Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

DEEPAK GUPTA

63 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

SUDAM KISAN GAVANE (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusMANIK ANANTA SHIKKETOD (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 97729 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a decree. The High Court admitted the appeal but did not frame any substantial question of law before hearing, and only mentioned such questions in the judgment. The Supreme Court held that this procedure violates t

M. C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 28529 March 2017Directions issued

M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a ban on the sale and registration of commercial vehicles that do not meet Bharat Stage‑IV (BS‑IV) emission standards from 1 April 2017, arguing that such vehicles pose a serious health hazard. The manufacturers contended that they were entitled to sell the exis

ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusBHAVESH PABARI

2019 INSC 28928 February 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 15‑J and 15‑A to 15‑HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 in a series of appeals arising from penalties imposed on Bhavesh Pabari, Shree Radhe and other respondents for violations of SEBI regulations. The principal issue was whether the factors liste

SAMPURNA BEHRUAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 111027 November 2018Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 seeking implementation of various protective measures for children under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015. The Court noted that the Ministry of Women and Child Development was still preparing a Standard Operating Procedure (S

GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS.versusSTATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE

2019 INSC 109427 September 2019Disposed off

The case arose from a violent incident that followed a failed Panchayat meeting intended to settle a family dispute. The victim, Saroja, was attacked by several accused who were armed with sickles, an iron pipe and wooden staffs; she died from a severe head wound. The High Court convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 302

MADAN LALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2019 INSC 96327 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondents were in dispute over the allocation of water to their agricultural fields. The appellant first approached the authorities under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, but lost, and subsequently filed a suit in the civil trial court challenging the order of the appellate authority

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC.versusM/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC.

2020 INSC 37127 April 2020Dismissed

The Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) disconnected the high‑tension electricity supply to Iceberg Industries Ltd. after the company failed to pay the Annual Minimum Guarantee (AMG) and other charges, despite the company’s request for payment in instalments and a stay order from the Consumer Grievances Redressal Foru

AISHWARYA ATUL PUSALKARversusMAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2020 INSC 36927 April 2020Disposed off

Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar, the wife of respondent No.8, sought a writ directing the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to re‑house her in two flats (Nos. 601 & 602) of the redeveloped building, which she claimed as her matrimonial home. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the matter wa

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusM/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE

2020 INSC 36827 April 2020Dismissed

The Commercial Taxes Officer challenged the exemption claimed by M/s Bombay Machinery Store under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arguing that the State’s circulars imposed a 30‑day time‑limit after which goods retained by a carrier were deemed to be constructively delivered, converting the inter‑state

RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS.versusRE:

2020 INSC 37327 April 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a suo motu contempt petition filed against Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh Ojha for circulating letters containing scandalous and scurrilous allegations against two Supreme Court judges. The Court examined whether it could initiate contempt proceedings without the consent of the

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATAversusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 36727 April 2020Dismissed

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) imported plant equipment under two contracts that also included fees for basic design, engineering, and foreign supervision. The customs authorities added these fees to the assessable value of the equipment under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, treating the co

KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 108926 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined disciplinary proceedings against a district judge who was charged with granting bail without noticing a High Court order and for closing evidence in an NDPS case without ensuring witness production. The Court held that Article 235 vests control of subordinate courts in the High Courts, but di

VAISHNORANI MAHILA BACHAT GATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2019 INSC 27826 February 2019Disposed off

The petitioners challenged a 2016 Maharashtra tender for supplying ready‑to‑cook food to Anganwadi centres, alleging that the tender’s conditions – mandatory use of extrusion technology, a turnover threshold of Rs 1 crore and requirement of automated production units – were arbitrary and excluded Mahila Mandals and sel

IMRAT SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 119024 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Imrat Singh and others were convicted by the trial court and the High Court for offences under Sections 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code based primarily on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, PW‑10 and PW‑11. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statements of these witnesses and found numer

NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 107724 September 2019Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether the phrase “any property” in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes immovable property. It held that the provision confers power only to seize movable property, as the word “seize” implies taking physical custody, which is impossible for immovable assets. The Cou

STATE OF GOA & ANR.versusDR. ALVARO ALBERTO MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA

2019 INSC 107524 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa sought to enforce conversion charges on Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho de Noronha Ferreira for converting agricultural land to non‑agricultural use. The dispute centered on whether the charges should be calculated using the rates in force at the time of the application (8 March 2013) or the rates applicab

BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.versusAMIT KUMAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 117722 October 2019Disposed off

The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) allotted industrial land at subsidised rates and later, after a leaseholder transferred the land, sought to recover the unearned increase in value. The Supreme Court examined whether the authority could charge the increase based on the market (circle) rate rather

SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2019 INSC 69621 June 2019Dismissed

Silppi Constructions Contractors submitted technical bids for two government tenders but their bids were rejected on the ground that they failed to meet eligibility criteria and that adverse remarks against their sister company were taken into account. The petitioner appealed the rejection, but the appellate authority

FOUNDATION FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FORE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusTHE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION THROUGH THE MEMBER SECRETARY

2019 INSC 69521 June 2019Disposed off

The Foundation for Organizational Research and Education Fore School of Management applied to AICTE for an extension of existing seats and an increase in seats; AICTE granted the extension but rejected the increase. Despite lacking permission, the institution admitted 42 students beyond the sanctioned intake and subseq

EDUCATION PROMOTION SOCIETY FOR INDIA AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 69421 June 2019Dismissed

The Education Promotion Society for India sought a general extension of time for counselling for postgraduate medical courses, arguing that over a thousand seats were vacant across medical colleges and deemed universities. Relying on a 2017 Supreme Court order that allowed mop‑up counselling for unfilled super‑speciali

YASHITA SAHUversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2020 INSC 5820 January 2020

The Supreme Court examined a dispute where a mother, Yashita Sahu, took her US‑born daughter to India in violation of a consent order of the Norfolk Juvenile Court, which had granted shared parenting. The father filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court seeking the child's return, and the High Court ord

JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusMANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 140118 December 2019Disposed off

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) advertised the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET) to determine eligibility for lecturer appointments, requiring candidates to secure 50% in Papers I and II before attempting Paper III. The petitioner obtained the required 50% in Papers I and II but failed to meet a 60% cut‑o

BHUPINDER SINGHversusJOGINDER SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 105318 September 2019Dismissed

The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a scheme for the management of a Gurudwara, alleging it to be a public place of worship. The appellant‑defendant contended that the Gurudwara was private property owned by his father, a Mohtmim, and argued that the suit was not maintain

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPAN INDIA PARYATAN LIMITED & ANR.

2020 INSC 20118 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the High Court’s order that the entertainment duty payable by Pan India Paryatan Ltd., an amusement park, for the fourth and fifth years of operation should be 3.75% of the ticket value, calculated as 50% of the duty under Section 3(2). The Supreme Court examined the definition

DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAIversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 138717 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Meeta Sahai, a former Army Medical Corps doctor, applied for a General Medical Officer post in Bihar but was denied marks for work experience because the advertisement limited such experience to hospitals run by the Government of Bihar. She challenged this restriction, arguing that the Bihar Health Service (Appoint

COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY & ORS.versusDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

2019 INSC 104217 September 2019Disposed off

The appellants, a group of educational societies running D.A.V. colleges and schools, challenged the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005, arguing that they were not public authorities because they were NGOs not substantially financed by the government. The central issue was whether NGOs that receive sub

BANK OF BARODAversusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2020 INSC 29917 March 2020Dismissed

The Bank of Baroda sought to enforce a London decree against Kotak Mahindra Bank under Section 44A of the CPC, filing the execution petition 14 years after the decree. The trial court dismissed the petition as time‑barred, applying the 12‑year period of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court ex

EBHA ARJUN JADEJA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2019 INSC 114816 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were stopped by police in Gujarat and found in possession of prohibited firearms, leading to an FIR under the Arms Act and a concurrent charge under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The prosecution sought to add a TADA offence after obtaining sanction from the Distri

WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 114916 October 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, licensed dealers of the old grain market, sought allotment of plots in a newly created market after the old market was de‑notified. Their applications were rejected, leading to writ petitions. The Punjab High Court initially denied relief (2010) but later granted some relief (2015‑16). The appellants c

SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 103316 September 2019Dismissed

The appellant, a Judicial Magistrate, was suspended and later dismissed for passing orders favoring the clients and relatives of a lady lawyer with whom he had a close personal relationship. The Supreme Court examined whether such conduct, deemed a form of non‑monetary gratification, justified dismissal under Maharasht

SURENDRA PRASAD MISHRAversusSMT. RAMAWATI AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 91116 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

A claim petition before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) was filed with a vakalatnama signed by two advocates, Mr. R.M. Singh and Mr. D.K. Saxena. After a settlement, the MACT held that the compromise could be filed only through Mr. Singh because of a fee dispute, effectively rejecting the filing by Mr. Saxena.

