Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

K V VISWANATHAN

28 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

M/S MOTILAL AGARWALAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2025 INSC 106228 August 2025Dismissed

The dispute concerned an arbitral award dated 12 November 2013 in favour of M/s Motilal Agarwala against the State of West Bengal. The State sought to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filing the application on 20 March 2014, arguing that it had only become aware of the

MANOJ TEJRAJ JAINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 109028 August 2025Disposed off

The case arose from a raid on a godown in Ahmedabad where 55 boxes containing 1,364 kg of ephedrine, a controlled substance under the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order 2013, were seized. Four appellants were convicted under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act based largely on the confessional statement o

GOUR ACHARJEversusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.

2026 INSC 53525 May 2026Dismissed

The appellant, Gour Acharjee, was convicted for the murder of his wife Soma Acharjee, who died after being subjected to severe dowry-related torture. The prosecution alleged that Soma was beaten, sustaining head and chest injuries, and subsequently hanged to simulate suicide, while the defence claimed a voluntary suici

M. VENKATESWARANversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 10623 January 2025Case Partly allowed

M. Venkateswaran was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for demanding gold sovereigns and harassing his wife‑de‑facto complainant. The trial court sentenced him to three years imprisonment and a fine, which the Madras High Court modified to two years imprisonment under Se

NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 113522 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka alleged that a police constable (A1) borrowed money from a fellow police officer who later demanded repayment, leading A1's wife (A2) to invite the victim to their home and murder him with two choppers. The trial court convicted A2, A3 and A4 under Section 302 read with Section 34, while acquitti

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMIR USMAN @ ARA @ MIR USMAN ALI

2025 INSC 115522 September 2025Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a Special Leave Petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Mir Usman, in a rape case, alleging that the trial court had adjourned the victim's examination for four months after she fell ill, thereby conducting the trial piecemeal. The Supreme Court exam

SANJAY COLAROversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2025 INSC 68621 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Sanjay Colaro, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for causing a fatal road accident by rash driving. He was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine, which he appealed through the criminal appellate hierarchy up to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that, given the l

SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDERversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 83620 September 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a substitute teacher appointed in 1989, sought to be absorbed as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section and to receive continuity of service. The High Court had denied both reliefs. The Supreme Court held that his claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher was barred by constructive res j

GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusSANDEEP GURAV

2025 INSC 102119 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Geojit Financial Services Ltd. filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the three‑month limitation period began on the date the award was received because the appellant's earlier applicati

JENNIFER MESSIASversusLEONARD G LOBO

2026 INSC 50218 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Jennifer Messias, sought partition and separate possession of a flat jointly owned with the deceased husband. The trial court issued a decree on 13 April 2012 that declared the parties' shares, awarded possession and mesne profits to the appellant, and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to effect partiti

SHAHED KAMAL & ORS.versusM/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 50217 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Homebuyers dissatisfied with the services of a builder erected a public banner listing various grievances, which the builder claimed was defamatory and filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants argued that the banner was a peaceful protest made in good faith to protect

M/S TORINO LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 84915 July 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., challenged the EPF authorities' decision to treat it as part of its sister company, Vindas Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The authorities had clubbed the two entities based on common

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2026 INSC 67913 July 2026Dismissed

The petitioners, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and a shareholder, challenged the constitutional validity of the explanations appended to Rule 38 of the 2016 Minerals Concession Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, which require that royalty, District Mineral Foundation (DM

ZUBAIR. PversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2026 INSC 15113 February 2026Dismissed

The appellant, Zubair P, a teacher with BA and MA in Economics and a B.Ed. in Social Sciences, had passed the State Eligibility Test (SET) in Malayalam and was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) on 15 July 2021. The State of Kerala and other respondents objected, contending that the Kerala Educati

K. RAJAIAHversusTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

2026 INSC 14211 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

K. Rajaiah, a court attender, was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry concluded that he had fabricated a handwritten medical certificate to justify his unauthorized absence from 3‑8‑2017 to 7‑8‑2017. The inquiry relied on the testimony of Dr. Bommaraveni, who denied issuing the certificate and alleged it was fabrica

NAUSHEY ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2025 INSC 18210 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, residents of Barwara Khas village, were charged in 1991 with offences including Section 307 IPC for allegedly assaulting Mahmood with lathis and iron bars, leading to a fracture of his finger. After a police closure report deeming the complaint false, the trial court summoned the appellants, and the cas

SANJIT SAHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2023 INSC 10859 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

Sanjit Saha and Anil Saha, convicted under IPC 376(2)(g) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) together with an application for exemption from surrender. The Chamber Judge rejected the exemption, gave them six weeks to surrender and later two weeks to file surrende

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR.versusAMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2025 INSC 11907 October 2025Disposed off

Lifestyle Equities sued Amazon Technologies for alleged trademark infringement and obtained a money decree of Rs.336.02 crore. Amazon appealed and sought a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the CPC without depositing the decretal amount. The Delhi High Court granted an unconditional stay, prompting

NILESH BABURAO GITTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 11917 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nilesh Baburao Gitte, was convicted of murdering his mother, Sunanda Gitte, under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged recovery of a nylon rope, post‑mortem findings of strangulation marks, and a purported motive of property gain. The Supreme Court

SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS.versusBAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS.

2024 INSC 907 February 2024Dismissed

The case concerned Sudhir Vilas Kalel (Appellant No.1), who was elected to a reserved OBC seat in Jambulani Gram Panchayat but failed to obtain a Validity Certificate for his caste certificate within the statutory twelve‑month period, leading to his automatic disqualification. He later obtained the certificate after re

MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDUversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026 INSC 367 January 2026

The case arose from a murder investigation where the FIR named nine persons, but the police filed a charge sheet against only three, filing a closure report for the remaining six. Based on oral eyewitness testimony, the first informant applied under Section 319 CrPC to have the six dropped co-accused added as accused;

ASHOK KUMAR MEWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2023 INSC 10925 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Kumar Mewari, a Pointsman in the West Central Railway, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 18 June 2013, conditioning his retirement on the compassionate appointment of his son, Mukesh Mewari, as per Railway Board Circular dated 14 June 2006. The Railway authorities accepted his retirement but

M/S EMINENT COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusRAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.

2026 INSC 1164 February 2026Disposed off

The appellant, a construction contractor, entered into a contract with the Rajasthan Housing Board for the construction of houses and later claimed non‑payment of escalation costs. Clause 23 of the contract provided for a Standing Committee to settle disputes, but the Board failed to constitute such a committee, prompt

ANKHIM HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusZAVERI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2026 INSC 1374 February 2026Disposed off

The parties, Ankhim Holdings and Zaveri Construction, formed a partnership to develop an SRA project and later fell into dispute. The Bombay High Court appointed an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve the dispute. While arbitration was pending, the respondent was admitted to corporate

KASHMIRI LAL SHARMAversusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 4722 April 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a permanently locomotor‑disabled electrician employed by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board since 1985, was scheduled to retire on 30 September 2018 at age 58. An Office Memorandum dated 29 March 2013 had extended the superannuation age to 60 years for physically disabled employees, but only for th

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