Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

KURIAN JOSEPH

179 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 102331 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Six accused were convicted for murder and related offences; three (1,2,4) received death sentences while the other three (3,5,6) were sentenced to life imprisonment. The State appealed for enhancement of the sentences of 3,5,6, and the Supreme Court bench dismissed the appeals of 1,2,4 and imposed death on 3,5,6. Revie

KAILASH SINGHversusTHE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MAYO COLLEGE, AJMER & ORS.

2018 INSC 77431 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the dismissal of two employees, Kailash Singh and Jeffry Jobard, from the unaided Mayo College, Ajmer. The Board of Governors terminated their services by a unanimous resolution without obtaining the Director of Education’s written consent, as required by Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non‑Government Ed

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 119731 August 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land in 1986 and an award for compensation was passed, but the compensation was never paid to the landowners. DDA paid the amount to the Land Acquisition Collector in 2002, and in December 2013 the amount was deposited in Court without interest. The issue before the Suprem

RAJA VENKATESWARLU & ANR.versusMADA VENKATA SUBBAIAB & ANR.

2017 INSC 68931 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants obtained a final decree for a permanent injunction and applied to the Execution Court for its enforcement, seeking police protection under Section 151 of the CPC. The Execution Court granted the protection, but the High Court set aside the order, holding that the application should have been filed under

MEHMOOD UL REHMANversusKHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA AND ORS.

2015 INSC 98331 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners challenged a bail warrant issued by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinagar, after the magistrate took cognizance of a complaint under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code and issued process under Section 204 of the CrPC. The High Court rejected the petition to quash the proceedings, holding that th

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusHUSAINY FAKHRUDDIN AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 8631 January 2017Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had asked the Central Bank of India not to release deposits made by respondents Husainy Fakhruddin and others until a reference was received from the CBI or a special court. The respondents filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which directed the bank to release the d

MANISH JAINversusAKANKSHA JAIN

2017 INSC 29730 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Manish Jain filed for divorce against his wife Akanksha Jain, who subsequently sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming she had no independent income. The trial court dismissed her application, but the Delhi High Court later ordered the husband to pay Rs.60,000 per month in additi

SATISH CHANDER AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS.versusSHYAM LAL OM PRAKASH, ARHTI AND ANR.

2017 INSC 27830 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The original landlord, Satish Chander Aggarwal, filed an eviction application under Section 2(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, claiming a bona‑fide requirement to expand his family business. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, but the First Appellate Authority reversed that decision, granting eviction afte

VINOD GOYAL & OTHERSversusVISHRANTI CITY RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY & OTHERS

2017 INSC 115829 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a dispute between the partners of a developer firm (MIS Sai Apartments and Infrastructure Ltd.) and the allottees of Vishranti City over who should bear external development charges, including electricity, water and sewerage, and whether those charges had been paid. The Punjab and Haryana High Cour

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusISLAMUDDIN & ORS.

2016 INSC 107829 November 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings against the petitioners had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The DDA argued that the petit

CENTRAL BANK OF LNDIAversusM. SETHUMADHAVAN & ORS.

2017 INSC 28929 March 2017Disposed off

The Central Bank of India and other nationalised banks (appellants) challenged the validity of a cut‑off date they fixed for calculating gratuity payable to retired employees (respondents) under their Regulation 46. The respondents argued that the cut‑off date, which limited the benefit of revised pay scales to retiree

VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS.versusSUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS.

2017 INSC 29029 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords filed eviction petitions under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 invoking sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv). The Rent Control Court granted eviction only on the reconstruction ground (11(4)(iv),) and the landlords appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which also allowed eviction

PUNJAB & SIND BANKversusPUNJAB BREEDERS LTD. & ANOTHER

2016 INSC 28429 March 2016Dismissed

Punjab & Sino Bank offered a One‑Time Settlement (OTS) to Punjab Breeders Ltd. for full repayment of dues of Rs 5.42 crore, subject to a three‑year lock‑in prohibiting sale of the mortgaged property and, if sold within that period, requiring the bank’s prior permission and a 50% share of any increase in fair market val

M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANRversusBIFR& ORS.

2016 INSC 10729 January 2016Dismissed

Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another filed appeals challenging a Delhi High Court order that stayed the winding‑up of the company before the BIFR. The core dispute was whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) overrides the Sick Industri

UNION OF INDIAversusNARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

2018 INSC 111428 November 2018Disposed off

The original lease of a 99‑year term on a plot in Mumbai, used for a cotton mill, later vested in a charitable trust. After the lease expired, Podar Mills occupied the premises as a protected tenant under the Bombay Rents Act. The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 vested the statutory tenancy rights in t

CHHANNU LAL VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2018 INSC 111228 November 2018Case Partly allowed

Chhanun Lal Verma was convicted of murdering three persons and attempting to murder others, and was sentenced to death and life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply the "rarest of rare" doctrine correctly, as the

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

2017 INSC 115528 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

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

GUJARAT MARITIME BOARDversusL&T INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS LTD. AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 92728 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) cancelled a Letter of Intent issued to L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (L&T) for port development and invoked a Rs 5 crore performance bank guarantee issued by Yes Bank. L&T challenged the cancellation and the invocation of the guarantee, seeking a writ to restrain GMB from

BEENA R.versusKERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

2017 INSC 68428 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the appointment of a Lower Division Typist in Kerala, where the notification required a Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Typewriting and a separate certificate in Computer Word Processing for candidates who had passed KGTE before January 2002. The appellant possessed an equivalent KGTE English Typewri

UNION OF INDIAversusNIYAZUDDIN SK & ANR.

2017 INSC 68628 July 2017Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that released two accused, Niyazuddin SK and Asif Aslam, on bail in a narcotics case involving a commercial quantity of drugs. The public prosecutor had opposed the bail application, but the High Court granted bail without addressing the special conditions

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusREENA SURI AND ORS.

