Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

R V RAVEENDRAN

350 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 201–350.

M/S. ASHOKA SMOKELESS COAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 61212 December 2005

The petitioners, industrial undertakings linked with Coal India Ltd., challenged the company’s new e‑auction scheme which required them to pay a price higher than the previously notified price for coal. They sought interim relief to continue receiving coal at the notified price. The Supreme Court, after hearing both si

SANJEEV KUMAR JAINversusRAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS.

2011 INSC 75512 October 2011Disposed off

The appellant Sanjeev Kumar Jain appealed against a Delhi High Court order that awarded the respondents Rs 45,28,000 as costs in an appeal concerning a vacated interim injunction. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could award such a sum, given the provisions of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure

SHRI GIRISH VYAS & ANR. .versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75612 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned a 3,450‑sq‑metre plot (FP No.110) in Pune that was originally reserved for a garden and later for a primary school under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). After the land was acquired, the developer, who was the son‑in‑law of the then Chief Minister, obtained a developme

SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75212 October 2011Dismissed

The appellants, institutions recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and offering B.Ed. courses, were granted additional intake without NAAC accreditation. The NCTE later issued Regulations 8(4) and 8(5) requiring NAAC accreditation with a Letter Grade B for such institutions, which the appellan

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusHOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGARIK SAMITY & ORS.

2011 INSC 67612 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a public interest litigation filed to protect the Victoria Memorial Hall and its green surroundings from pollution caused by a bus terminus at Esplanade. The Calcutta High Court had ordered the relocation of the bus terminus within six months based on a NEERI report that recommended the move

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusBODUPALLI GOPALASWAMI

2011 INSC 67212 September 2011Disposed off

The Commandant of 227 Company ASC (Supply) was dismissed by a General Court Martial (GCM) and his pension was forfeited by order of the President under Regulation 16(a) of the Army Pension Regulations. The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the pension forfeiture, prompting appeals by the Union of India and the office

FRIENDS OF VICTORIA MEMORIALversusHOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGARIK SAMITY & ORS.

2011 INSC 67312 September 2011Dismissed

The case concerned a public interest litigation filed to protect the Victoria Memorial Hall and its green surroundings in Kolkata. The Calcutta High Court had ordered a total ban on parking of vehicles around the monument for 24 hours a day, based on expert committee findings that parking contributed to pollution. The

SHRI AMBYA KALYA MHATRE (D) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 67012 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of Ambya Kalya Mhatre, owned land acquired for the New Bombay project and were awarded compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied, they applied under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a reference to the civil court, initially seeking only an increase for the

LAL CHANDversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2009 INSC 104412 August 2009Disposed off

The case concerned the determination of market value for lands in Rithala village, Delhi, acquired under four notifications of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Delhi High Court had based compensation on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotment rates and limited sale deed evidence, awarding Rs.67,536 per bigha for

V. SIVAMURTHYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 92612 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined Andhra Pradesh's scheme of compassionate appointments for dependents of government servants who retire on medical invalidation. The petitioners argued that the scheme was unconstitutional under Article 16 and that the five‑year "left‑over service" period should be counted from the date of app

C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMAversusAVINASH MOHANTY AND ORS.

2011 INSC 48412 July 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the allocation of two Indian Police Service officers, Vikrama Varma (an OBC insider) and Avinash Mohanty, to state cadres after the 2004 Civil Services Examination. The respondents challenged the allocation of Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre, alleging that the allocation violated the roster princip

SHIMNIT UTSCH INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusWEST BENGAL TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

2010 INSC 31312 May 2010Dismissed

The appeals concerned the validity of the West Bengal and Orissa governments' decision to cancel earlier Notices Inviting Tenders (NIT) for High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) and to issue new NITs that omitted the conditions of foreign experience and minimum turnover, which had been upheld as essential in Associa

S. KALADEVIversusV.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS.

2010 INSC 20512 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Kaladevi, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for an immovable property, seeking execution of a fresh sale deed and an injunction. The sale deed dated 27‑02‑2006 had been executed but could not be registered because of an attachment on the property, and the trial court refused to

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.versusPAKUR JAGRAN MANCH & ORS.

2011 INSC 3812 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand sought to construct a hospital on 4.40 acres of land that had been recorded as gochar (village grazing land) under the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulations, 1872. A public‑interest writ petition challenged the de‑reservation of the gochar, arguing that Section 38(1) of the Santhal Parganas Ten

J. KODANDA RAMI REDDYversusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

2010 INSC 77211 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant contractor filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for claims exceeding Rs.50,000, which the State of Andhra Pradesh opposed on the ground of Government Order (GOM) No. 430, 24‑10‑1983, as clarified by GOM No. 160, 01‑06‑1987, that such claims mus

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusMANI BHUSHAN KUMAR

2011 INSC 74611 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State Transport Authority of Bihar issued a temporary stage‑carriage permit for a vehicle to ply from Motihari (Bihar) to Siliguri (West Bengal) without the required counter‑signature of the West Bengal State Transport Authority. The vehicle was seized by the Motor Vehicle Department in Siliguri for lack of a valid

FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEEversusKALOL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, ETC

