Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

M R SHAH

546 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 1–200.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusMUNSHI RAM

2022 INSC 114131 October 2022Dismissed

The case concerned commission vendors of the Northern Railway who, after being absorbed into regular railway service, sought to have 50% of their pre‑absorption service counted as qualifying service for pension benefits, as had been granted to similarly situated vendors in other railway zones. The Union of India appeal

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LIMITED & ANR.

2020 INSC 52131 August 2020Case Partly allowed

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. (APRL) in 2010, basing the tariff on domestic coal supply. APRL later claimed additional compensation under the PPA’s change‑in‑law clause after the New Coal Distribution Policy of 2013 reduced the assu

K. L. SUNEJA & ANRversusDR. (MRS.) MANJEET KAUR MONGA (D) THROUGH HER LR & ANR

2023 INSC 8931 January 2023Disposed off

The case concerned a flat purchase where the buyer paid seven instalments totalling Rs 4,53,750, but the developer cancelled the allotment in April 2005 and issued a pay order for refund. The buyer filed a complaint under the MRTP Act (later transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal) seeking possession of the f

NATIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusMONTECARLO LIMITED & ANR

2022 INSC 12431 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) issued a tender for the Mumbai‑Ahmedabad Bullet Train project, which is funded by a loan from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Monte Carlo Limited submitted a technical bid that was rejected by NHSRCL as non‑responsive due to material deviations, a

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusCENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY & RESEARCH (CAPSR) & OTHERS

2022 INSC 104730 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Airport Authority of India (AAI) issued Request for Proposals for ground handling services at various airport groups, setting eligibility criteria that included regional clustering, a 36‑month experience requirement for scheduled flights, and a minimum annual turnover of Rs 30 crore (later reduced to Rs 18 crore).

M/S. EMAAR INDIA LTD.versusTARUN AGGARWAL PROJECTS LLP & ANR.

2022 INSC 104930 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Emaar India Ltd entered into a Collaboration Agreement and a 2011 Addendum with Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP. A dispute arose concerning performance under clauses 3, 6 and 9 of the Addendum, and the parties invoked Clause 36, which permits specific performance in a court, while Clause 37 provides for arbitration of

C.S. RAMASWAMYversusV. K. SENTHIL & ORS

2022 INSC 104630 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed suits in 2015‑2016 to cancel sale deeds executed in 2005, alleging fraud. The defendant moved to reject the plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending the suits were barred by the 10‑year limitation period. The trial court and High Court refused to reject the plaints, holding that li

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusRAVIN CABLES LTD., AND ANR

2022 INSC 105030 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Sanghi Industries Ltd invoked performance bank guarantees issued by Ravin Cables Ltd in respect of three purchase orders and subsequently commenced arbitration. Ravin Cables filed two applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before Commercial Courts seeking to secure the disputed amoun

FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORSversusANUSREE K.B.

2022 INSC 105130 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the respondent, Anusree K.B., died in service in 1995, leaving a widow who was already employed and a minor daughter. Fourteen years after his death, the daughter applied for a compassionate appointment, which was rejected on the ground that she was not listed as a dependent and that the policy favoured w

BOHATTI DEVIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 105230 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to respondent No.2, who is charged with murder (IPC s.302) and criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120B). The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the charge‑sheet details, the earlier

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusABHIRAM VERMA

2021 INSC 58530 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Abhiram Verma, an officer of the Indian Army Medical Corps, obtained a permanent commission in 1998 and applied for resignation on 15 April 2000 citing lack of promotion. The resignation was initially rejected, but after a series of statutory complaints and a High Court order, it was accepted on 31 January 2007 without

SURENDRANversusSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2021 INSC 31730 June 2021Case Partly allowed

Surendran, a bus driver, caused a road accident on 16 February 1995 and was charged under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500, with a default month’s imprisonment for the fine under Section 337. The con

SUNEETHA NARREDDY & ANOTHERversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 123829 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, the daughter and wife of the deceased Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, sought transfer of the CBI trial concerning his mysterious murder from the CBI Special Court in Kadapa to a court outside Andhra Pradesh, alleging threats to witnesses and potential bias in the investigation. They argued that key witnesses h

SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITEDversusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, BENGALURU

2022 INSC 123429 November 2022Dismissed

Sansera Engineering Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported products in August‑October 2015 and paid excise duty. It claimed rebate of the duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in February 2017, but the claims were rejected as being beyond the one‑year limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITEDversusM/S RAIN CALCINING LIMITED & OTHERS

2019 INSC 130029 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined three sets of appeals filed by Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APTRANSCO) against orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) fixing wheeling charges, grid support charges, and the continuation of incentives for non‑conventional energy. The Court he

THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERSversusDR. SALEEM UR REHMAN

2021 INSC 70329 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jammu & Kashmir appealed against a High Court order that quashed FIR No. 32/2012 and the entrustment order authorising Inspector Nisar Hussain to investigate alleged corruption and conspiracy offences under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and Section 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code. The High Court

MUNUSAMYversusTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2021 INSC 57229 September 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant owned 1.80 acres of land in Anniyalam, Tamil Nadu, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector initially fixed compensation at Rs 16,000 per acre, but the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 2,183.33 per acre, relying on a sale deed dated 11‑01‑1990 in which the landowner sold a 5

IN RE: PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERSversus.

2021 INSC 31529 June 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court, acting suo motu, examined the hardships faced by migrant labourers during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the lack of food and welfare benefits. It noted that many migrants were not covered by the National Food Security Act (NFSA) and therefore could not access dry rations. The Court directed the C

SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERSversusVIRENDER GANDHI

2019 INSC 68829 May 2019Dismissed

The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque. Their criminal complaints were filed before the amendment (effective 1 September 2018) that inserted Section 148, which empowers an appellate court to order the appellant to deposit at least 20% of the fi

PINAK PANI MOHANTYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 32029 March 2023Disposed off

The Union of India, through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, sought Supreme Court directions to transfer Rs 5,000 crore from the unutilized balance of Rs 24,979.67 crore lying in the "Sahara‑SEBI Refund Account" to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies for disbursement to the genuine depositors of the Sahara

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJAN SOOD & ORS.