2016 INSC 35228 April 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and passed awards, but the Collector did not take physical possession of the land within five years before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettl

GANDI DODDABASAPPA @ GANDHI BASAVARAJversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 126828 February 2017Dismissed

The appellant, Gandi Doddabasappa, was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for killing his daughter Shilpa, allegedly because she married a man of a lower caste. The trial court had acquitted him, dismissing the sole eyewitness testimony of PW‑18, but the High Court relied on that testimony, corroborated by forensic

ALOK KUMAR SINGH & OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

2018 INSC 110727 November 2018Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the selection process for 4,010 Sub‑Inspector and Platoon Commander posts in Uttar Pradesh, which had been marred by multiple revisions, allegations of candidates using whitener/blade, and unfilled vacancies. The Court considered whether vacancies arising from candidates who discontinued trai

GAGANDEEP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2018 INSC 110227 November 2018Leave granted

Gagandeep Singh, who was third on the merit list for the post of District Programme Officer and belongs to the Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh reserved category, sought appointment after the incumbent appointed from the same reserved vacancy resigned in 2014. The Department argued that the reserved point was exhausted once an appo

DINESH KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS. ETC.versusSOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 110327 November 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

The South East Central Railway advertised 5,798 Group‑D posts in 2010 and, per a 2008 Railway Board instruction, prepared a select list with a 20% extra replacement panel. The appellants were on this extra panel, but the Railway did not appoint any of them despite 624 vacancies remaining. The appellants sought mandamus

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2018 INSC 90427 September 2018Dismissed

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) entered into a development agreement with Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No.3), who later terminated the agreement and sought certified copies of the development plans, layouts and related documents filed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under the Right to Inform

GANDHE VIJAY KUMARversusMULJI @ MULCHAND

2017 INSC 67827 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a landlord‑tenant relationship where the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both held that the landlord satisfied the bonafide requirement under the Rent Control Act. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside those findings, stating it could re‑appreciate the evidence t

BALRAM YADAV .versusFULMANIYA YADAV

2016 INSC 34827 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Balram Yadav filed a suit in the Family Court of Ambikapur seeking a declaration that Fulmania Yadav was not his legally married wife. The Family Court decreed in his favour, declaring the marriage invalid. Fulmania Yadav appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court, which set aside the decree, holding that the Family Court

SATPAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2018 INSC 27727 March 2018Disposed off

Satpal Singh was charged under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, claiming parity with his brothers who had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court rejected his application, noting that the

MACKINTOSH BURN LIMITEDversusSARKAR AND CHOWDHURY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED

2018 INSC 26927 March 2018Disposed off

Mackintosh Burn Ltd, a public company with the Government of West Bengal as majority shareholder, refused to register the transfer of 100 shares to itself, alleging that the applicant was controlled by a competitor and that the transfer could affect the company’s interest. The respondent sought registration, and the Co

UNION OF INDIAversusBESCO LTD.

2017 INSC 27327 March 2017Dismissed

The Union of India appealed a High Court order that appointed an independent arbitrator in a dispute with BESCO Ltd. The issue was whether, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice of a High Court or a designated judge must appoint the arbitrator named in the parties' agreeme

A. T. SIVAPERUMALversusMOHAMMED HYATH (D) BY LRS.

2017 INSC 27027 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, A.T. Sivaperumal, issued a cheque of Rs.10,22,419 to the complainant, Mohammed Hyath, to discharge a loan, but the cheque was returned marked "account closed". A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed; the trial court acquitted the appellant for lack of proof, but the Kar

NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/ RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2018 INSC 100126 October 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

The appellants, former employees of United India Insurance, retired under the General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (SVRS‑2004) and claimed that they were also entitled to the notional five‑year service benefit provided under the earlier General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 199

DR. AMIT KUMARversusDR. SONILA & ORS.

2018 INSC 100726 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

Dr. Amit Kumar and Dr. Sonila, both doctors posted with the CRPF, obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in 2016 which stipulated that custody of their two minor children would vest with the father, with each parent bearing the expenses of one child. After the father was transferred to Jammu, the children were

AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.versusCHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

2018 INSC 89526 September 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

Ambala Bus Syndicate, a private operator of non‑air‑conditioned buses, obtained an inter‑state permit from Punjab and sought a counter‑signature from the Chandigarh Union Territory to operate in Chandigarh. The High Court Single Judge allowed the request, but the Division Bench reversed, holding that the 1998 Scheme (a

RAJIV DAWARversusHIGH COURT OF DELHI

2017 INSC 67226 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

An accused in an NDPS case complained that his advocate had charged exorbitant fees and withdrawn from representation, seeking a refund. The Bar Council disciplinary authority examined the complaint, absolved the advocate, and ordered a partial refund of Rs.4 lakhs. The High Court, however, convicted the advocate of cr

ITC LIMITED GURGAONversusCOMMISSIONER OF LT. (TDS) DELHI

2016 INSC 34226 April 2016

ITC Limited Gurgaon, a hotel operator, collected tips from customers and distributed them to its employees without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer treated the tips as salary, invoking Section 192 of the Income Tax Act and declared the assessee an assessee‑in‑default under Section 201. The assessees conte

NAGABHUSHANAMMAL (D) BY LRS.versusC. CHANDIKESWARAL!NGAM

2016 INSC 21326 February 2016Disposed off

Nagabhushanammal (deceased) filed a suit for partition of a family property in 1988. An earlier suit filed by her in 1962 for possession based on a settlement deed had been dismissed. The defendant argued that the 1988 suit was barred by res judicata and that his long possession amounted to adverse possession. The tria

M/S BAND BOX PRIVATE LIMITEDversusESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ANR.

2014 INSC 13825 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Band Box Private Ltd had been in possession of premises at 18/90 Connaught Circus since 26 March 1952. Punjab & Sind Bank acquired the property on 31 December 1978 and served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 15 November 1999, seeking eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unaut

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSANJEEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2017 INSC 105024 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) filed a suit in 1986 for specific performance of a sale agreement. In 2014, Kedia Construction Company (respondent No.3) filed a Chamber Summons seeking to be impleaded as Plaintiff No.3, claiming assignment of the original plaintiff's interest, and the Bombay High Court allowe

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusTHE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY & ORS.