2011 INSC 74911 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Fee Regulatory Committee (FRC) had fixed fee structures for unaided professional colleges in Gujarat for the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Private colleges sought revision of those fees, arguing that higher staff salaries under the Sixth Pay Commission increased their costs. The Gujarat High Co

DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARYversusUMRAO SINGH

2011 INSC 75011 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, whose lands were acquired for planned development of Delhi, applied for alternative plots under the 1961 Scheme but were rejected because they had purchased the land within five years of the acquisition notification. They challenged the rejection, arguing that the 1961 Scheme had been incorporated into

SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2011 INSC 73911 October 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of transactions that rely on Sale Agreements, General Power of Attorney or Wills (collectively termed SA/GPA/Will transfers) as a mode of transferring immovable property. It observed that such arrangements are used to evade stamp duty, registration fees and to facilitate black‑mo

MALTHESH GUDDA POOJAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75111 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged a notification and the handling of a review petition concerning a writ appeal that had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The review petition was heard by a different Division Bench under a 29‑December‑2008 notification and was allowed on 17 December 2009, thereby r

R. VIJAYANversusBABY AND ANR.

2011 INSC 74511 October 2011Dismissed

The appellant R. Vijayan filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a Rs.20,000 cheque issued by the first respondent was dishonoured. The First Class Magistrate convicted the respondent, imposing a fine of Rs.2,000 and directing payment of Rs.20,000 as compensation, with default impris

GOA HOUSING BOARDversusRAMESHCHANDRA GOVIND PAWASKAR & ANR.

2011 INSC 73811 October 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the compensation payable for land acquired from a tenant who held the land under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The land was subject to a statutory prohibition under Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, which barred any non‑agricultural use. The Court

SANCHIT BANSAL &. ANR.versusTHE JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) & ORS.

2011 INSC 74111 October 2011Dismissed

The appellants, Sanchit Bansal and another, challenged the Joint Admission Board's (JAB) method of fixing cut‑off marks for the IIT‑JEE 2006, alleging that the procedure was arbitrary, capricious and motivated by personal enmity, which led to the first appellant's disqualification despite a high aggregate score. The Hi

DAYARAMversusSUDHIR BATHAM & ORS.

2011 INSC 73711 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of the fifteen directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil for verification of caste certificates and the procedural rights of parties challenging the orders of the State Level Screening Committee. Dayaram, the President of the Scheduled Caste Employees Association, ch

PUSHPA KUMARI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2011 INSC 74211 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who had completed primary teacher‑training courses at a women’s college between 1988 and 1995, sought to appear for the teachers‑training examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. The Board refused to issue examination forms, and the High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition,

ORISSA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.versusKHAGESWAR SUNDARAY AND ORS.

2011 INSC 57311 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) granted two advance increments to Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) who became graduates while in service, but later limited this benefit to those who graduated or passed the Accounts Examination on or before 30‑06‑1971. Five LDCs who obtained their degrees after that date filed wri

MRS. SATIMBLA SHARMA AND ORS.versusST. PAULS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS.

2011 INSC 57411 August 2011Disposed off

The case concerned teachers of St. Paul's Senior Secondary School, a private unaided minority institution, who claimed that their salaries and allowances should be equal to those of teachers in government and government‑aided schools. The teachers argued that Article 14 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution, read with

PERYMON BHAGBATHYversusBHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 80711 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Perymon Bhagabathy (a devaswom), sought to set aside the abatement of a second appeal after the sole plaintiff, Bhargavi Amma, died during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court dismissed the appellant's applications to condone the delay, set aside the abatement, and bring the legal representatives o

PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT (D) TH. LR. SMT. SADHNA RAIversusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 41111 July 2006Dismissed

The landlords filed a suit for possession of a Delhi flat against the tenant. After years of adjournments, the tenant’s counsel recorded on oath a statement that the tenant would vacate the premises by 22‑Jan‑2002 and pay rent until then; the landlord’s counsel accepted the terms. The trial court entered a consent decr

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 38311 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose under a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) between the Government of India and a consortium that included Videocon Industries Ltd. The PSC stipulated Kuala Lumpur as the seat of arbitration, but due to the SARS epidemic the arbitral tribunal held hearings in Amsterdam and London, recording a consent to

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA

2010 INSC 30611 May 2010Directions issued

The Madras Bar Association challenged the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 and the provisions of Article 323B (and Article 3238) of the Constitution, arguing that the Act undermines the basic structure by creating a parallel tribunal system under executive control. The petition also contes

THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 29211 April 2011Disposed off

Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd imported goods in 1996 and, due to a bank error, the required exchange control documents were not forwarded to the RBI, leading to penalty orders under FERA. The company sought to appeal these orders after FEMA came into force, filing belated appeals in 2004 before the Appellate Tribunal under

JOSEPH KANTHARAJ & ANR.versusATIHARUNNISA BEGUM S.

2010 INSC 3011 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, claiming ownership of a suit‑premises, filed eviction petitions under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The first appellant contended that he was no longer a tenant after entering into an agreement of sale with the previous owner, Anthony Swamy, and that he was in po

NASEEM AHMAD & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2010 INSC 86810 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants applied for Class IV posts in the Mahoba District Judgeship and were placed on a select list (waiting list) on 19 September 2000. They received appointment letters on 13 August 2001, i.e., within one year of their selection. The District Judge later cancelled the waiting list and treated their appointmen

FAQIR CHAND GULATIversusUPPAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 80310 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landowner, entered into a "collaboration agreement" with the builder to construct a residential building and share the constructed area. The builder allegedly deviated from the sanctioned plan, failed to obtain a completion certificate and C&D forms, and did not rectify defects, prompting the landowner

DHARMATMA SINGHversusHARMINDER SINGH & ORS.