2022 INSC 36229 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabili

MEKHA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

2022 INSC 36029 March 2022Disposed off

The appellants, employees of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service, applied for a three‑year General Nursing Training as in‑service candidates and sought to have their study leave treated as deputation. A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the petitions, directing the State to grant deputatio

SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGHversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2021 INSC 68728 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant advanced Rs 2 crore to respondent No.2 as a business loan, secured by cheques described as "security" and promised to be repaid by June/July 2015. The cheques were presented for encashment in October 2015 after the repayment deadline and were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The appellant filed crimina

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADALversusBALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 46628 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a private complaint alleging that the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) filed a false affidavit with the Election Commission of India, contradicting its constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election Commission, thereby violating the secularism requirement of Section 29‑A of the Representation of People

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORSversusDR. HAMIR SINGH CHOUHAN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.

2023 INSC 44928 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were initially appointed as government servants in the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Department in 1971 and later selected for permanent positions in the Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation between 1976 and 1978. Upon their absorption, the respondents continued to work, receive promotions, and re

UDAY PRATAP THAKUR AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2023 INSC 46128 April 2023Dismissed

The petitioners were work‑charged employees who were later regularized under the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013. They contended that the entire period of their work‑charged service should be counted for computing their pension and its quantum. The State argued that, while

T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANRversusRANBIR CHAUDHARY

2023 INSC 46228 April 2023Disposed off

The appellants entered into a sale agreement to sell a plot of land for Rs. 17,61,700, with Rs. 2 lakh paid as earnest money. Clause 2 of the agreement stipulated that if the seller failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, the buyer would be entitled to double the advance amount. The trial court refu

GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANRversusDINESH KUMAR & ANR

2023 INSC 46728 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared a land acquisition to have "deemed lapse" under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The High Court had held that

MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHERversusRAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 44828 April 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals filed by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, other development authorities and the State of Uttar Pradesh against several writ petitions that challenged demand notices for various fees levied by the authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Ac

JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 45328 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were subjected to a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act and were issued notices under Section 153A for assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05. They filed an application under Section 245C(1) before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, which was required to decide the matter by 31 March 2008 unde

RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR.versusNASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.

2023 INSC 45828 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

In 2014 the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title, a permanent injunction and cancellation of several documents concerning land in Survey Nos. 700/A7B and 706/A9, alleging an error in a partition deed dated 11 March 1953. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC to reject th

BOHATIE DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

2023 INSC 46528 April 2023Disposed off

The mother of the deceased sought a reinvestigation of a murder case (IPC ss.302, 120B) by the Central Bureau of Criminal Investigation (CBCID) after the accused had been chargesheeted and a quashing petition dismissed. The Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, ordered the transfer of investigation to CBCID based solely on

SUNIL & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ETC

2023 INSC 45928 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi High Court had filled 27 private secretary vacancies through a written exam and interview, publishing a merit list on 30‑01‑2017. Thirteen candidates, including five already appointed, sought re‑evaluation of their answer sheets; the High Court constituted a Special Committee which re‑evaluated those papers a

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMUKESH KUMAR MEENA

2022 INSC 49028 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mukesh Kumar Meena, an ST employee, appeared for the departmental exam for Income Tax Inspector and passed in his reserved category with 43% in the "Other Taxes" paper, exceeding the 40% threshold for ST candidates. He sought two grace marks to reach the 45% required for the general category, aiming for promotion. The

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.versusSANDEEP CHOUDHARY & ORS.

2022 INSC 48928 April 2022Dismissed

BSNL conducted a recruitment exam for Telecom Technical Assistants. Two OBC candidates (Alok Kumar Yadav and Dinesh Kumar) scored higher than the last selected general‑category candidate. The question was whether such OBC candidates must be adjusted to the general‑category pool and not counted against the OBC quota, wi

STATE OF PUNJABversusDIL BAHADUR

2023 INSC 30728 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's order reducing the sentence of Dil Bahadur, who had been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for rash and negligent driving that caused one death and two injuries. The High Court had lowered the term from two years rigorous imprisonment to eight months,

JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR AND ANR.versusMUKESH SHARMA ETC. ETC.

2022 INSC 35128 March 2022Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, who had been employed on contractual or daily‑wage terms for 15 to 30 years at Jai Narayan Vyas University, filed writ petitions seeking regularisation and parity with similarly situated permanent staff. The Rajasthan High Court ordered their regularisation with all consequential benefits, a decision t

VISHAL ASHWIN PATELversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) & ORS.

2022 INSC 35328 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Vishal Ashwin Patel and others challenged the reopening of their income‑tax assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions in a terse order stating it was not inclined to entertain them, without

SURJEET SINGH SAHNIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2022 INSC 24528 February 2022Dismissed

The petitioner entered into a sale deed with NOIDA in 2001 that promised a 10% plot allocation. After ten years he made a representation to NOIDA, and eleven years after the deed filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking specific performance. The High Court entertained the petition, directed NOIDA to decide the r

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GONDIAversusDIVI WORKS & SUPPLIERS, HUF & ORS.

2022 INSC 24428 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Council of Gondia issued a work order to Divi Works & Suppliers for school furniture, but suspended and later cancelled it due to the COVID‑19 pandemic and a government circular restricting non‑priority expenditure. The original petitioner claimed it had already manufactured the customized goods and sough

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.versusK. SUDHEESH KUMAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 11428 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, former Assistant Enforcement Officers, claimed that on their third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme they were entitled to a grade pay of Rs.6600, the grade pay of the next promotional post. The High Court allowed this claim, interpreting the scheme to fo

CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

2022 INSC 11528 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Centrum Financial Services Ltd., a non‑banking financial company, filed a criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Jayant Kumar Jain (Respondent No.2) in a case involving alleged siphoning of Rs 25 crore through shell companies and offences under IPC sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120

RAVINDRANATHA BAJPEversusMANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. & OTHERS ETC.

2021 INSC 55527 September 2021Dismissed

The appellant, Ravindranatha Bajpe, filed a private complaint alleging that two companies and their senior officers conspired to lay a water pipeline beneath his property, demolish a stone wall and cut down about 100 trees, causing loss of over Rs.27 lakh. The Judicial Magistrate issued summons against all thirteen acc

M/S R. D. JAIN AND CO.versusCAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.

2022 INSC 75427 July 2022Dismissed

The borrower, M/s R.D. Jain & Co., challenged the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and District Magistrate (DM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are not persona designata and that the terms include their additional counterparts. The secured creditor, Capital First Ltd.

ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITEDversusUV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 79426 November 2021Dismissed

Electrosteel Castings Ltd., a guarantor, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that an assignment deed executed by the financial creditor in favour of UV Asset Reconstruction Co. was fraudulent and that the assignee was not a secured creditor. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that Section 34 of

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROLversusB. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 128326 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) filed complaints against the City Municipal Council (CMC) of Krishnarajapuram and its former commissioners for discharging untreated sewage in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section

SUGHAR SINGHversusHARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 67226 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Sughar Singh sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell land executed in 1976, where part consideration had been paid and extensions of time were granted. The trial court and first appellate court found the agreement valid and held that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part, granting

SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYAversusANAND ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.

2021 INSC 67426 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a criminal complaint in 2013 alleging offences under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to a Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act. The High Court q

MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATIONNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.versusNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 67726 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Azam Jahi Mill was closed in 2002 and its workers were allotted quarters. While 134 ex‑employees continued to occupy the quarters and were later allotted 200 sq yds of developed plots free of cost as a rehabilitation measure, 318 ex‑employees vacated the quarters and were denied similar plots. The Workers Associati

CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD.versusUMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANR.

2021 INSC 67626 October 2021Dismissed

Caparo Engineering India Ltd. transferred nine long‑serving workmen from its Dewas plant to a Chopanki facility 900 km away, changing their roles from labourers to supervisors and reducing the workforce at Dewas. The workmen contended that the transfer violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because it

BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS & ANRversusPHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS

2022 INSC 102226 September 2022Dismissed

The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased Balkrishna Rama Tarle, claimed tenancy rights over part of a mortgaged property and challenged the District Magistrate's refusal to assist the secured creditor, Phoenix Arc Private Limited, in taking possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The magistrate had conditi

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

2022 INSC 87626 August 2022Disposed off

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

M.P. MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 87826 August 2022Case Partly allowed

The M.P. Medical Officers Association challenged the State of Madhya Pradesh's order withdrawing a 2009 circular that had granted higher pay‑scales to specialists and dental specialists, and the subsequent recovery of excess amounts paid under that circular. The High Court Division Bench upheld the withdrawal of the ci

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusJUNU GAYARY

2019 INSC 81826 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Junu Gayary, a widow, filed a writ petition under Article 226 alleging that her husband was taken into custody by the Indian Army and later killed, with the army attempting to portray the death as an encounter. The Gauhati High Court, after an enquiry by the District & Sessions Judge, found prima facie evidence of the

SHRADDHA GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 48126 April 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Shraddha Gupta, was added as an accused in a murder case after call recordings linked her to the crime. A gang chart was prepared and she was charged under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. She filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the

MR.SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERSversusJ M HOUSING LIMITED AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 12226 February 2021Disposed off

The appellants filed a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging oppression and mismanagement, and the NCLT issued an ex‑parte ad‑interim order on 5 October 2020. The respondents appealed to the NCLAT, which set aside the NCLT order on the ground that it violated natural justice and remitt

L & T FINANCE LTD.versusPRAMOD KUMAR RANA & ANR.

2021 INSC 78925 November 2021Case Partly allowed

The case arose from Consumer Complaint No.1653 of 2018 before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the complainant alleged that representatives of two opposite parties forced him to sign blank papers and threatened him to obtain a settlement. The Commission ordered the directors of both opposite pa

SALUJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusNORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

2021 INSC 78825 November 2021Case Partly allowed

Saluja Construction Company entered into a contract with Northern Coalfields Limited for the Bina Project and invoked arbitration under Clause 9, filing an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 limited to that project. The arbitrator, however, issued an award that also covere

SRI. BENSON GEORGEversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR.

2022 INSC 23525 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The claimant, a 29‑year‑old bank employee, suffered grievous brain injuries in a motor accident on 01‑01‑2013 and has remained in a permanent coma and bedridden. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 94.37 lakh with 9% interest; the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 1.24 crore but reduced the interest

BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusSANYA SAHAYAK AND ORS.

2022 INSC 9325 January 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a driver in the Indian Army's 12th Battalion, was found to have driven a truck carrying personnel while under the influence of alcohol, resulting in a minor collision with a jeep. A departmental enquiry proved the misconduct and the disciplinary authority dismissed him, a decision affirmed by the appella

MANNO LAL JAISWALversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 9725 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Manno Lal Jaiswal, filed an FIR alleging that his son was murdered by a group of accused who were named in the FIR and whose statements were recorded on the same day. The Sessions Court rejected the accused's bail applications, but the Allahabad High Court granted bail, erroneously stating that the acc

JOSEPH STEPHEN AND OTHERSversusSANTHANASAMY AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 9625 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can set aside an acquittal and convert it into a conviction. It held that Section 401(3) expressly bars such conversion; the High Court may only remit the case for retrial or rehearin

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERversusANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 9425 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab, under its 2006 Act, regulates reservations in private health‑science institutions. While its 2018 Sports Policy prescribed a 3% reservation for sports persons, the Government issued an order on 25‑07‑2019 fixing only 1% reservation. The Punjab High Court, via writ of mandamus, directed the State to

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusSHIV DUTT SHARMA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 123124 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared a land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid, despite the High Court finding that posse

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, THANE & ORS.versusSANTOSH TUKARAM TIWARE & ORS.

2022 INSC 122924 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Zila Parishad, Thane appointed Santosh Tiware as a driver on a temporary contractual basis in 2010 pending a tender for driver services. Because the tender was delayed, he continued on contract for about nine years. When the tender was finally awarded to a private agency in July 2021, his services were terminated.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 23versusM/S. MANSUKH DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS

2022 INSC 122524 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The partnership firm M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills revalued its assets on 1 January 1993, increasing their value by Rs 17.34 crore, and credited the surplus to the partners’ capital accounts in their profit‑sharing ratios. New partners who had contributed only small amounts of capital received large credits, s

AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR.versusORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.

2021 INSC 78424 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Oriental Bank of Commerce appealed an order of the Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, but filed the appeal 31 days after the prescribed 30‑day period. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act

AMIT SACHAN & ANR.versusBAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW & ORS.