2014 INSC 67724 September 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court was hearing the consequence proceedings arising from its earlier judgment that the allocation of coal blocks by the Screening Committee and the Government dispensation route was arbitrary and illegal. The Union of India submitted affidavits showing that 40 blocks were already producing coal and six we

RAMSINGBHAI (RAMSANGBHAI) JERAMBHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 40524 April 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Ramsingbai, filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of a judgment of the Gujarat High Court rendered under Section 54 of the Act. The central issue was whether an appellate court judgment qualifies as an "award" for the

QAMAR JAHAN AN DANOTHERversusNISAR AHMAD TYAGI AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 98024 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a consumer complaint in 2000 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging medical negligence. While respondents 1 and 2 filed replies and the appellants filed rejoinders, respondents 3 and 4 were served only in late 2009 and filed their reply in January 2010; the Comm

KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIAversusBIKRAM SINGH JARYAL

2017 INSC 7324 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Kuldeep Singh Pathania, who lost a 2012 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging irregularities in voting and postal ballots. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition on preliminary ground

UNION OF INDIAversusVIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH LRS.

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 6823 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India, as the owner of land covered by an Old Grant, issued a notice to resume a 3.398‑acre property in Landour Cantonment occupied by Vijay Krishna Uniyal, who sued for a permanent injunction claiming ownership based on a 1980 sale deed and long possession. The trial court, the first appellate court and t

GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC.versusTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC.

2016 INSC 105423 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, six workmen, were awarded compensation based on disability percentages ranging from 35% to 40% by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The insurer challenged the award under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the High Court re‑appreciated the evidence, reducing the disability to

SHARADAMMAversusMOHAMMED PYREJAN (D) THROUGH LRS. &ANR.

2015 INSC 69423 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Sharadamma filed a suit in 1998 for declaration of title and restoration of possession of a property. The suit was dismissed in 1990 and she appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, she assigned her interest to her daughter Padmavathi, who subsequently sold the property to G.R. Ramesh. The Karnataka High Court dism

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2017 INSC 79823 August 2017Disposed off

The appellants, a group of Foresters recruited under the Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non‑Ministerial) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, complained that some of their juniors received accelerated promotions to Deputy Ranger and subsequently to Forest Ranger because of postings in particular circles, thereby overtaki

MOHAMMED ZAKIRversusSHABANA & ORS.

2018 INSC 63723 July 2018Disposed off

Mohammed Zakir appealed to the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court used Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code to recall its own order dated 18‑04‑2017, deeming it "patently erroneous" and withdrawing it. The Supreme Court held that Section 362 is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes and

SUKHDEV SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2013 INSC 27523 April 2013Disposed off

The appellant, Sukhdev Singh, a Deputy Director of Training, had consistently received "Outstanding" or "Very Good" remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) but was downgraded to "Good" for the years 2000‑2001 and 2001‑2002. He contended that the downgrade, being an adverse entry, should have been communicated

MANTI DEVI & ANR.versusKISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO & ORS.

2017 INSC 26123 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Manti Devi and her son filed an eviction suit in the Munsif Court seeking possession of two katras on the ground of personal necessity, claiming to be landlords after purchasing the property. The trial court decreed eviction in their favour. The tenants appealed to the High Court in revision, which set aside the decree

BHAGIRATH AGARWALversusM/S. SIMPLEX CONCRETE & PILES (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 18823 March 2017Disposed off

The landlord (appellant) sought interest on arrears of rent after the City Civil Court ordered the tenant (respondent) to pay the arrears in ten monthly installments but denied interest. The High Court upheld that order. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, ob

HINAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 20523 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hina, applied for an allotment of a petroleum/diesel retail outlet in Kalamnuri, Maharashtra, and submitted an attested copy of a Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate as proof of age. The corporation rejected the application, insisting that only a Secondary School Leaving Certificate could be acce

DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 20423 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Dheeraj Developers Private Limited filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed of land against Dr. Om Prakash Gupta and others. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, granting specific performance solely on the basis that Exhibit P‑1, the alleged agreement, was genuine. T

RAM RATIversusMANGE RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2016 INSC 20623 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent were involved in two parallel suits concerning the same property, which were consolidated by the trial court. During the trial of one suit, a witness (PW‑I) was examined and the evidence was closed. After consolidation, the respondent filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC,

DHEERAJ MORversusHON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

2018 INSC 4623 January 2018

The petitioners challenged the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution concerning the eligibility criteria for appointment of District Judges by direct recruitment. They argued that a candidate who has completed seven years of practice as an advocate should remain eligible even if he/she is in Union or State

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHERversusMAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 89722 September 2016Disposed off

The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2003, with an award passed in 2006. No compensation was paid nor possession taken before the five‑year cut‑off preceding the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

AXIS BANKversusSBS ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 33422 April 2016Dismissed

Axis Bank appealed against the Gujarat High Court’s order allowing SBS Organics Private Limited to withdraw its appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and to get back the Rs 50 lakh pre‑deposit made under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether such a pre‑deposit constitute

K. R. BABUversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2017 INSC 97221 September 2017Dismissed

The case concerned the seniority of T. Raju, a candidate for the post of Excise Inspector, who claimed he should be advised from the 1992 rank list and receive seniority based on the next advisable vacancy. The Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, Rule 27(c) stipulates that seniority for appointments made

JASBIR SINGHversusTARASINGHAND OTHERS

2015 INSC 68421 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for forging documents to appropriate property. The trial court sentenced them to imprisonment ranging from one to three years. The High Court reduced each sentence to the period already served, relying on the respondents'

ALI MOHAMMAD BELGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF J & K

2017 INSC 24721 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants’ land in Chandapora was acquired under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1934 for the resettlement of Dal dwellers and they were awarded Rs 2,50,000 per Kanai, whereas owners of identical lands in the adjacent villages of Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora received Rs 4,00,000 per Kanai. The appellant

BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) ETC.versusBARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. ETC.