2011 INSC 37110 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under several IPC offences based on a FIR filed by respondent No.1, while a cross‑case was filed against respondents No.1 and 2. After the magistrate permitted further investigation, the Superintendent of Police submitted a further report stating that respondent No.1 had acted in self‑defence

KUMARI RANJANA MISHRA AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2011 INSC 19610 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants had enrolled for the Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) course at Champaran Physical Training College, which was temporarily recognised by the Bihar Government in 1988. After the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993 came into force in 1995, the power to grant recognition shift

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusJITENDER PAL BHARDWAJ

2009 INSC 11809 October 2009Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DOA) allotted a 60 sq.m plot to Jitender Pal Bhardwaj under the Rohini Scheme in 2005. After the allotment, Bhardwaj disclosed that he owned a flat of 62.22 sq.m in Mayur Vihar, which DOA deemed a violation of clause 1(ii) of the scheme’s eligibility conditions and consequently cancelle

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.versusADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS.

2011 INSC 5579 August 2011Disposed off

The appellant, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), rejected a student's request to inspect and re‑evaluate his evaluated answer‑books, invoking exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and its own bye‑laws. The student filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the refusal wa

H. SRINIVAS PAI & ANR.versusH.V. PAI (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 4009 July 2010Disposed off

In a suit for partition of joint family property filed in 1991, the appellants sought a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was dismissed in 1995 and affirmed on appeal. The suit continued, and the appellants later filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Concilia

SAYEED AHMED & CO.versusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

2009 INSC 8969 July 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a contractor, completed a construction project for the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1996, after which disputes over payment led to arbitration in 1997. The arbitrator awarded the respondents to pay the contractor Rs.24,18,586 with interest at 18% per annum from April 1996, and also specified interest rates

STATE OF M.P.versusSUGHAR SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 1329 March 2010Disposed off

Eight persons were tried by a Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh for murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court set aside their convictions, and the State appealed, but only four of the accused were impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The Supreme Court, in a 2008 judgment, reversed the ac

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.K. PROJECT.versusMAHABOOB & ANR.

2009 INSC 1359 February 2009Dismissed

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (U.K. Project) appealed against a reference court award that increased compensation for 1 acre 13 guntas of land from Rs.4,000 to Rs.30,420 per acre. Both the first and second appeals were dismissed by the High Court, after which a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed alleging pro

ASHOK KUMAR MITTALversusRAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2009 INSC 129 January 2009Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Mittal filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit and the Delhi High Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that both parties had lied on oath and deserved prosecution for perjury. Instead of ordering prosecution, the High Court imposed exemplary co

T.G. ASHOK KUMARversusGOVINDAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 8638 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant, T.G. Ashok Kumar, purchased a plot from the second respondent in 1990, unaware of a pending partition suit filed by the first respondent. The partition suit, which was not collusive, was decreed in 1994 and finally divided the property such that three‑quarters went to the first respondent and one‑quarter

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM. K. SARKAR

2009 INSC 12888 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

M.K. Sarkar, a railway employee who retired in 1976, did not exercise the option to shift from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to the pension scheme before the statutory deadline of 31 December 1978. After receiving his CPF lump‑sum, he filed a representation in 1998 seeking to switch to the pension scheme, which

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusM/S. DEV GANGA ENTERPRISES

2009 INSC 12898 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan entered into an Excess Royalty Collection Contract with the respondents, requiring an annual fixed payment in instalments. The respondents delayed some instalments, prompting the State to demand interest at 12% per annum. The respondents contended that Rule 61 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Conce

REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HARYANAversusISRAIL KHAN & ORS.

2009 INSC 11768 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute where employees of a primary co‑operative credit society in Haryana were paid salaries on a regular pay‑scale basis, contrary to the Primary Co‑operative Credit & Service Society Staff Service Rules, 1992 which mandated a consolidated salary. The society’s Managing Committee, lackin

STATE OF U.P.versusKISHANPAL & ORS

2008 INSC 9198 August 2008Case Partly allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of ten accused who were part of an armed unlawful assembly that shot and killed three persons and injured three others. The trial court had convicted all ten under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, but the High Court set aside the conv

JAYA BACHCHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 3028 May 2006Dismissed

Petitioner Jaya Bachchan, a Rajya Sabha member, was appointed Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council with the rank of Cabinet Minister and a suite of benefits including honorarium, allowances, staff car, and accommodation. The Election Commission held that this post constituted an office of profit un

M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC.

2009 INSC 4648 April 2009Disposed off

The case concerned an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules that gave directly recruited Assistants preferential seniority over promotee Assistants for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar after five years of service. The petitioners, promotee Assistants, argued that the rule violated Articles 14 and 1

STATE OF PUNJABversusAMARJIT SINGH AND ANR.