2021 INSC 54724 September 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, advocates contesting the Awadh Bar Association election, challenged the Allahabad High Court's suo moto directions that cancelled the 14‑August‑2021 election due to violent conduct and ordered fresh elections on 25‑September‑2021 along with a code of conduct and other measures. The petitioners argued t

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusSHEETAL JAIDEV VADE & ORS.

2022 INSC 86124 August 2022Disposed off

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) acquired land from private owners and an arbitrator awarded enhanced compensation, which NHAI challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The land owners, instead of filing an execution proceeding, approached the High Court under Article 226

THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORSversusSMT. ANJANA BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.

2022 INSC 85924 August 2022Case Allowed

The State of Tripura framed the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, wherein Rule 3(3) provided that revised pension would be computed notionally from 1 January 2006 but the actual financial benefit would be payable only from 1 January 2009. A group of pensioners, led by Smt. Anjana Bhattacharjee

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARAversusM/S JYOTI LIMITED AND ORS.

2022 INSC 85724 August 2022Dismissed

M/s Jyoti Ltd, a manufacturer of mechanical and electrical goods, performed installation, erection, commissioning and related civil works at customers' sites in addition to selling goods. The Revenue claimed that these activities amounted to "consulting engineer" services and demanded service tax for the period July 19

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPURversusPRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

2023 INSC 41624 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, Prakash Chand Lunia, who dealt in silver, was found to have smuggled 146 slabs of silver which were confiscated by customs and a penalty imposed. He claimed the value of the confiscated silver as a business loss under Section 37(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, relying on the High Court's application of the Piar

THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANRversusCHANDAN DEB & ORS.

2023 INSC 28424 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tripura issued a 1992 memorandum requiring ONGC, GAIL and FCI to deduct 4% sales tax at source when paying vehicle suppliers who had hired the vehicles. The suppliers challenged the validity of sub‑rule (2) of Rule 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, claiming it was ultra vires the Tripura Sales Tax Act and

ANIL MINDA AND OTHERSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2023 INSC 28724 March 2023Dismissed

The assessees were searched under two authorisations issued on 13‑03‑2001 and 26‑03‑2001, resulting in panchnamas drawn on 11‑04‑2001 and 26‑03‑2001 respectively. Block assessment notices were issued and assessment orders were passed in April 2003, which the assessees challenged as time‑barred under Section 158BE of th

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusBABULAL LADE & ORS.

2023 INSC 29524 March 2023Disposed off

The Maharashtra State Co‑operative Bank Ltd., as the appellant‑bank, was ordered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2016 to pay the outstanding salary and wage dues of employees of a sugar factory that had gone into liquidation, using proceeds from the auctioned property. The bank deposited 25 % of the tot

THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusRADHESHYAM AGRAWAL

2023 INSC 28924 March 2023Dismissed

The State of Odisha awarded a road‑improvement contract to a special‑class contractor who failed to complete the work by the stipulated deadline and sought an extension. The State Government granted the extension on 7 February 2019 but imposed a penalty of 0.25% of the work value, invoking Clause 3.5.5(v) of the Odisha

ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2023 INSC 29624 March 2023Dismissed

Anil Kumar, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, was released on emergency parole during the COVID‑19 pandemic by a High‑Powered Committee constituted under a Supreme Court order. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking to quash the Committee's decision that the parole period should not be

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusVIJAY GUPTA & ORS

2023 INSC 29724 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, based on a writ petition filed by the subseq

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI – IversusM/S MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD.

2023 INSC 28524 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise, sought recovery of an erroneous excise duty refund that had been granted to M/s Morarje... Gokuldas SPG & WVG Co. Ltd. The refund order (O‑I‑O) was later set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, and the Revenue appealed the Tribunal’s deci

ARUP BHUYANversusSTATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

2023 INSC 29224 March 2023Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether a person must show "active membership" to be convicted under Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) after an association is declared unlawful. It held that the provision plainly punishes anyone who continues to be a member of a banned association, wi

M/S. VAISHNO ENTERPRISESversusHAMILTON MEDICAL AG & ANR.

2022 INSC 34124 March 2022Dismissed

Vaishno Enterprises, a consultancy firm, entered into two consulting agreements with Hamilton Medical AG, a Swiss ventilator manufacturer, the second on 24‑08‑2020. Vaishno registered as an MSME on 28‑08‑2020, after the contract was executed. When a payment dispute arose, Vaishno approached the Micro and Small Medium E

THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERSversusR.J. PATHAN AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 34224 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were initially appointed on a fixed‑term contractual basis for eleven months as drivers in a temporary "Post‑Earthquake Redevelopment Programme" project. When the project closed, the Gujarat Government placed them with the Indian Red Cross Society, which they rejected and filed a writ petition for regul

GAURAV KUMAR BANSALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 34324 March 2022Disposed off

The Union of India filed an interlocutory application seeking modification of the Supreme Court's earlier orders on ex‑gratia compensation for families of COVID‑19 victims, arguing that the absence of an outer time limit could lead to endless and fraudulent claims. Over 7,38,610 claims had been received, raising concer

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusCHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI

2023 INSC 15824 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Chandervir Singh Negi, filed a suit in 2003 seeking a declaration, mandatory injunction and direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh to complete land acquisition for a road constructed on his land in 1987, alleging no compensation and damage to fruit trees. The trial court held the suit barred by limit

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.

2023 INSC 17024 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi government appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed, thereby directing compensation under the 2013 Act. The land in question had already been taken into physical possession by the Irrigation and Flood Control Board for the construction

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusJAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.

2023 INSC 16624 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Land Acquisition Collector appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition proceedings for 15 bighas 18 biswa of land in Wazirabad village to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORSversusRAJIV AND ANR.