2017 INSC 24621 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Baranagore Jute Factory in liquidation was to receive compensation from the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for land acquisition. The compensation, after deduction of tax deducted at source (TDS), was to be deposited with the High Court and kept under its protection. The company’s managers later claimed

SATWANT SINGHversusMALKEET SINGH

2017 INSC 65320 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Satwant Singh, an investigating officer, arrested Malkeet Singh on a charge of murder (Section 307 IPC) after the latter had been granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The High Court had ordered that the bail protection applied only to offences listed in its order, leading to a conviction of Satwant

KARNATI RAVI& ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS & ORS.

2017 INSC 65220 July 2017Dismissed

The appellants applied for the post of Deputy Surveyor and, in the absence of any selection procedure prescribed in the service Rules, the executive issued instructions requiring a written examination and a physical endurance test. All candidates, including the appellants, participated in both components, but the appel

JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusTHE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLACE BOARD & ORS.

2016 INSC 7420 January 2016Dismissed

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. applied for registration of the mark “Blenders Pride” in India. Respondent No.4, a US‑based liquor company, opposed the application, claiming prior rights and seeking an extension of time to file its opposition. The Registrar issued a show‑cause notice under s.57(4) to delete the mark, but late

SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD.versusM/S. PRIMELLA SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 88519 September 2016Dismissed

Syscon Consultants entered into a 1985 agreement to purchase a coastal island in Goa from defendants 1‑6, who misrepresented themselves as sole owners and concealed a mortgage and a sister's pre‑emptive rights. The plaintiff paid an advance and later discharged the mortgage by paying Rs 17 lakh, but the defendants fail

SUSHIL ANSALversusSTATE THROUGH CBI

2014 INSC 16819 August 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of cinema owners Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal for negligence that caused the death of 59 persons in the Uphaar cinema fire, finding them guilty under IPC sections 304A, 337, 338 read with 36. The Court affirmed a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment for each accused. Howe

NELATUR SAMPOORNAMMA W/O SRINIVASULUREDDYversusSPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A., TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, PODALAKUR AT NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH

2017 INSC 64219 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The appellant owned 0.15 acre of land with 45 three‑year‑old pomegranate trees that were acquired under a 1990 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award fixed the market value of each tree at Rs 65 and applied a multiplier of 2, later increased to 9 by the High Court, relying on a 1992 government order.

K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERSversusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)

2017 INSC 64519 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The appellants' agricultural land was acquired for the Telugu Ganga Project in 1992 and they were initially compensated Rs 50‑70 per lime tree and Rs 32 per pomegranate tree. They obtained a modest enhancement of the tree compensation from the reference court, but sought further increase before the High Court, filing t

REJI THOMAS & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2018 INSC 37919 April 2018Disposed off

The case concerned an election to the Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank Ltd., where the petitioners challenged the exclusion of a large number of members from the voters list and the conduct of the election. The High Court, invoking its power under Article 226, extended the one‑month period prescribed by Section 69(3) o

BANARSI DASS AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 89118 December 2014Case Partly allowed

The deceased, Chander Kalan, suffered 40-45% burns after an alleged kerosene incident on 18 June 1998 and died on 4 August 1998 from septicemia. The trial court acquitted the accused of Section 3048 IPC (death caused by burns) but convicted them under Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment). The High Court reversed the acq

M/S. HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD.versusPHOOL CHAND

2018 INSC 53718 May 2018Disposed off

The case concerned whether an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court loses its jurisdiction to set aside an ex‑parte award once the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant, Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd., sought to have an ex‑parte award against workman Phool Chand recal

ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2016 INSC 19018 February 2016Disposed off

The State of Haryana acquired 46.93 acres of land in Village Fatehpur for residential and commercial development. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs.125 per square yard, arguing that similar adjoining properties had been awarded Rs.250 per square yard. The Court examined Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1

MIS RAHMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTDversusSTATE OF LJ.P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 5318 January 2016Case Partly allowed

Mis Rahman Industries Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a High Court order that mandatorily directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to refer a dispute raised by workmen to a Labour Court for adjudication. The Supreme Court examined whether such a direction infringed the Government's statutory discretion under the Industrial

MEHMOODA GULSHANversusJAVAID HUSSAIN MUNGLOO

2017 INSC 15117 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Mehmooda Gulshan, a deserted and unemployed landlord, filed a suit to evict tenant Javaid Hussain Mungloo from premises let in 1997, claiming she needed the property for her unemployed son to start a business. The trial court found a genuine need and granted eviction, but the High Court reversed, holding that the landl

RATTI RAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 18717 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

In a land acquisition case, the Supreme Court examined whether interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be denied for the period during which the reference proceedings were stayed at the appellant's instance. The trial court had refused interest for that period, reasoni

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusSANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC.

2016 INSC 115716 December 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) could be applied in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court had held that key provisions of SARFAESI were ultra‑vires Parliament because they conflicted with Sectio

SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 28516 December 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions filed by the Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association seeking reforms in the collegium system for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. Various stakeholders, including senior counsel and the Bar Council of India, submitted suggestions on transparency, eligibil

VIJAY PAL SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND

2014 INSC 87016 December 2014Case Partly allowed

The case involves the death of Saroj, a married woman, within four months of her marriage. Her father alleged that the husband, his father, brother and brother‑in‑law demanded dowry, threatened her and subsequently murdered her and attempted to burn the body. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court co

ECL FINANCE LTD.versusHARIKISHAN SHANKARJI GUDIPATI & ORS.

2017 INSC 112216 November 2017Disposed off

ECL Finance Ltd filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents had breached a consent decree dated 14 August 2015. The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court admitted the petition and issued a notice to the respondents, after which the respondents filed an intra‑court appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBABY P. P. & ORS.

2018 INSC 52516 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), a State Transport Undertaking (STU), sought to enforce a scheme notified under Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that gave it exclusive rights on the Angamaly‑Perumbavoor route, a notified route. Private operator Baby P.P. applied to the Regional Tr

NANDRAMversusM/S. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.