2011 INSC 1078 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against an order of the Executing Court that allowed the respondents, whose land had been acquired, to claim the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on both the market value of the land and the solatium payable under Section 23(2). The respondents sought

ANJANI MOLU DESSAIversusSTATE OF GOA & ANR.

2010 INSC 8617 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded for 3,65,375 sq.m. of orchard and paddy land acquired in Goa for a railway project. The Land Acquisition Collector had based the market value on two sale deeds, one for a comparable orchard parcel sold at Rs.43.80 per sq.m. and another distant parcel sold at Rs.3 per

KAMAL NAYAN MISHRAversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2009 INSC 12877 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a confirmed peon appointed in 1980, was dismissed in 2002 for allegedly providing false information in a 1994 attestation form concerning arrests and pending cases. The High Court upheld the dismissal, relying on the decision in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, which allowed termination o

PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. DVS STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 12727 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., conditioned the grant of a fresh electricity connection to the first respondent, a purchaser of a sub‑divided industrial plot, on payment of the pro‑rata dues of the previous occupier (the third respondent). The first respondent paid Rs.8.63 lakhs and later sought

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusYOGENDRA SHRIVASTAVA

2009 INSC 11727 October 2009

The case concerned the quantum of Non‑Practicing Allowance (NPA) payable to Medical Officers of the Madhya Pradesh Employees' State Insurance Service. While the 1981 Recruitment Rules stipulated NPA at 25% of basic pay, the officers' appointment letters fixed a lump‑sum amount approximating 25% of the initial pay, whic

STATE OF HARYANAversusSATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND ANOTHER

2010 INSC 5737 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Kumar Mittal, an Assistant District Attorney, discovered an error in his recorded date of birth nine years after joining the Haryana government service and sought correction. The service rules required any application for correction of date of birth to be filed within two years of entry, a deadline he missed. Af

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.versusK.K. VERMA

2010 INSC 5767 September 2010Disposed off

The respondent, a manager of Punjab National Bank, was charged with serious irregularities and subjected to a departmental inquiry under the bank's 1977 service regulations. The disciplinary authority found him guilty on three charges and, despite the inquiry officer’s finding on the fourth charge, imposed removal from

MAIN PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 5777 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged with trespassing into Prakashi Devi's house and assaulting her with intent to outrage her modesty under IPC sections 452 and 354. Evidence showed that the assault was actually on Prakashi Devi's daughter‑in‑law, Sheela Devi, and not on Prakashi Devi. The trial court convicted the appellant on

DES RAJversusSTA TE OF PUNJAB

2007 INSC 8997 September 2007Case Partly allowed

Des Raj, a retired police constable, got drunk and, after a quarrel between his wife and his neighbour's wife, opened fire with a licensed double‑barrel gun, killing three neighbours and injuring three others including a child. He was convicted under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to death by the Session

S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM & ORS.versusDISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2009 INSC 10287 August 2009Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where only the life‑interest holders (recorded in revenue records) were served notice, while the vested remaindermen (not recorded) were not. The petitioners argued that the remaindermen were entitled to notice and challenged the acquisition

M.K. ABRAHAM & CO.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2009 INSC 8817 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, contractors on the NH‑49 project, entered into contracts executed through the Kerala Public Works Department but governed by a Ministry of Surface Transport policy that required arbitration. The contracts contained printed clauses (clause 24, 24(a) of the Notice Inviting Tenders and clause 3 of the stan

K.N. FARMS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & QRS.

2009 INSC 8827 July 2009Dismissed

K.N. Farms Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., a land‑holder, challenged the inclusion of 43.29 acres of tanks in its surplus land assessment under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, as applied in Jharkhand. The appellant argued that tanks, being water bodies, are not "land

NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION & ANRversusCHAMPA PROPERTIES LTD. & ANR.

2009 INSC 8837 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) was a tenant of Champa Properties Ltd. and vacated the premises in 1992, contesting a rent increase demanded by the landlord based on a Hiring Committee's recommendation. The landlord filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of the higher rent, relying on an arbitration c

RADHA MOHAN MALAKAR & ORS.versusUSHA RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.

2009 INSC 8847 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority between the 1990 direct recruits and the 1991 promotees in the Tripura Civil Service (Grade‑II). The State Government had issued a Government Order (25 May 2000) and a seniority list (9 June 2000) placing the 1990 direct recruits senior to the 1991 promotees, which the promotee

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANversusVEENA VERMA & ANR.

2009 INSC 8887 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) advertised seven direct‑recruitment vacancies, stating that the number of posts could be increased. Veena Verma, an advocate, ranked eighth on the merit list and claimed that, based on a correct calculation of vacancies, there were actually ten posts available for direct rec

RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

2009 INSC 8897 July 2009Disposed off

The Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association challenged a 2003 notification that advertised 19 posts for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS), arguing that the cadre strength of RHJS is fixed at 150 and that, under the 25% quota for direct recruitment, no substantive vacancies exist

H. LATHAKUMARIversusVAMANAPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT ANP ORS.

2009 INSC 8687 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, H. Lathakumari, entered into a contract with Vamanapuram Block Panchayat on 15 March 1999 that incorporated clause 73 of the Madras Detailed Standard Specifications, mandating arbitration of disputes. When a dispute arose, the appellant invoked Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to

MODI TELE FIBRES LTD.versusU.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

2007 INSC 12376 December 2007Dismissed

Modi Tele Fibres Ltd. had a bulk electricity supply (service connection No. 1008) for its factory and the residential colonies of its employees under an agreement dated 30 September 1994, which barred termination before two years. After permanently closing the factory in September 1995, the company continued to feed el

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.versusR. SANTHAKUMARI VELUSAMY & ORS.

