIAversusINDIA ENER-GEN PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 22312 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an independent non‑executive director of D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd., was named in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. The cheques were not signed by him and he had resigned from the board before the offences occurred. He so

HEMAVATHI AND ORS.versusV. HOMBEGOWDA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 84811 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a decree for partition of property in 2012. The defendants filed a regular appeal after a delay of 2,945 days, which the first appellate court dismissed. They then filed a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC before the Karnataka High Court, which condoned the delay, remanded the m

SUMAN MISHRA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 20311 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a husband and his in‑laws, sought to quash a FIR and charge‑sheet filed after the husband filed a divorce suit, alleging that the FIR was a retaliatory, vexatious measure. The FIR originally alleged rape under Section 376 IPC, but the charge‑sheet omitted that offence and no protest petition was filed a

DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER

2024 INSC 95310 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 deteriorated, leading the wife to file an FIR under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act alleging cruelty and dowry demands, while also implicating the husband’s parents and sisters-in-law. The appellants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory

JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 109610 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, JVRR Education Society, was accused of cheating and forgery for allegedly submitting a forged fire No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) to obtain recognition and renewal of affiliation for its college, which operated from a building 14.20 metres high. The charge sheet under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC c

S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C

2024 INSC 73210 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a wife, obtained a maintenance order of Rs.12,000 per month and Rs.1,00,000 compensation under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in 2015. The respondent husband later filed an application under Section 25 seeking to set aside that order and to recover all maintenance

MOHD. ABDUL SAMADversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 50610 July 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a Muslim husband, obtained a triple talaq and was ordered by the Family Court to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month to his divorced wife, which the High Court reduced to Rs.10,000. He appealed, arguing that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not apply to Muslim women af

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusFUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

2025 INSC 18110 February 2025Disposed off

The Union of India challenged the liability of several private companies, including Future Gaming Solutions, to pay service tax on the sale of paper and online lottery tickets for the Government of Sikkim. The High Court of Sikkim had set aside service‑tax notices issued under various amendments to the Finance Act, 199

M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR.versusSATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS

2022 INSC 17210 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents purchased land that had been subject to a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and objections were filed by the predecessor‑in‑title, Gajanand Mali. While the predecessor’s writ appeals challenging the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications (Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2009) were pendi

VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 12099 October 2025Case Allowed

The petitioners, three intending couples, had completed the embryo‑freezing stage of surrogacy in 2020‑2021, before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 25 January 2022. After the Act’s commencement, the statutory age limits (female ≤50, male ≤55) barred them from obtaining the eligibility certificat

GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 10899 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment tha

XversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 449 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to Respondent No.2, who was accused of gang‑rape, sexual assault and recording the act against a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged on 2 December 2024 and a chargesheet file

K. ARUMUGAMversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.

2024 INSC 6308 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were registered lottery dealers in Kerala, bought state lottery tickets in bulk at a discount and resold them to retailers on an outright basis, earning a profit. The Central Excise authorities directed them to obtain service‑tax registration and pay tax under the heading ‘business auxiliary service

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR.versusMYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 4848 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Mysore Sales International Ltd., a Karnataka government undertaking that manufactures and bottles arrack, was directed by the Income Tax Deputy Commissioner to collect TDS from liquor vendors (excise contractors) under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, treating the vendors as "buyers". The vendors obtained retail ven

M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC

2025 INSC 8048 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 3

ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR.

2023 INSC 1068 February 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained miscellaneous applications seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of Justice B.V. Nagarathna's judgment in W.P. (C) No.59/2013, filed by the Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim. The Court observed that substantial amendments to the original writ petition had not

BILKIS YAKUB RASOOLversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 248 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court quashed the remission orders granted by the State of Gujarat to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, who were convicted for gangrape, murder, and rioting during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Court held that the State of Gujarat was not the 'appropriate government' under Section 432(7) of the CrPC to gra

SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA

2024 INSC 5867 August 2024Dismissed

The appellant alleged that the respondent borrowed Rs. 2 lakh and issued a cheque as security, which later bounced for insufficient funds, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding contradictions in the appellant's testimony, lack of ev

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARDversusTARSEM LAL

2024 INSC 1197 February 2024

The Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) issued a 1983 advertisement reserving houses for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Chandigarh, a Union Territory (UT) where no Presidential Order under Article 342 had identified any STs. Tarsem Lal, a resident of Chandigarh for twenty years but recognized as an ST on

INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATIONversusSRI BALA & CO.

2025 INSC 427 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit in 1993 for specific performance of a 1991 sale agreement, which was rejected in 1998 for non‑payment of court fees. The plaintiff then filed a second suit in 2007 seeking the same relief, invoking Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC to avoid the effect of the earlier rejection. The defe

NHPC LTD.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY & ORS.