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 124215 December 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined applications seeking de‑sealing of residential premises that had been sealed for non‑industrial commercial use under the Monitoring Committee's orders. The applicants, wishing to use the premises solely for residential purposes, argued that filing appeals before the statutory appellate tribun

VINAY PRAKASH SINGHversusSAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS.

2019 INSC 125115 November 2019Directions issued

The petitioner sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award of about Rs.3,500 crore against respondents who owned Fortis Healthcare. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered a status‑quo on 11 August 2017, clarified on 31 August 2017 and modified on 15 February 2018, prohibiting any change in the shareholding of Forti

H. S. YADAVversusSHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH

2019 INSC 114415 October 2019Dismissed

The State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, establishing a Rent Controller and a Rent Control Tribunal. Section 13 of the Act provides that an aggrieved party may appeal a Tribunal order directly to the Supreme Court. The petitioner challenged this provision as unconstitutional. The Court

RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONSversusI.A. NO. 68248 OF 2017

2017 INSC 95515 September 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ petition (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013) on the inhuman conditions in 1,382 Indian prisons, examined the high incidence of unnatural deaths, especially suicides, in custodial settings. Relying on the International Committee of the Red Cross guidelines, the Court

M/S. NOLA RAM DULICHAND DAL MILLS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 18614 February 2020Dismissed

The appellant, M/s Nola Ram Dulichand Dal Mills, challenged a 2009 circular that clarified exports by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) were ineligible for duty credit under the Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna scheme for 2006-07. The High Court dismissed the writ, and the Supreme Court examined whether the circular amounted

JOSE PAULO COUTINHOversusMARIA LUIZAVALENTINA PEREIRA & ANR.

2019 INSC 102913 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the succession of property belonging to a Goan domicile, Joaquim Mariano Pereira, who had bequeathed a Bombay immovable to one daughter while the other two daughters contested the applicability of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, to that property. The dispute centered on whether the Portuguese Civil

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS.versusDR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3513 January 2020Disposed off

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) took cognizance of media reports of large‑scale child trafficking in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, and sought information from the state police and the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR). The Additional Director General of Police (ADG

M. C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 3213 January 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition under Article 32, examined the severe air and water pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region, identifying stubble burning, construction and demolition activities, open waste dumping, unpaved roads, garbage burning and traffic congestion as major contributors. It held

G H MOHAN CHANDRA TAMTA (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusALI AHMAD (D) THR LRS & ORS.

2019 INSC 102312 September 2019Disposed off

The suit concerned a three‑storeyed house in Almora originally owned in equal shares by three brothers. Over time the shares were transferred, mortgaged and eventually redeemed, resulting in the appellant (Mohan Chandra Tamta) becoming the full owner. Defendants 1 and 2, who were tenants, claimed the property belonged

G H UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusWING COMMANDER S.P. RATHORE

2019 INSC 135911 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Wing Commander S.P. Rathore, an Air Force officer, retired on superannuation with a disability assessed at less than 20% and applied for a disability pension. The Armed Forces Tribunal granted the pension by applying the rounding‑off provisions of Para 7.2 of the Ministry of Defence circular. The Union of India appeale

SURINDER KAUR (D) THR. LR. JASINDERJIT SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusBAHADUR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

2019 INSC 101611 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Mohinder Kaur, predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants, agreed to sell agricultural land to Bahadur Singh, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, for Rs.5,605 with Rs.1,000 paid as earnest money. Possession was handed over to the buyer, and the agreement stipulated that if the pending litigation on the title was

M/S. GOEL GANGA DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS & ORS.CE F G H (I.A. NO.64665 OF 2019) IN

2019 INSC 101811 September 2019

The petitioners, Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt Ltd, filed an interlocutory application challenging the Supreme Court's interpretation of "built up area" under Item 8 of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14 September 2006. They argued that the Court should have considered a three‑Judge Bench d

ENVIRONMENT AND CONSUMER PROTECTION FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS .

2017 INSC 74311 August 2017Directions issued

The Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions for the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh to rehabilitate widows living in Vrindavan, citing a newspaper article that highlighted their deplorable conditions. The Court noted that widows constitute a

SHILPA MITTALversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2020 INSC 259 January 2020Disposed off

A juvenile aged between 16 and 18 was alleged to have committed homicide under IPC section 304, an offence with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment but no prescribed minimum sentence. The Juvenile Justice Board classified the offence as "heinous" and ordered the juvenile to be tried as an adult, a decision later

BALKRISHNA RAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2020 INSC 269 January 2020Dismissed

Balkrishna Ram, a candidate for armed forces service, was discharged after failing the aptitude test and height criteria. He appealed the discharge before the Allahabad High Court, and the matter proceeded to a single judge. The appellant contended that the intra‑court appeal against the single judge’s order should be

AFTARUDDIN (DEAD) REP. THR. LRS.versusRAMKRISHNA DATTA ALIAS BABUL DATTA & ORS.

2017 INSC 12028 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Aftaruddin, an under‑raiyat, allegedly executed a sale deed on 11‑Jan‑1971 transferring his suit land to Mamataj Begam, the daughter of the raiyat Sayed Jama Kazi. The deed described Aftaruddin as a raiyat, apparently to evade the prohibition under Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 whic

RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONSversus.

2017 INSC 9558 May 2018Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013, which highlighted inhuman conditions in 1,382 Indian prisons, including severe overcrowding, staff vacancies, lack of SOP for Under‑Trial Review Committees, and special concerns for women prisoners and open prisons. The Court noted a draft Standard Op

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.versusAMBER BUILDERS

2020 INSC 168 January 2020Disposed off

The State of Gujarat awarded a contract to Amber Builders for highway work, which the contractor completed but later faced a claim of defective repair and a demand for Rs.1.09 crore. The State issued a notice seeking payment, which the contractor challenged in the Gujarat High Court, leading to a writ petition that was

RAJ KUMARversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2019 INSC 11324 October 2019Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling milk whose Milk Solid Non‑Fat (MSNF) content was 7.7%, below the statutory standard of 8.5%. He argued that the delay in analysis caused a marginal shortfall, that he was denied the right under Section 13(2) to have a second sam

MOHAMMED FASRINversusSTATE REP. BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

2019 INSC 9994 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Intelligence Officer seized a Toyota Qualis carrying 7.4 kg of heroin after receiving a tip that the appellant had arranged its transport. The only evidence linking the appellant to the offence was a co‑accused’s statement that a person identified as ‘M’ from Bombay handed the heroin to a third person ‘N’, who then

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusR. THIYAGARAJAN

2020 INSC 3283 April 2020Case Partly allowed

R. Thiyagarajan, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was sent to the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) in 2008 and sought deputation and special allowances after his tenure ended in 2011. The Union of India contended that he was never on deputation because his control and pay remained wit

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusLT. COL. SAMEER SINGH

2019 INSC 13072 December 2019Dismissed

Lt. Col. Sameer Singh, an Indian Army officer, was posted to the Directorate General Quality Assurance (DGQA) and later considered for Permanent Secondment. His case was evaluated by the Quality Assurance Selection Board (QASB) in February 2016, and he was not recommended because his Technical Assessment Reports (TARs)

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 7002 August 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined a massive illegal mining scandal in Odisha involving 187 iron and manganese ore leases, many of which operated without environmental or forest clearances, exceeded mining plans, or violated statutory provisions. The Court rejected the lease‑holders' claim that the Justice M.B. Shah Commission

SATISH UKEYversusDEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR.

2019 INSC 11031 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Ukey filed a criminal complaint under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging that MLA Devendra Fadnavis concealed two criminal cases in his Form‑26 affidavit, where cognizance had been taken by the courts. The trial court dismissed the complaint, a Sessions Court remanded it for fre

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IIIversusM/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 3811 May 2020Dismissed

The assessee, M/s. Uni Products India Ltd., manufactured textile car mats and cleared them under heading 570390.90, attracting an 8% excise duty, whereas the revenue argued they should fall under heading 8708.99.00 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, attracting a 16% duty. The Commissioner issued three show‑cau

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