2011 INSC 6566 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) scheme of the telecom department, which upgraded the pay scale of the senior 10% of Grade III employees without creating new posts, attracted reservation provisions under Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution. The Court distinguished upgradation

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.versusREGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD.

2010 INSC 3626 July 2010Dismissed

The Airport Authority of India (AAI) leased the Mumbai airport to Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (appellant), excluding a 31,000 sq.m. parcel pending a suit by Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (first respondent) for specific performance of an agreement with AAI. The appellant sought to be impleaded

K.K. AHUJAversusV.K. VORA AND ANR.

2009 INSC 8596 July 2009Dismissed

The appellant filed complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company and its officers, including the Deputy General Manager (first respondent), for dishonoured cheques. The trial court issued summons to all accused, but the Deputy General Manager sought quashing of the summons on the gro

SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASHOK KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2776 May 2010Case Partly allowed

The South Bengal State Transport Corporation disciplined a conductor for allowing a ticketless passenger and possessing excess cash, relegating him to a Daily Rated Conductor. The employee challenged the punishment, alleging bias because the Enquiry Officer was appointed before his reply was considered and contending t

M. J. JACOBversusA. NARAYANAN & ORS.

2009 INSC 3396 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala High Court set aside M.J. Jacob's election on the ground that a pamphlet published on his behalf contained a false statement that was held to be about the personal character of his rival, T.M. Jacob, constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supre

SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS.versusMOHD. JAMEEL & ANR.

2009 INSC 26 January 2009Case Partly allowed

The dependants of a 20‑year‑old businessman who died in a road accident filed a claim under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation based on a claimed monthly income of Rs.20,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted a monthly income of Rs.7,000, deducted 50% for personal expenses and awarded

PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS.versusSAURABH CHAUDHARY & ORS.

2008 INSC 12455 November 2008Dismissed

The appellant Kendriya Vidyalaya denied admission to Saurabh Chaudhary for class XI because his Class X CBSE marks fell below the cut‑off prescribed in the school’s admission guidelines, and offered him a place in another Central School. The student challenged the denial, invoking the Supreme Court’s earlier decision i

MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusHARTAR SINGH SANGHA

2010 INSC 6725 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Man Kaur, owned a plot that was sold to the respondent, Hartar Singh Sangha, by an agreement executed through attorney‑holders. The respondent paid earnest money and claimed he was ready to complete the purchase, but the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. The respondent sued for specific performance

UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusJ.D. SURYAVANSHI

2011 INSC 6495 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, hearing a public‑interest litigation filed by J.D. Suryavanshi, issued a series of interim orders directing the Indian Railways to add coaches, alter train timings and introduce new services on specific routes. The Railways complied with some directions but informed the court that further

KHANDESH COLLEGE EDUCATION SOCIETY, JALGAON &ANR.versusARJUN HARI NARKHEDE & ORS.

2011 INSC 4565 July 2011Disposed off

The petitioners, Khandesh College Education Society, owned a private aided college where fourteen lecturers/demonstrators (respondents) retired without receiving encashment of their unutilized earned leave. The respondents claimed entitlement to such leave and its encashment under Statutes 424(3) and 424(C) of the Univ

HIMANI ALLOYS LTD.versusTATA STEEL LTD.

2011 INSC 4575 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Steel (respondent) sued Himani Alloys Ltd. (appellant) for recovery of a sum and filed an application for a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6, claiming the appellant had admitted liability for Rs 74.57 lakhs in minutes of a meeting dated 9 December 2000. The Calcutta High Court, finding an admission for Rs

ITC LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2011 INSC 4585 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the cancellation of leases and allotments of commercial plots in Noida granted to hotel developers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It held that a lease governed by a statute can be cancelled only if

VINOD SETHversusDEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3475 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff, a builder, sued the owners of a residential property for specific performance of an alleged oral collaboration agreement to develop the land. The High Court, noting the suit's low chance of success and heavy court dockets, ordered the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs as damages if h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusS.K. NURUL AMIN

2010 INSC 3495 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent applied to the West Bengal State Transport Authority for permanent stage carriage permits covering routes from Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata and from Raghunathganj to Kolkata. The Authority issued permits that curtailed the routes at Barasat, omitting the final leg to Kolkata, citing traffic congestion and po

AVINASH GAIKWAD & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2010 INSC 3515 July 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra acquired a large residential and non‑residential property and handed it to MHADA for redevelopment under an Urban Renewal Scheme. MHADA, lacking funds, entered into an agreement with a private developer who was issued a No‑Objection Certificate under Development Control Regulation (DCR) 33(7).

RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 3525 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants, private bus operators, claimed that a 1999 notification under s.102(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which purported to modify the 1993 scheme and allow them to operate on the Saharanpur‑Delhi inter‑state route, was validly approved by a Hearing Authority and could not be rescinded. The State of Utta

JALADI SUGUNA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusSATYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST & ORS.