2023 INSC 8106 September 2023Dismissed

NHPC Ltd. provides free bus transport for its employees and their children in Himachal Pradesh. The State assessed passenger tax on this service under the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955, which the High Court had held did not apply to gratis transport. The State later enacted the Himachal Prade

EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

2023 INSC 8096 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Eva Agro Feeds Private Ltd bid the reserve price of Rs.10 crore for a corporate debtor's property in an e‑auction and was issued a certificate of winning on 20 July 2021. The liquidator cancelled the auction the next day under Clause 3(k) of the E‑Auction Process Information Document without giving any reasons, prompti

JAMNALALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 9356 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a minor rape victim appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order that suspended the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 389 of the CrPC and released him on bail. The accused had been convicted under Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of the IPC, receiving a 20‑year r

JASPAL SINGH KAURALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2025 INSC 4576 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jaspal Singh Kaural, had a consensual physical relationship with the complainant after promising to marry her and care for her children, leading her to obtain a divorce. When the appellant later refused to marry and threatened her children, the complainant filed an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The

SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD.versusM/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 4536 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. insured a single voyage of its barge Srijoy II from Mumbai to Kolkata with New India Assurance for the period 16 May‑15 June 2013, subject to a special condition that the voyage must commence and be completed before the monsoon sets in. The vessel departed on 6 June 2013, was forced to anchor d

BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 4586 April 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, a former judicial officer, was charged under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC for allegedly promising marriage to a woman who was in the midst of a divorce, subsequently having a consensual relationship and later avoiding her. The complainant claimed the appellant used his position to exploit her, whi

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGHversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2025 INSC 1546 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a Tata truck insured with National Insurance Company, suffered a fire loss on 8 June 2014 while the vehicle was covered by a valid National Permit. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the insurer to settle the claim on a non‑standard basis, relying on a prior judgment. The i

GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2025 INSC 1606 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged dowry demands, mental and physical harassment by her husband and in‑laws, and implicated the appellant Geddam Jhansi (her mother‑in‑law’s sister) and her son Geddam Sathyakama Jabali as pressurising her to obey her husband’s wishes. The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Sec

DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

2026 INSC 216 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were sub‑plot owners of a 9,303 sq m parcel in Surat that had been declared excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). The State issued a notice under s.10(5) of the ULC Act only to the original landowner, not to the appellants who were in actual possession, and subseq

GOLDEN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

2026 INSC 226 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) conducted an open auction for a 3,150‑sq‑m industrial plot, fixing a reserve price of Rs.25,600 per sq m. Golden Food Products India submitted the highest financial bid of Rs.29,500 per sq m, which was accepted as the highest bid. The GDA later cancelled the bid, citing that si

SINGRAULI SUPER THERMAL POWER STATIONversusASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY & ORS

2023 INSC 6185 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) constituted an expert committee to investigate alleged environmental violations at Singrauli thermal power plants and uploaded its report and recommendations on 15 January 2022. The NGT then passed its final order on 18 January 2022 without giving the power stations an opportunity to o

GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2025 INSC 6585 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants, Gopal Govind Lakade and another, filed a criminal application seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against them. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the application outright without issuing notice to the respondents and without providing any reasons. The appellants

SUPERTECH LIMITEDversusEMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 5994 October 2021Dismissed

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

GURUDEEP SINGHversusREGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.

2023 INSC 6174 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a High Court order directing NTPC Ltd. to complete recruitment of land oustees as Junior Mazdoors within two months of the judgment dated 17‑12‑2021. NTPC issued a fresh recruitment notification (No.1 of 2022) and cancelled the 2017 notification, leading the land oustees to file a contempt petition

GHANSHYAM SONIversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2025 INSC 8034 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ghanshyam Soni, was accused under sections 498A, 34 and 406 IPC for alleged cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, a police officer, with incidents said to have occurred in 1999. The complainant filed a complaint on 3 July 2002, leading to an FIR on 19 December 2002 and a charge‑sheet in 2004, after whic

VAIBHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 8004 June 2025Disposed off

The appellant Vaibhav was convicted for murdering his friend Mangesh under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under the Arms Act, based solely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that Mangesh accidentally shot himself with his father's service pistol, citing the bullet trajectory, lac

K.S. MEHTAversusM/S MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 3153 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, K.S. Mehta and Basant Kumar Goswami, were non‑executive directors of Blue Coast Hotels & Resorts Ltd. and were implicated in criminal complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques issued to repay an inter‑corporate deposit. They neither atte

THE KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusAMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER

2023 INSC 10651 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society sued for specific performance of a sale agreement, and the respondents were set ex‑parte, resulting in an ex‑parte decree on 15‑02‑1999. The respondents later filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of a

R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2025 INSC 6121 May 2025Disposed off

The appellants, recruited as Sub‑Inspectors of Police through direct recruitment, challenged a Government Order dated 21‑11‑2017 that granted seniority to 20% in‑service candidates over those recruited from the open market. The order retrospectively amended Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 19

M/S NARESH KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 7191 May 2025Disposed off

The Punjab government amended section 29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 in 2013, extending the time limit for tax assessment from three to six years and inserting a new sub‑section (10A). Several assessees challenged the amendment, arguing that it was prospective, violated Articles 14 and 19, contravened natur

VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS

2024 INSC 1591 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging that the sole proprietor developer failed to complete construction and pay dues under a 1996 Development Agreement. The developer died during the pendency of the case, and the legal representatives were directed by the NCDRC to both pay monetary amounts and to perform

B.N. JOHNversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 41 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, B.N. John, owned a hostel for underprivileged children and alleged that officials raided it illegally on 3 June 2015, falsely accusing him of assaulting them. An FIR was lodged under IPC s.353, and a charge‑sheet later added s.186, leading the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to take cognizance and issue

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