2016 INSC 17716 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Nandram, employed by Garware Polyester Ltd. in Aurangabad, was transferred to Pondicherry and later terminated when the company decided to close its Pondicherry unit, a decision taken at the registered office in Aurangabad. He filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Aurangabad, which the company challenged on the

JAIDEV INDER SINGHversusAMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

2016 INSC 17816 February 2016Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Jaidevinder Singh and three family members, had land acquired twice by the Amritsar Improvement Trust under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. After the first acquisition (1972) they were allotted 250 sq yds each as "local displaced persons" under the 1975 Utilisation of Land and Allotment of

SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVANversusDATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 4816 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved an alleged bribe demand recorded during a police‑run trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigating officer submitted a closure report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, which the magistrate accepted, finding no case against the appellant, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan. The High Court,

GIAN CHAND & ORS.versusGURLABH SINGH & ORS.

2015 INSC 92415 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The claimants, parents of a deceased school teacher, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation after a bus accident that killed their son. The bus driver and the transport undertaking argued that the accident resulted from a sudden mechanical failure of the belt of springs,

U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS.versusAJIT SINGH PATEL & ORS.

2018 INSC 106115 November 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

U.P. Jal Nigam (appellant) had declared the appointments of 122 candidates void on 11 August 2017, but the Allahabad High Court set aside that order, holding it violated natural justice and that the authority had not distinguished between tainted and untainted candidates. The High Court granted the appellant liberty to

IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD.versusHUBTOWN LTD.

2016 INSC 102715 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from a summary suit filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., a debenture trustee, to enforce an unconditional corporate guarantee issued by Hubtown Ltd. (formerly Ackruti City Ltd.) on behalf of its subsidiary Vinca. The plaintiff alleged defaults on debentures issued by Amazia and Rubix, while the def

SUSHILA AGGARWAL & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2020 INSC 10615 May 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Amrit Paul Singh, challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award that held Tata AIG General Insurance liable to pay compensation for a fatal road accident involving a truck that lacked a valid transport permit. The High Court affirmed the tribunal's decision, and the Supreme Court examined whether the

CHANDRAKANT ADINATH UTTUREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

2016 INSC 16715 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Chikotra irrigation project where the State of Maharashtra first notified land acquisition under Slab III for the benefitted zone and later changed to Slab I, thereby increasing the area of land to be acquired. The petitioners contended that this change required a public notice under Section 13(

ANIL KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

2017 INSC 111114 November 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by six accused, including Anil Kumar Yadav, against the cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court in a murder‑related case (Sections 302, 308 IPC read with 34 IPC). The Court held that the Sessions Court had improperly merged the framing of charges with the grant of bail in a

THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.versusJAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.

2017 INSC 111314 November 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The State of Tripura and others appealed against Jayanta Chakraborty and others, seeking a re‑examination of the M. Nagaraj judgment on the test of backwardness for SC/ST reservations. The petitioners argued that the backwardness test should not apply to SC/ST in view of the Indra Sawhney and E.V. Chinnaiah decisions,

SIVANANDAN C.T. & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF KERALA & ORS.

2017 INSC 110714 November 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners challenged the selection of District and Sessions Judges for the Kerala Higher Judicial Service in 2015, alleging that the Administrative Committee introduced a minimum cut‑off mark for the viva‑voce after the written examination and interview had been completed, contrary to the Full Court resolution of

DAMINI AND ANOTHERversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 90914 September 2017Disposed off

The widow and son of a bus driver who died after electrocution filed an application under Section IA of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 seeking compensation. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the claim, holding that the suit was time‑barred under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a two‑y

RIMA TAIPODIAversusARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

2017 INSC 91114 September 2017Dismissed

Rima Taipodia, a disabled candidate, was appointed to a Group‑B post on the basis of a 2009 disability certificate showing 50% disability, although the certificate was not issued by the State Medical Board. The recruitment rules required a minimum of 40% disability, to be verified under the Persons with Disabilities (E

UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusC.G. AJAY BABU AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 70814 August 2018Dismissed

The Union Bank of India dismissed a branch manager, C.G. Ajay Babu, for alleged misconduct and subsequently forfeited his gratuity on the ground that the misconduct involved moral turpitude. The employee challenged the forfeiture, arguing that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 forfeiture is not automatic on dismi

SIDDHARTH CHATURVEDIversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2016 INSC 26014 March 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The appellants were penalised by SEBI for alleged insider‑trading violations involving small share transactions. They contended that the penalty was excessive because the default was merely technical, with no disproportionate gain, loss, or repetitive nature, and argued that Section 15A (as amended in 2002) must be rea

SAGAR PANDURANG DHUNDAREversusKESHAV AABA PATIL AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 110213 November 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a family member of a person who encroached on Government land can be disqualified from being a member of a Gram Panchayat under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The petitioners, who were elected Panchayat members, were alleged to be beneficiaries of encroachments made by t

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGAJENDER YADAV AND ORS.

2017 INSC 61413 July 2017Disposed off

The claimant, a 37‑year‑old security officer, lost his left leg below the knee in a motor accident on 28 January 2004, resulting in 85% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 6,87,000 with interest, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs 27,14,835, inclu

TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 33213 April 2018Matter referred to larger bench

The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association challenged the amendment to Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, which allowed reservation of 50% of state‑quota seats for in‑service medical officers. The petitioners argued that such reservation exceeded the legislative competen

RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHERversusGINESH CHANDRA JAIN

2016 INSC 31713 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that a municipal survey Khatiyan was null and void. The defendants moved to frame a preliminary issue that the suit was barred by res judicata and that there was no cause of action. The trial court dismissed the suit on those grounds without formally framing any issue. T

INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHERversusBATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 31913 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Inspector of Police filed a criminal appeal after the High Court quashed proceedings against several Sub‑Registrars on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been obtained. The respondents were alleged to have conspired with stamp vendors and fabricated records to

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.versusPETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD & ORS.