2008 INSC 5835 May 2008Directions issued

In a civil suit, Jaladi Suguna obtained a decree declaring a gift deed void. The Trust appealed, but Suguna died during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court proceeded to hear the appeal and, after hearing rival claims to her estate, set aside the decree in favour of the Trust without first determining who the leg

NIYAS AHMAD KHANversusMAHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.

2008 INSC 5845 May 2008Case Allowed

The tenant's rent was fixed at Rs.150 per month under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, but the eviction petition was dismissed by the prescribed and appellate authorities. The landlords then filed

SMT. SELVI & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2007 INSC 5205 May 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered whether the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests for investigative purposes violates fundamental rights. The Court held that compulsory administration of these techniques violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution, whic

FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD. ETC.versusOM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.

2009 INSC 1105 February 2009Disposed off

The State of Haryana acquired 319.31 acres of agricultural land in five villages for the Faridabad Gas Power Project of NTPC. The Collector awarded compensation, which the landowners sought to enhance under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while NTPC sought a reduction. The High Court affirmed the referenc

RAMAN LAL BHAI LALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2008 INSC 1445 February 2008Case Allowed

Five couples entered into an agreement to jointly purchase about 172 acres of agricultural land in Gujarat, solely to simplify negotiations and later divide the land among themselves, with no intention of joint cultivation. After purchase they partitioned the land and obtained separate mutation entries. The Mamlatdar h

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusHEM LATA GUPTA & ORS.

2010 INSC 55 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, teachers employed by the Government of Haryana, claimed advance increments under a 1960 Punjab Government memo that granted such increments to Masters on acquiring postgraduate qualifications. The Haryana Director rejected the claim, stating that the 1968 Haryana letter revising pay scales superseded t

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA @ MANJUversusRAGHUNANDAN SHARMA @ BABURAM & ORS.

2010 INSC 85 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and his brother were involved in two civil suits concerning a will. The trial court dismissed the suits under Order 7 Rule 11, directing the parties to arbitrate based on a declaration by their deceased father that any future disputes should be referred to a named arbitrator. The appellant appealed, and w

BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARDversusSURESH PRASAD SINHA

2009 INSC 11084 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a student who lost a year of schooling because his son's examination result was not published filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service by the Bihar School Examination Board and sought compensation. The Forum, State Commission and National Commission all upheld th

MD. IBRAHIM & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2009 INSC 11104 September 2009Case Partly allowed

The complainant MD Ibrahim alleged that his land was sold by the first accused to the second accused and that the witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded to forge the sale deeds, also assaulting him when confronted. The trial court framed charges under IPC sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 323 and 341 and the accused soug

M/S. MILKFOOD PVT. LTD.versusM/S. GMC ICE CREAM (P) LTD.

2011 INSC 5444 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a manufacturing agreement that contained an arbitration clause specifying Delhi as the venue and jurisdiction. The respondent sued the appellant in the Munsif Court, Gaya, and the appellant sought a stay of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Subsequent applications were fil

KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAOversusGALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA

2008 INSC 9024 August 2008Dismissed

The plaintiff, who bought agricultural land in 1957, leased it to the defendant in 1971. After the defendant stopped paying rent in 1979, the plaintiff sued for possession and mesne profits, alleging the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant denied being a tenant and claimed ownership by adverse possession since 19

STATE OF GOAversusPRAVEEN ENTERPRISES

2011 INSC 4234 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa contracted Praveen Enterprises for construction work and included an arbitration clause that referred all disputes to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD. After terminating the contract, the contractor filed claims and the State filed counter‑claims; the State failed to appoint an a

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusJ.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 4214 July 2011Case Partly allowed

The State of Rajasthan raised the royalty on limestone through notifications, prompting lessees to file writ petitions challenging the increase and obtain interim stays that allowed them to pay the lower rate. After the writs were dismissed, the lessees paid the differential royalty but the State demanded interest on t

M/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.versusN. SATCHIDANAND

2011 INSC 4254 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a claim by a passenger against Indigo Airlines for compensation due to a prolonged flight delay, alleged deficiency in service, and alleged illegal detention at Hyderabad airport. The Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat in Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute despite the a

KHIVRAJ MOTORSversusTHE GUANELLIAN SOCIETY

2011 INSC 4264 July 2011Dismissed

Khivraj Motors entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with Father A. John Bosco, who signed as President of The Gaunellian Society, and obtained a power of attorney. The Society later resolved that its President lacked authority, claiming the JDA and power of attorney were void, and filed an application under

THE SECRETARY, SH. A. P. D.JAIN PATHSHALA & ORS.versusSHIVAJI BHAGWAT MORE & ORS.

2011 INSC 4274 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Grievance Redressal Committee created under Maharashtra's Shikshan Sevak Scheme, which had been reconstituted by the High Court to function as a quasi‑judicial tribunal headed by a retired judge. The petitioners, private schools, challenged the committee's authority to adj

KRISHAN LAL GERAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2011 INSC 4324 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging that the District Sports Council of Faridabad had granted a 99‑year lease of a portion of Nahar Singh Stadium to the District Cricket Association Club (DCA Club) for a token rent of Re.1 per year, and that the club subsequently sub‑let the premises for commerci

SMT. RAMKANYA BAI & ANR.versusJAGDISH & ORS.