2023 INSC 15924 February 2023Disposed off

The State of Himachal Pradesh used land for a road in 1996 without acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without paying compensation. The landowners filed a writ petition in 2016 seeking compensation and acquisition; the Single Judge ordered the State to initiate acquisition. The State appealed, and the

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusNIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. ETC

2023 INSC 16724 February 2023Disposed off

The State of Haryana had acquired 46.49 acres of land in 1987 for residential and commercial development. Over time most of the land was released, but small parcels remained under acquisition, prompting the original landowners to file writ petitions seeking release on parity with others. The High Court quashed the acqu

P. SHYAMALAversusGUNDLUR MASTHAN

2023 INSC 16224 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, directing him to pay the balance consideration of Rs 15,00,000 within two weeks, which he failed to do. After a delay of 853 days, the plaintiff sought an extension of time under CPC 148 and Section 28 of the Specific Relie

S. MURALI SUNDARAMversusJOTHIBAI KANNAN & ORS

2023 INSC 16124 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010) challenging a Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation order concerning a pathway. The High Court discarded a survey report and ruled in favour of the respondents on 03.03.2017. The respondents then filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of th

ANANT THANUR KARMUSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

2023 INSC 16824 February 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a civil engineer, posted a viral picture of a sitting cabinet minister on Facebook and alleged that police, at the minister’s behest, forcibly took him to the minister’s residence, beat him and threatened him. He filed FIRs (Nos. 119 and 120 of 2020) but the minister was not named in the initial chargesh

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

2023 INSC 16524 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of certain lands in 1981 and the compensation due to the owners was sent to the Revenue Department due to a dispute. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusM. GOPAL REDDY & ANR

2023 INSC 16324 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) appealed against a Telangana High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to M. Gopal Reddy (respondent No.1) under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a money‑laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Supreme Court examined whether the

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusAMIT JAIN & ORS

2023 INSC 16924 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of certain lands as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. Th

R. K. JIBANLATA DEVIversusHIGH COURT OF MANIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 16424 February 2023Case Allowed

The petitioner, a Superintendent of the High Court of Manipur, sought promotion to Assistant Registrar. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 9 April 2021 denied her promotion, relying on Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grades for 2016‑17 ("Good") and 2019‑20 ("Good"). The petitioner argued that the 2016‑17 AC

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusM/S PANDA INFRAPROJECT LIMITED

2022 INSC 23224 February 2022Disposed off

The State of Odisha blacklisted M/s Panda Infraproject Ltd. after a high‑level inquiry found the contractor responsible for the collapse of a ten‑metre flyover slab that killed one person and injured eleven. The contractor was served a detailed show‑cause notice, replied, and was subsequently debarred under the Orissa

SANJAY MARUTIRAO PATILversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 8524 January 2020Dismissed

The appellant, a Sepoy in the Indian Army, was tried by a Summary Court Martial for three misconduct charges under Section 63 of the Army Act and pleaded guilty, receiving a reduction in rank. Later, the Army authorities served a show‑cause notice under Section 20 read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules, alleging fraudulen

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusSAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2021 INSC 77523 November 2021Case Allowed

The State of Orissa appealed a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court judgment that had set aside orders declaring 0.865-7 acres of land as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the ground that the Act had been repealed and compensation had not been paid. The High Court had als

UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW & ORS.versusVIJAY KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

2021 INSC 77823 November 2021Case Partly allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against its employee Vijay Kumar Yadav for allegedly causing a loss of Rs 2,46,922.56. The enquiry officer found the charge proved, but the disciplinary authority also proceeded on other unproven charges without giving the employee notice, violatin

ANIL KUMAR SOTIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)

2021 INSC 77923 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land in the village of Rawali was acquired by a notification dated 16‑05‑1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court fixed compensation at Rs 7,100 per acre, whereas the appellants contended that they were entitled to Rs 15,402 per acre, the amount awarded by a Reference Court

STATE OF U.P.versusCHUNNI LAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 77623 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

A Combined State Service Examination in 1985 created two vacancies for Deputy Collector. After the original selected candidates declined, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) recommended Chunni Lal and Digvijay Singh. Ajay Shankar Pandey filed a writ petition and the Allahabad High Court ordered the PSC to

UNION OF INDIA AND ORSversusG.R. MEGHWAL

2022 INSC 101023 September 2022Dismissed

G.R. Meghwal, a Deputy General Manager in BSNL, was graded "Very Good" in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2005‑06 and 2006‑07 but received a "Good" grade for 2007‑08. He filed a representation against the lower grade, which was rejected, and consequently was deemed unfit for promotion to Senior Administrativ

NAVIKA KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2022 INSC 101723 September 2022Disposed off

Navika Kumar, the anchor of a Times Now debate aired on 26 May 2022, faced multiple FIRs and criminal complaints in various states. She filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking quashing of the FIRs, their transfer to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police, a stay on any coercive action, and the clubbing of the cases. The

THE INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEMversusS. ARICHANDRAN & ORS

2022 INSC 101623 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Panchayat Assistant, was dismissed after a departmental inquiry for alleged misappropriation of Panchayat funds. The High Court set aside the dismissal on the ground that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice because the inquiry report was not furnished to the respondent and he was not gi

HARPAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC.

2022 INSC 101823 September 2022Disposed off

The appellants, original landowners whose land was acquired by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, challenged the compensation awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which relied on earlier decisions in Surjit Singh and Kapoor Singh. The Supreme Court had previously enhanced compensation in those earl

SMT. KALAVATI & ORSversusMIRZA KAISAR BAIG & ANR.

2022 INSC 101923 September 2022Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court heard two appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 6676 and 6677 of 2022) challenging the Karnataka High Court's enhancement of motor accident compensation. The claimants argued that the deceased drivers earned Rs.15,000 per month, while the High Court had used Rs.8,500 per month to compute loss of dependency. The

M/S. MUNJAL SHOWA LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (DELHI – IV)

2022 INSC 100823 September 2022Dismissed

M/s Munjal Showa Ltd imported goods and claimed exemption from customs duty under DEPB licences that were later discovered to be forged. Upon being notified of the forgery, the company paid the duty under protest, but the Customs Department issued a show‑cause notice demanding duty, interest and penalty. The Tribunal c

BALRAM SINGHversusKELO DEVI

2022 INSC 101123 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The original plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction based solely on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23 March 1996, while the defendant filed a counter‑claim for possession. The trial court dismissed the injunction suit and allowed the counter‑claim; the first appellate court reversed this, granting the

M/S. VIJETA CONSTRUCTIONversusM/S. INDUS SMELTERS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 53023 September 2021Remitted to Lower Court

The dispute involved M/s. Vijeta Construction alleging non‑payment of Rs.2,44,92,846 for TMT bars supplied by M/s. Indus Smelters, which had paid only Rs.1,24,50,000. Indus Smelters approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, which dismissed the application on the ground of limi

AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 53123 September 2021Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, original landowners of two parcels acquired in 1976 for the NOIDA project, challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Courts (Rs 4.628 and Rs 6 per square yard) and sought enhancement to Rs 297 per square yard, relying on the High Court's decision in Mangu v. State of U.P. and the earlier jud

PREMLATA @ SUNITAversusNASEEB BEE & ORS.