2016 INSC 4613 January 2016Disposed off

GAIL (India) Ltd. denied access to its natural gas pipeline’s common carrier capacity on a ‘ship or pay’ basis, while the second respondent sought access on a ‘reasonable endeavour’ basis. The respondent filed a complaint before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB), which held that GAIL’s practice was

SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusDEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 121612 December 2017Case Allowed

The Supreme Court heard appeals against a Delhi High Court judgment that limited the benefit of a rehabilitation order to only the petitioners in a public interest litigation concerning the demolition of slum dwellers' jhuggi clusters. The petitioners sought relocation and compensation for all affected residents, whose

BHARATSING S/O GULABSINGH JAKHAD & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2017 INSC 121812 December 2017Disposed off

The appellants sought re‑determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filing an application on 31‑12‑1992 based on a 1992 award. While the award was under appeal, the Land Acquisition Collector prematurely decided the application on 25‑10‑2000. After the High Court enhanced compens

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusRAJ KUMAR JHA AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 89212 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Officers who had served in the DANIPS since 1987 were later inducted laterally into the Indian Police Service (IPS) and were granted regularisation and pay promotions. The High Court held that, following the Sixth Pay Commission Report, seniority in the IPS should be fixed on the basis of grade pay and directed amendme

ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLEversusRUKHIBEN AND ORS.

2017 INSC 33912 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord of a two‑storeyed building sought possession of a ground‑floor shop that had been let to a barber in 1958. After the original tenant died, his two sons continued occupying the premises and allegedly sub‑let part of it without permission. The landlord claimed arrears of rent for more than six months, that t

PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC.versusP. RAMASESHAIAH & ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 34012 April 2017Dismissed

The petitioners, former Reserve Sub‑Inspectors of the Andhra Pradesh Police, claimed that after being transferred to the Sub‑Inspector (Civil) grade they should be eligible for promotion to Inspector on the basis of total service of six years, including their Reserve Sub‑Inspector tenure. The State argued that the Andh

DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATELversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2018 INSC 13312 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel, was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code after his wife allegedly committed suicide by hanging. The High Court acquitted him of the 498A charge but upheld the conviction under Section 201, relying on the fact that th

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P. LTD.versusGROCERY MARKET & SHOPS BOARD & ORS.

2016 INSC 16112 February 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers Scheme, 1970 could be applied to Pepsico India Holding Ltd., which manufactures petro‑chemical products, soft drinks and bottle

L. GOWRAMMA (D) BY LR.versusSUNANDA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.

2016 INSC 4112 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a joint Hindu family of two brothers, Mahabalaiah and Thimmappa, who partitioned their property in 1940‑41. Thimmappa died leaving a widow (Gowramma) and three daughters. The widow executed a will bequeathing her share to one daughter, prompting another daughter (Sunanda) to sue for her share, claimin

THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCYversusJAMES MATHEW & ORS.

2017 INSC 60511 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, minority aided educational institutions, appointed a teacher of their choice as Headmaster, bypassing senior teachers from the same community. The Kerala High Court interfered, holding that the management could not ignore senior qualified teachers and that the National Commission's certificate of minori

STATE OF GUJARATversusJAYRAJBHAI PUNJABHAI VARU

2016 INSC 50911 July 2016Dismissed

Rekhaben, the wife of the accused, died from severe burn injuries and gave dying declarations to a police officer, an executive magistrate, and orally to her father. In the statements to the police and magistrate she identified an unknown outsider as the assailant and did not name her husband, whereas her father’s oral

K. K GUPTA & ORS.versusHIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

2018 INSC 32711 April 2018Disposed off

The appellants challenged a Himachal Pradesh High Court contempt order that held the petroleum dealers' policy guidelines, framed on 17‑02‑2014 and notified on 21‑05‑2014, to be in violation of a Supreme Court judgment dated 17‑05‑2012. The 2012 judgment had directed the parties to maintain the status quo only until su

MUKUND DEWANGANversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC.

2017 INSC 57611 February 2016Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal concerned whether a holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) must obtain a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle that falls within the LMV weight class. The Court examined the definitions of "light motor vehicle" and "transport vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the effe

STATE OF ASSAMversusRAMEN DOWARAH

2016 INSC 3811 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Assam appealed the Gauhati High Court’s order that acquitted Ramen Dowarah of rape (s.376 IPC) and reduced his murder conviction (s.302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 Part II) on the basis that the sexual intercourse was consensual and the fire‑setting was a spur‑of‑the‑moment act

SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2017 INSC 102710 October 2017

Santosh was accused under Section 408 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for receiving misappropriated food grains. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the trial court and the Nagpur High Court. After depositing the alleged amount, he obtained interim protection, but the

M/S. DURO FELGUERA, S. A.versusM/S. GANGAVARAM PORT LIMITED

2017 INSC 102610 October 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from five separate contracts and a corporate guarantee between the Spanish company Mis. Duro Felguera S.A. (and its Indian subsidiary) and Mis. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (GPL). Each contract contained its own arbitration clause, and the parties argued whether a single arbitral tr

SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 60110 September 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Sunil Damodar Gaikwad, murdered his wife and two sons and attempted to kill his daughter, later reporting the incident to police. He was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 307 and sentenced to death for the murder and life imprisonment for the attempt. The appeal centered on whether the death sentence

A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2017 INSC 73610 August 2017Dismissed

The case concerned thirty‑seven Assistant Sub‑Inspectors recruited from the Scheduled Caste/Tribe categories in 1988, who were required to pass a special test for probation under the Special Rules. The test was never conducted for over twelve years, yet the officers were provisionally promoted. The Government issued an

MUKUL SHARMAversusORION INDIA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2016 INSC 40010 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mukul Sharma, entered into a sale deed with Orion India for a specified built‑up area of a building. A dispute arose over whether the term "built‑up area" included common areas such as lifts, corridors and lobbies. Initially the plaintiff understood it to include common areas, but later raised a dispute

CHARANDAS SWAMIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2017 INSC 32210 April 2017Dismissed

The case concerns the murder of Gadadharanandji, the newly elected Chairman of the Vadtal Temple Board of Trustees, who was allegedly kidnapped, strangled and his body burnt and dumped in Rajasthan by a group of temple functionaries. The prosecution proved the accused's motive—fear of losing control over temple finance

M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTDversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS

2015 INSC 10310 February 2015Case Allowed

The case concerned a criminal prosecution of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd under Section 25U read with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for allegedly failing to implement the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board constituted under the Working Journalists Act. The High Court had held the complaint maintainable;

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS

2016 INSC 8649 September 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case involved land notified for acquisition in 1961, an award made in 1997, possession taken in 2000, and compensation that was deposited with th

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

2018 INSC 6859 August 2018Disposed off

The appellants, appointed ad‑hoc as Assistant Engineers in 1987 and regularised in 2001, challenged a seniority list that placed promotees (Junior Engineers promoted in 1995) above them, alleging that the promotions were void for lack of consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) as required

SANTHINIversusVJJAYA VENKETESH

2017 INSC 7309 August 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioner sought transfer of a divorce and child‑custody petition from the Family Court in Alappuzha, Kerala to the Family Court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The respondent argued that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Veni Nagam, the matters could be dealt with via video‑conferencing instead of transf

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusBALKAR RAM & ORS.