2011 INSC 4424 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent Jagdish obtained a right of way over the appellants' land under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which the Tahsildar approved. The appellants challenged this by filing a civil suit for a declaration that no easement existed and that the Tahsildar's order was illegal. The trial court d

MANGLURAM DEWANGANversusSURENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 4284 July 2011Case Partly allowed

In a suit for declaration, possession and damages, the sole plaintiff died and the appellant sought to be added as the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, claiming entitlement under a will. The trial court rejected the application, found the will unproved and dismissed the suit for lack of a legal he

ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2011 INSC 4314 July 2011Disposed off

The Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenged the constitutionality of Rule 44‑1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which prohibited the sale of non‑iodised common salt for human consumption. The petitioners argued that the rule violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and

SWADESI JAGARAN MANCHversusSTATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

2011 INSC 4334 July 2011Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which bans the sale and manufacture of non‑iodised common salt. Several writ petitions and transfer petitions challenging this rule were consolidated, and the Court allowed the transfer of five pending cases

MRS. SARADAMANI KANDAPPANversusMRS. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS.

2011 INSC 4464 July 2011Disposed off

The appellant entered into an agreement of sale for immovable property, paying an advance and agreeing to pay the balance in three instalments, with clause 6 expressly making timely payment the essence of the contract. The respondents cancelled the agreement when the appellant failed to pay the second and third instalm

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusBHAGYADHAR DASH

2011 INSC 4494 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa entered into construction contracts that contained Clause 10, which dealt with additions, alterations and the execution of non‑tendered items of work, and provided that any dispute over the rate for such work would be finally decided by the Superintending Engineer. Contractors, dissatisfied with the

TATA MOTORS LTD.versusTALATHI OF VILLAGE CHIKHALI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3444 July 2010Dismissed

Tata Motors obtained a 99‑year lease of unalienated land from the Pimpri‑Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (the Development Authority) in 1995 and began industrial use in 1999. The state revenue authority issued demand notices for non‑agricultural cess for the period 1995‑96 to 2001‑02, which Tata Motors challen

JAI BHAGWAN OIL & FLOUR MILLSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2009 INSC 6664 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, JAI BHAGWAN OIL & FLOUR MILLS, operated an industrial unit in Assam crushing mustard seeds to produce mustard oil and oil cake. It claimed transport subsidy under the 1971 Transport Subsidy Scheme for exporting oil cake, arguing that oil cake is a "finished good" as defined by the scheme. The High Court

SYED MAQBOOL ALIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2011 INSC 2634 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired land in 1982 for a road and paid compensation to certain owners, but the appellant claimed that his plots were taken without any legal acquisition. After a complaint to the Lokayukta was dismissed as time‑barred, he filed a writ petition in 2000 seeking acquisition of the disputed land and compensati

PESARA PUSHPAMALA REDDYversusG. VEERA SWAMY AND ORS.

2011 INSC 1814 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two procedural questions under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: whether a Special Tribunal or Special Court must obtain a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer before taking cognizance of a land‑grabbing case, and whether they must publish a notice of cognizance in t

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARDversusTHE SERVICE SOCIETY & ANR.

2011 INSC 1804 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (the Board) acquired land for a low‑income‑group (LIG) housing scheme and, in 1976, allotted houses to members of a service society at a tentative price of Rs.18,000. The lease‑cum‑sale agreement allowed the Board to fix the final price based on land acquisition cost, development charges an

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GADAG & ORS.

2011 INSC 84 January 2011Case Partly allowed

The Karnataka Housing Board acquired 127 acres of land in Gadag-Betegeri for a housing project and awarded compensation of Rs.45,000 per acre. The landowners challenged the award, and the Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs.2,17,372 per acre based on an auction sale of a nearby 329 sq.m plot (Ex. P‑2). The High Co

BHAGWATI PRASADversusSTATE OF M.P.

2009 INSC 12763 December 2009Dismissed

The incident occurred on 18 February 1984 when the appellant Bhagwati Prasad and other accused, armed with a spear and lathis, obstructed the complainants from opening an irrigation canal. When the deceased Ramgopal intervened, the appellant allegedly struck him on the back with a spear, causing injuries that led to hi

RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBAversusSURAJ BHAN & ORS.

2008 INSC 11303 October 2008Disposed off

Two Lower Division Clerks, Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba and V.K. Garg, applied for promotion to Upper Division Clerk in 1986‑87 under Rule VI of Chapter 18‑A of the High Court Rules, which was framed under s.35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Their applications were rejected; the High Court later deemed them promoted re

C. JACOBversusDIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & MINING & ANR.

2008 INSC 11333 October 2008Dismissed

C. Jacob, a former drill helper who joined service in 1967, was terminated in 1982 for unauthorized absence and private employment. After an 18‑year gap he filed representations in 2000 seeking reinstatement, which were rejected, leading him to file a writ petition for pension benefits. The High Court declared his term

M/S. KAPIL COREPACKS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusSHRI HARBANS LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

2010 INSC 4673 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff sued Kapil Corepacks Pvt Ltd and others for recovery, alleging that the defendants had executed a sale agreement that was later claimed to be a forged document. The defendants filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery and denied signing the agreement. The trial court examined the managing director under

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.versusM.L. KESARI & ORS.