2022 INSC 33523 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff initially approached the Revenue Authority under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) seeking relief, but the respondents objected that the authority lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned title, leading the Tehsildar to dismiss the application. While that appeal was pend

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF MEGHALAYA & ANR. ETC.

2022 INSC 33123 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka and Kerala legislatures enacted the Karnataka Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004 and the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 to levy taxes on lottery schemes, including those organised by the Government of India or other states. The High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala held that the statutes were unconstitutio

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

2022 INSC 22823 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

BAJRANG LAL SHARMAversusC. K. MATHEW AND ORS.

2020 INSC 7923 January 2020Directions issued

The petitioners, senior Rajasthan Administrative Service officers, challenged the validity of a 2011 notification granting consequential seniority to SC/ST employees, alleging it violated Supreme Court directions in M. Nagaraj and Suraj Bhan Meena. The High Court had held the notification void and in contempt, but the

GYAN PRAKASH ARYAversusM/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

2021 INSC 77122 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into an agreement in 2003 and a dispute arose over the return of 3,648.80 grams of pure gold. The arbitrator awarded the claimant the gold or its value at Rs.740 per gram with interest, and also awarded costs and a loss amount. The claimant later filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitrat

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusVIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2021 INSC 76922 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned the promotion of Superintending Engineers to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level‑II under the Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990, which require a minimum of 25 years of service. The original writ petitioners had not completed the requisite

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL & ORS.

2022 INSC 84922 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land in question had been taken over by the East Delhi Municipal Corporati

GENERAL MANAGER EAST COAST RAILWAY RAIL SADAN & ANR.versusHINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2022 INSC 74322 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose between General Manager, East Coast Railway (appellant) and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (respondent) over a contract dated 29 November 2018. The respondent filed a Section 9 application before the Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking an injunction against the encashment of a performan

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.versusM/S V.V.F LIMITED & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 34722 April 2020Disposed off

The Union of India issued an excise duty exemption for new industries in earthquake‑hit Kutch, promising a full cash/PLA refund. Subsequent notifications in 2008 limited the refund to a percentage based on actual value addition, citing tax‑evasion concerns. The original writ petitioners claimed the later notifications

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.versusRAJIT SINGH

2022 INSC 32722 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Junior Engineer, was found by a departmental enquiry to have caused a loss of Rs. 22,48,964.42 to the Government and was punished by the Disciplinary Authority. He challenged the punishment before the Tribunal, which set it aside on the grounds of the Doctrine of Equality (other officers were exonerat

KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHERversusRITESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 32322 March 2022Dismissed

The dispute concerned an agreement dated 11‑02‑2004 whereby Gurmeet Singh sold land to Jai Parkash for Rs.4,00,000, of which Rs.3,50,000 was paid as earnest money. The defendants argued that the agreement was a loan/security document intended for marriage expenses, while the plaintiffs contended it was a genuine sale c

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.versusN. SAVITHA

2022 INSC 33022 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired land in 2008 for the improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary under a Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition award fixed a market value of Rs 21,488 per guntha, which the Reference Court later enhanced to Rs 30,49,200 per acre. The landowner appealed, and the Kar

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BANGALOREversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2022 INSC 32522 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment that the land acquisition proceedings for its mega‑market project had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS

2022 INSC 22122 February 2022Dismissed

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (the appellant) had extended a loan for the purchase of a transport vehicle. When the borrower defaulted, the financier repossessed the vehicle and contested liability to pay motor vehicle tax under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997. The High Court held that

DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusSAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 113621 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The National Board of Examination conducted NEET MDS 2018 and the State of Chhattisgarh was to fill postgraduate dental seats through a three‑stage counselling process ending on 31 May 2018 at 4:30 p.m. After the mop‑up round, three seats remained vacant in private dental colleges, but the colleges admitted the origina

SHIV KUMAR & ORSversusGAINDA LAL & ORS.

2022 INSC 113021 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the original claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of a 25‑year‑old housewife who was also engaged in tuition work and was pregnant at the time of a vehicular accident. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal had awarded Rs 

PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S.versusDR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.

2022 INSC 113721 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Professor (Dr.) Sreejith filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. Rajasree as Vice‑Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, alleging that the appointment violated UGC Regulations which require a search committee to recommend a panel of three to five names. The Kerala High Court had dismis

VALSAN P.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 65621 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Valsan P. worked for the Central Government Telecom Department (1974‑1984), then for the State‑owned PSU SILK (1984‑1987), and finally for the Kerala Technical Education Department until his retirement in 2006. He claimed pension by counting his Central Government service and his later State service, seeking to have th

PREM SHANKAR PRASADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2021 INSC 65821 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Prem Shankar Prasad filed an FIR against respondent No.2 for offences under sections 406, 407, 468 and 506 IPC. An arrest warrant was issued, the accused absconded and a proclamation under s.82 CrPC was made, followed by proceedings under s.82‑83. The trial court dismissed the accused's anticipatory bail

VAIBHAVI ENTERPRISEversusNOBEL CERA COAT & ORS.

2021 INSC 65721 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from ONGC's invitation of Expressions of Interest for natural gas allocation. Three firms submitted bids; one later revised its offer to lift gas within 65 days, prompting ONGC to re‑invite fresh bids. The original writ applicant, Nobel Cera Coat, filed a petition seeking a

TATA MOTORS LIMITEDversusCENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS

2022 INSC 99221 September 2022Disposed off

Tata Motors sold buses through its RSO in Vijayawada to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, a transaction that was held to be an inter‑state sale liable to central sales tax (CST) in the State of Jharkhand. Tata Motors, treating the sale as a stock transfer, paid the CST to the State of Andhra Pradesh,

KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITEDversusT.P. NATARAJA & ORS.