2013 INSC 4559 July 2013Dismissed

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that both the owner of a vehicle and the insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., were jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,24,035 as compensation for a road accident that occurred on 19‑April‑2000. The insurer appealed, contending that the insurance policy was invalid because

SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJversusNANDITA SAMIR BHARDWAJ

2017 INSC 12939 May 2017Dismissed

The husband appealed against an interim order of the Family Court that, under Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directed him to vacate the shared matrimonial house pending a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty. The wife alleged mental and physical cruelty and sought a mand

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusM/S. MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD.

2016 INSC 2539 March 2016Dismissed

The appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the deduction claimed by M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. of Rs.2,74,09,386 as subsidies (transport, interest, power, insurance) under Sections 80‑IB and 80‑IC of the Income Tax Act. The issue was whether such subsidies constitute "profits and gains derived from busin

BALWAN SINGH & ORS.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.

2016 INSC 2509 March 2016

The appellants, dispossessed of their land on 1 July 1984, sought interest for the period until the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 2 September 1993. The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions which held that while statutory interest under the Act is not payable, land o

SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 2519 March 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Shakuntala Yadav and others owned 1.48 acres of land in village Sahaul, Gurgaon, and applied for release of the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming it fell within the Lal Dora area. The High Powered Committee rejected the request, stating that possession of the land had already been taken

M/S. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 2529 March 2016Disposed off

The dispute involved Mis Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd (the developer) and the allottees regarding stamp duty liability under Sections 33 and 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in connection with a bipartite agreement between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the developer and a tripartite agreement among the State,

PRATIBHA RAMESH PATELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2016 INSC 2549 March 2016Dismissed

Petitioner Pratibha Ramesh Patel filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of sections 2, 12 and 15(a) of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, which incorporated cooperative societies within the SARFAESI regime. The sam

ALL INDIA POWER ENGINEER FEDERATION & ORS.versusSASAN POWER LTD. & ORS. ETC.

2016 INSC 11148 December 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the commercial operation date (COD) of Unit‑3 of the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 7‑8‑2007. The procurers alleged that the generator had not met the PPA’s requirement of operating at least 95% of the contracted capacity for 72 consecutive hours, and t

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAKHI TRADING PRIVATE LTD.

2018 INSC 1198 February 2018Disposed off

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued show‑cause notices to Rakhi Trading and other traders for executing synchronized buy‑sell and reverse transactions in Nifty options that consistently yielded profit for one party and loss for the other without any material change in the underlying index. The Adju

PRABHU DUTT TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 12007 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a private complaint alleging offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120B against five respondents concerning a disputed land transaction. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after reviewing the complaint, oral evidence under sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC and documentary material

MAQBOOLversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 7997 September 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

Maqbool was charged with an acid attack in which the victim sustained injuries that a medical report described as simple. He applied for discharge under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the provision applies only to grievous hurt. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court rejected his application,

RAVISH AND ANR.versusSMT. R. BHARATHI

2017 INSC 2127 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, SMT R. Bharat, claimed ownership of site No.4307 allotted by the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society and obtained an ex‑parte decree for permanent injunction after the defendants failed to appear. The defendants contended that the disputed property was actually site No.690, which they had

R. K. ARORA GENERAL MANAGER & ANR.versusM/S ACE ENTERPRISES

2018 INSC 1127 February 2018Disposed off

The Court of Small Causes, Srinagar, had issued an injunction on 22 June 2011 staying arbitration proceedings. The respondent alleged violation of this order and filed an application seeking contempt proceedings, which the trial court dismissed, finding no contempt. The High Court held that the Sub‑Judge had assumed ju

K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 227 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were awarded Rs 11,000 per cent as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. They contended that a comparable parcel of land (document A‑4) had been sold for Rs 17,250 per cent on 27‑Oct‑1986, and that this sale should be considered for e

SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDIversusLAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 11936 December 2017Case Allowed

The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit against the respondents-tenants after the ten‑year lease expired and no fresh lease was executed. The tenants continued in possession, constructed shops and sub‑let the premises to a third party, and the landlord alleged defaults in rent and municipal tax. The Supreme Court

HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS.versusKUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS.

2016 INSC 9556 October 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the definition of "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which limited it to an "adult male person". The Court held that this restriction bore no rational relation to the Act's purpose of protecting women from all forms of domestic violence a

BANK OF INDIAversusYADAV CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. AND ANR.

2017 INSC 11765 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Bank of India filed a recovery suit under the RDDBFI Act and, after auctioning the mortgaged property, appointed Yadav Consultancy Services as Court Commissioner to safeguard the property. The bank later discharged the commissioner and was directed by the Recovery Officer to continue paying his security charges, which

AJAY GUPTAversusRAJU @ RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV

2016 INSC 4995 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff was required to file a suit by 31 December 2010, the last day of the court's winter vacation. 1 January 2011, a Saturday, was a non‑working day for judges but the registry remained open. The suit was filed on 3 January 2011. The trial court and the High Court held that the filing was within the limitation

MAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATEversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2016 INSC 4925 July 2016Disposed off

Advocate Mahipal Singh Rana threatened a civil judge in Etah on two occasions, leading the Allahabad High Court to convict him of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and impose two months' imprisonment, a fine, and a ban on appearing in Etah courts until he purged the contempt. The High Court also

SUBRAYA M.N.versusVITTALA M.N. & ORS.