2021 INSC 52121 September 2021Disposed off

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (the corporation) appealed against a High Court order that declared the date of birth of its employee T.P. Nataraja as 24‑01‑1961, contrary to the service record of 04‑01‑1960. The employee had filed a suit seeking a declaration of the corrected date of birth after 24

DR. JACOB THUDIPARAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 46121 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dr. Jacob Thudipara, a teacher in a 100% government‑aided private college, sought the benefit of the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, which is available to teachers in government colleges. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed his writ appeal, relying on an earlier Full Be

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR

2022 INSC 45921 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Rajendra D. Harmalkar, was appointed as a casual employee of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and later secured a regular position by submitting a forged Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). After a vigilance complaint and verification by the Karnataka Secondary Education Board revealed the certifica

STATE OF GUJARATversusARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 8321 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against the exemption claimed by Essar Steel Ltd. (later Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.) under Entry No.255(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 for purchase tax on naphtha and natural gas. The steel unit purchased the raw materials, claimed exemption, and then sold them to its po

HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANR.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND ORS.

2022 INSC 112220 October 2022Case Partly allowed

The land in Village Bhondsi, Gurgaon was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a liquefied petroleum gas plant. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs 5.30 lakh per acre for irrigated land and Rs 2 lakh for non‑irrigated land; the Reference Court fixed Rs 5.30 lakh for both. The High Court enhanc

JASPAL SINGH & OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 112620 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The lands in village Jharli, Jhajjar district, were acquired for the Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition collector initially awarded Rs.16,00,000 per acre, which the reference court enhanced to Rs.17,64,350 per acre. The High Court reduced the award back to Rs.16,00,000 per

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSversusGREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED

2022 INSC 99120 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra challenged a Bombay High Court order that had set aside a tax assessment and demand notice issued to Greatship (India) Ltd. under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without f

M/S LAXMI CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2021 INSC 49820 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co., entered into a contract with the State of Uttar Pradesh that contained an arbitration clause (Clause 52) appointing a sole arbitrator who must be a Superintending Engineer or higher. The appointed arbitrator, Shri S.S. Manocha, retired during the arbitration procee

ISHWARLAL MALI RATHODversusGOPAL AND ORS.

2021 INSC 50220 September 2021Dismissed

The respondents filed an eviction suit in 2013 against the petitioner. Between 2015 and 2019 the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments, ten in total, and was given a final opportunity with a cost order to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness, which the petitioner failed to do. The trial court consequently closed t

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusNCC LIMITED

2022 INSC 73520 July 2022Disposed off

The dispute arose from a contract between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and NCC Limited (NCCL) for civil and structural works at Paradip Refinery, where NCCL submitted a final bill including "Notified Claims" and sought an extension of time. IOCL released a payment of Rs.4,53,04,021/- and returned NCCL's bank g

BRIJESH SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 34120 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court acquitted five accused persons of offences under Sections 302 read with 149, 304B and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal the acquittal. The

FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABADversusDR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.

2022 INSC 61420 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Faizabad‑Ayodhya Development Authority acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Original landowners obtained interim stays that prevented the authority from issuing an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act for certain plots. When the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehab

AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.versusRAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 61420 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority appealed a Lucknow High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings for three plots to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation, though

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRAversusANEK SINGH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 61220 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Agra Development Authority (ADA) had taken possession of land and deposited compensation, but some owners refused to accept payment for a remaining portion. The Allahabad High Court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under sub‑section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparenc

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusANIL PRASAD

2022 INSC 62020 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, a retired Major of the Indian Army, was re‑appointed as an Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) in the Central Reserve Police Force and claimed that his basic pay should be fixed at par with the last drawn pay he received in the Army, invoking Paragraph 8 of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusRAJMATI DEVI & ANR.

2022 INSC 61520 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The husband of the widow, Rajmati Devi, was an employee of the Bihar Research Society, which was taken over by the Government of Bihar under the Bihar Research Society (Taking Over) Act, 2007. The Old Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 were abolished on 31 August 2005 and replaced by the Bihar Government Servant Contributory Pe

M/S KNIT PRO INTERNATIONALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2022 INSC 62120 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/S Knit Pro International filed a criminal application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR against respondent No.2 for alleged violations of Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 of the IPC. The FIR was registered, but the respondent obtained a writ order from the Delhi High Court

SHRI M.L. PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRSversusTHE STATE OF GOA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 62220 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, former government employees, challenged their premature superannuation at age 58, arguing that the statutory retirement age was 60. The High Court agreed that the retirement age was 60 but denied them any arrears of pension and held that the revised pension rates would only become payable from 1 Januar

GURMEL SINGHversusBRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2022 INSC 61920 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Gurmel Singh insured his truck with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and paid the required premium. The truck was stolen in March 2013, after which the original registration certificate was also stolen. The insurer demanded the original or a duplicate certified copy of the registration certificate before settling the claim,

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusK.S. VISHWANATH

2022 INSC 61620 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a State Bank of India deputy manager who was found to have prepared a fraudulent cash‑remittance document and misappropriated Rs 10 lakhs. A departmental enquiry, based on the testimony of nine witnesses and 41 documents, concluded that he was guilty and dismissed him. The High Court, exercising writ

MALAYA NANDA SETHYversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 61720 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Malaya Nanda Sethy, applied in July 2010 for a compassionate appointment as a Junior Clerk under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, after his father, an Assistant Sub‑Inspector, died while in service. The application remained pending for five years due to departmental inact

DR. K. M. SHARMA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

2022 INSC 130520 May 2022Dismissed

The appellants, appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, sought parity in pay with municipal teachers who are appointed under the Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, invoking the principle o

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION DEHRADUNversusISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS

2023 INSC 40520 April 2023Disposed off

The Bar Council of India filed an application seeking Supreme Court direction to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) at High Courts and, where appropriate, at District Courts to address genuine grievances of advocates and prevent illegal strikes. The Court reiterated that no member of the Bar may go on stri

SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRSversusUNION OF INDIA

2022 INSC 45020 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, original land owners, sought compensation for land acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Delhi High Court in 2001 enhanced compensation to Rs 2240 per sq. yard, relying on its own decision in Bhola Nath. The Supreme Court later set aside the Bhola Nath decision in 2010 and rema

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAYversusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 45120 April 2022Dismissed

Anil Kumar Upadhyay, a Head Constable of the Sashastra Seema Bal, was charged under Section 43 of the SSB Act, 2007 for entering a Mahila Barrack at midnight, compromising its security. A departmental enquiry found him guilty and the disciplinary authority initially ordered dismissal, later modified to removal from ser

MANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD & ANR.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 6120 January 2023Disposed off