2016 INSC 4945 July 2016Case Partly allowed

The suit sought partition of three parcels of land that were part of the joint family of the deceased Narayana. The defendant claimed that the first two parcels had been relinquished by the plaintiffs through a village panchayat resolution and receipts, while the third parcel was his self‑acquired property. The trial c

ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMEGH SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 3835 May 2016Disposed off

The Aligarh Development Authority (ADA) initiated acquisition of land belonging to Megh Singh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invoking the emergency clause and taking possession, but no award was ever passed. Megh Singh challenged the acquisition, and the Allahabad High Court quashed the acquisition on the ground

VIJAY LATKA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2016 INSC 3745 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a land acquisition notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that despite an award being passed in 2005, they had not received any compensation. The High Court dismissed their writ petition on the ground that the award had already been passed. On appeal, the Supreme Co

ANU BHANDARIversusPRADIP BHANDARI

2018 INSC 2035 March 2018Disposed off

Anu Bhandari and Pradip Bhandari, married in 1997, had been living separately since 2011 and were involved in 23 pending civil and criminal cases. After extensive mediation, they reached an amicable settlement and filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Suprem

R.K. ROJAversusU.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 4914 July 2016

R.K. Roja was elected to the Nagiri Assembly Constituency and a respondent filed an election petition challenging her election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to have the petition rejected, first as a counter‑affidavit and later as a formal application. The High Court declined to

PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE WORKMEN OF NARENDRA & COMPANY

2016 INSC 54 January 2016Case Partly allowed

The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of workmen of Narendra & Co. with 50% back wages, but the High Court Single Judge limited back wages to January 1995, finding the industry had ceased to operate then. The Division Bench of the High Court, disagreeing, extended back wages to January 1999, reasoning that there was n

MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS UNIONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 10763 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union, challenged Rule 7(2) of the 1987 Recruitment Rules which required a graduate degree to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to Forester. While 75% of Forester vacancies are filled by seniority, the remaining 25%

STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusKANWAL NAIN SINGH

2018 INSC 2973 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Kanwal Nain Singh, an employee of State Bank of Patiala, applied for voluntary retirement under a scheme that stipulated applications were irrevocable. He attempted to withdraw his application the next day, which was denied, and he was retired. He challenged the retirement in the High Court and was allowed to continue

PURBANCHAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 2993 April 2018Disposed off

The ONGC Purbanchal Employees Association challenged a High Court Division Bench order that remitted two industrial dispute matters concerning the regularisation of contract workers back to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal had earlier awarded regularisation, an award that was upheld by a Single Judge of the Gauhat

STATE TRADING CORPN. INDIA LTD.versusNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

2016 INSC 1253 February 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the method of fixing the rateable value of lands and buildings under Section 63 of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The appellant, State Trading Corporation, argued that the High Court erred by relying on Bye‑law 12 of the old Punjab Municipal Act to assess rent, especially for

PURUSHOTHAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2015 INSC 8822 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the allotment of Civic Amenity Site No. 2 by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to Bharat Petroleum for a petrol pump. The Karnataka High Court had set aside the allotment, holding that the site was earmarked for a bank and that the BDA could not dispose of it under Section 38A of the

NEERA YADAVversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

2017 INSC 6982 August 2017Case Partly allowed

Neera Yadav, while serving as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), filed ante‑dated and incomplete applications to obtain residential plots for herself and her daughters, manipulated the layout plan to enlarge her plot, and secured shop allotments for her da

RAJIV KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2017 INSC 6992 August 2017Case Partly allowed

The case involved the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA, Rajiv Kumar, and the Chairperson‑Chief Executive Officer, Neera Yadav, who were accused of conspiring to illegally convert a government guest‑house plot into a residential plot and allot it to Kumar at a substantially lower premium, thereby obtaining a valu

UTTAMversusSAUBHAG SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 2362 March 2016

Uttam filed a suit for partition of a property claiming a one‑eighth share as a coparcener, asserting that the land was ancestral. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed, holding that the grandfather’s death in 1973, leaving a widow (a Class I heir), invoked the proviso to Section

SHAKUNTLA DEVIversusSTATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 2352 March 2016

The State of Himachal Pradesh acquired land for a road widening project and, to expedite the process, entered into negotiated settlements for compensation. A Negotiated Award dated 11‑09‑2008 fixed the land value and barred any enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, while a Supplementary Negotiated A

ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERSversusRAJAN SOI AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 2302 March 2016

The writ petitioners challenged the cancellation of a plot allotted to Milkhi Ram, claiming they were ready to pay the due amount. The High Court dismissed their petition, directing the Estate Officer to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jasbir Singh Bakshi. The Estate Officer appealed,

RICHARD LEEversusGIRISH SONI AND ANR.

2017 INSC 1002 February 2017Disposed off

The respondents filed an eviction petition before the Delhi Rent Controller seeking to evict the occupants of a shop. The appellant, Richard Lee, claimed to be a partner in the firm K.K. Lee, which he alleged was the actual tenant, and moved an application for impleadment as a necessary party under Order I Rule 10 of t

JAGDISH CHAND SHARMAversusNARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

2015 INSC 3761 May 2015Dismissed

The appellant sought a Letter of Administration on the basis of a Will dated 22‑10‑1973, allegedly executed by the deceased Nathu Singh in favour of the appellant. The trial court held the Will validly executed and granted the administration, but the High Court set aside that order, finding the Will not proved under Se

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2013 INSC 2921 May 2013Dismissed

Manohar Lal Sharma filed a writ petition challenging Press Notes that introduced a policy permitting up to 51 % foreign direct investment in multi‑brand retail trading, contending that the policy was unconstitutional and beyond the government’s authority. The Court examined the competence of the Central Government and

THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF LNDIAversusSMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 1951 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Smita Sharad Deshmukh, an employee of State Bank of India, submitted a forged CAIIB Part‑II certificate to obtain additional salary. A domestic enquiry found the certificate forged and dismissed her; the dismissal was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court, exercising its writ jur

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