The appellants owned a 10,034 sq. m. plot in Ahmedabad that had been under temporary acquisition by ONGC since 1996 for oil exploration. After purchasing the land in 2005, they were paid a nominal rent of Rs 24 per sq. m. per annum, later increased to Rs 30, and sought a writ to quash the temporary acquisition and rele

THE ESI CORPORATIONversusM/S. RADHIKA THEATRE

2023 INSC 6020 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The ESI Corporation issued demand notices to M/s Radhika Theatre for ESI contributions after the theatre stopped paying contributions in 1989, arguing that the amendment to Section 1(6) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (effective 20 Oct 1989) made every establishment liable irrespective of employee count. Th

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF ODISHA & ORS

2023 INSC 6320 January 2023Dismissed

The State of Odisha owned certain lands that were acquired by the Central Government under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The Central Government, exercising power under s.11(1), directed that the rights in those lands vest in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, a Government company. The State issu

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 7320 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 1990 and a remaining portion in 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondents filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Tr

SAURAV DASversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 7620 January 2023Dismissed

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction that all State governments upload copies of chargesheets filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code on their websites, invoking the transparency principle established in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India. The petition r

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS

2023 INSC 7420 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRversusMANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR.

2023 INSC 6420 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1964, with possession taken and compensation deposited by 1967. Respondent No.1, who was not the recorded owner, filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGI SINGH AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6620 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land (Khasra No. 28) on 21 March 2007 by drawing a panchnama and preparing a possession report under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners Bhagi Singh and others filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed un

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6220 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification dated 27‑06‑1996 and an award dated 22‑06‑1999. Possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31‑12‑2013 and handed over to the requisition agency, with a panchnama drawn at the time. Th

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusRATIRAM & ORS.

2023 INSC 7220 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of certain land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The land had been no

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VversusSHYAMO & ORS.

2023 INSC 7020 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with award in 1992 and possession taken in 2007. The original writ petitioner, Shyamo, claimed a one‑twelfth share but was not the recorded owner, and the High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAMBIR AND ORS

2023 INSC 6720 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the High Court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 becau

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJESH DUA & ORS.

2023 INSC 6820 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land in 1964, passed the award in 1967 and took possession by drawing a panchnama, while depositing the compensation amount with the Reference Court the same year. In 2017 the original landowners filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition had lapsed under Section

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusKHAJAN SINGH & ANR.

2023 INSC 6520 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that held land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation was not paid, even though possession of the land h

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusASHA PRAKASH

2023 INSC 6920 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but compensation was not paid to the original landowners. A subsequent purchaser, respondent No.1, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition had deemed to lapse under Section 24(

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusRATI RAM & ANR.

2023 INSC 7520 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings for a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying on the Pune Municipal

JAYCEE HOUSING PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusREGISTRAR (GENERAL), ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK & ORS

2022 INSC 111919 October 2022Dismissed

Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. and others appealed against a notification by the Odisha Government that designated the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court to hear arbitration applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants argued that Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration A

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.versusM/S RADICO KHETAN LTD

2022 INSC 97619 September 2022Dismissed

The original assessee, M/s. Shaw Scott Distillery (P) Ltd., owed trade tax for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. It sold its plant, machinery and goods to M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd. on 12‑12‑1985 and 01‑01‑1986 for Rs.12,12,000, i.e., before any assessment or recovery proceedings were pending. The assessment for 1980‑81 was

RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASADversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2022 INSC 98319 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased was found hanging from a tree after a dispute with his wife Suman Devi, who allegedly had an illicit relationship with Raju. The FIR alleged that Suman Devi, Raju and other family members conspired to murder the deceased. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court convicted the accused under Section 302

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.

2023 INSC 39619 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The High Court

SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6, BANGALORE

2023 INSC 39419 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

SAP Labs India Private Limited and several other assessees challenged the Income Tax Officer's assessment on transfer pricing grounds, contending that the arm's length price (ALP) determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was not final and could be reviewed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. T

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)versusHARI CHAND AND ANR.

2023 INSC 39519 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Land Acquisition Collector appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The High Court h

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERSversusSUNDARESH BHATT AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 43819 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants, workmen and employees of ABG Shipyard Ltd., claimed wages, salaries and statutory dues for the period of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). They argued that these amounts should be treated as insolvency resolution process costs under s.5(13) of the IBC and thus enjoy priority under s.53

RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASEversusMAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 43719 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The State Government, under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, acquired agricultural lands in village Bhoyar for the extension of a MIDC industrial estate. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation, which was enhanced by the Reference Court. The High Court reduced the awards, relying on a 1

VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABUversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 44319 April 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Vallampati Sathish Babu, participated in the 2012 direct recruitment for teachers in Andhra Pradesh and secured the 34th rank for 33 notified vacancies. One of the 33 selected candidates failed to appear for counselling, leaving a post vacant. The appellant sought appointment to the unfilled post, relyin

M/S TIRUPATI STEELSversusM/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT & ANR.

2022 INSC 43919 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a micro‑enterprise, obtained an arbitral award of Rs.2.72 crore against the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award. The appellant invoked Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006,

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusM. DURAISAMY

2022 INSC 43619 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

V G JAGDISHANversusM/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

2022 INSC 43419 April 2022Dismissed

The workman was employed as a driver at Indofos Industries Ltd.'s Ghaziabad office and was retrenched there. After termination he moved to Delhi, served a demand notice on the company's head office in Delhi and filed a claim before the Delhi Conciliation Officer, which was later taken to the Delhi Labour Court. The emp

INDRAJEET YADAVversusSANTOSH SINGH AND ANR.

2022 INSC 44019 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeals of the accused in a murder case, acquitting them and ordering their release, but it pronounced only the operative part of its order on the same day and delivered a reasoned judgment five months later. The original complainant filed a petition before the Supreme Court challen

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.versusMAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA

2022 INSC 44419 April 2022

The State of Uttarakhand challenged an order of the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal that directed the department to ignore certain uncommunicated entries in the service records while considering a promotion. The High Court disposed of the writ petition without addressing any of the grounds raised and merely directe

EVERGREEN LAND MARK PVT. LTDversusJOHN TINSON & COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 44519 April 2022Case Partly allowed

Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) leased premises from John Tinson & Co. and ran a restaurant/bar. The lease was terminated and a dispute over rental payments for March 2020‑December 2021 arose, leading the parties to arbitration. The owners filed applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act seeking ful

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