2010 INSC 4693 August 2010Disposed off

The appellants, the State of Karnataka and others, sought to regularise three daily‑wage employees who had worked for more than fifteen years without any court intervention. The High Court had initially ordered their representation to be considered and later dismissed the appeal, directing that regularisation depend on

DILJIT SINGH BEDIversusSHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE, SRI AMRITSAR

2011 INSC 3503 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Assistant Secretary of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), was photographed with a woman, which he claimed was his wife. A Sub‑Committee inquiry accepted his explanation and recommended reinstatement, and the SGPC Executive Committee resolved to reinstate him. The appellant then tender

M/S M.R.F. LTD. ETC.versusMANOHAR PARRIKAR AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2623 May 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of two Goa Government notifications (15‑May‑1996 and 1‑Aug‑1996) granting a 25% electricity tariff rebate to industrial consumers. The appellants argued that the notifications were lawful government decisions, while the State contended they were issued by the Power Minister witho

GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 2673 May 2010Dismissed

The State of Goa enacted the Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002 to stop further electricity rebate payments under two 1996 notifications and to recover amounts already paid, alleging the notifications were unauthorized. Industrial units (Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. and others) chall

DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2009 INSC 3053 March 2009Dismissed

The appeal concerned the validity of Rule 5(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Group‑B Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004, which allowed promotion of Junior Engineers—both degree and diploma holders—to Assistant Engineer after seven years of service without any additional qualification or qualifying ex

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusM/S. SPS ENGINEERING LTD.

2011 INSC 993 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) terminated a contract with SPS Engineering for delayed work and later incurred extra costs to complete the work through an alternative agency. IOCL filed a Section 11 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to decide its claim f

BRIJ MOHAN & ORS.versusHARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

2011 INSC 23 January 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellants' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the development of a city and HUDA formulated a scheme to allot plots to the land losers at "normal allotment rates". The appellants applied for allotment in 1990 and were later allotted plots, but HUDA charged them the revised 1993 rate inste

SRI CHANDU KHAMARUversusSMT. NAYAN MALIK & ORS.

2011 INSC 6372 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a house on Dag No. 408, sought electricity supply from the Calcutta Electricity Board, which was initially granted but later disconnected after respondents claimed the supply line passed through their land (Dag Nos. 406, 407, 409). The respondents filed a writ petition seeking a prohibition on u

STATE OF PUNJABversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

2011 INSC 6392 September 2011Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over fresh investigation of several FIRs, including one for which a charge‑sheet had already been filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petition raised the question whether

CHANDIGARH ADMININISTRATION THROUGH THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (COLLEGES), CHANDIGARH'versusCHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SERVICE (GROUP GAZETTED) GOVERNMENT ARTS AND SCIENCE

2011 INSC 6422 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Chandigarh Administration framed the "Chandigarh Educational Service (Group A Gazetted) Government Arts and Science College Rules, 2000" which required a Ph.D. for direct recruitment of college principals and sent them to the President for notification. While the rules were pending, it advertised a principal vacanc

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusSHAUNAK H.SATYA & ORS.

2011 INSC 6402 September 2011Case Partly allowed

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) conducted examinations for chartered accountants and was asked by Shaunak H. Satya, a failed candidate, to disclose the instructions, model answers and related materials given to examiners and moderators under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The issues we

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusGOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR

2011 INSC 6412 September 2011Case Partly allowed

The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and the State of West Bengal sought compensation for three parcels of land (two agricultural and one marsh) acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents challenged the award, arguing that the valuation should be based on recent sales of nearby beel plots,

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusCHEMBUR SERVICE STATION

2011 INSC 1742 March 2011Matter referred to larger bench

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) entered into a Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL) agreement with Chembur Service Station, appointing it as a dealer to sell BPCL's petroleum products. After a surprise inspection revealed alleged manipulation of a dispensing unit, BPCL issued a show‑cause notice and subse

CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2011 INSC 932 February 2011Disposed off

The Bhartia Education Society ran a teacher‑training institute that admitted 160 students in 1999 before obtaining recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The State Government later granted a one‑time relaxation and the Himachal Pradesh Board conducted examinations for 68 eligible students,

PABBATHI VENKATARAMAIAH CHETTYversusPABBATHI N. RATHNAMAIAH CHETTY AND ORS.

2007 INSC 1082 February 2007Disposed off

The case arose from a partition suit concerning a commercial building, where the appellant, who was occupying the premises and operating a lodge, appealed the final decree that divided the property. The appellant sought a stay of dispossession pending the appeal, while the High Court had only stayed demolition of the b

UNION OF INDIAversusA. DURAIRAJ (D) BY LRS.

2010 INSC 8381 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

A. Durairaj, a senior section engineer of Southern Railways, was denied an ad‑hoc promotion to Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (ASTE) in 1976 on the ground of colour blindness as certified by a medical report. After obtaining a B.E. degree in 1998, he was medically cleared and promoted as Assistant Work

GHANSHYAM SHARMA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2010 INSC 8421 December 2010Disposed off

The case concerned Lower Division Clerks/Upper Division Clerks (special promotees) who were appointed as regular stenographers on 25‑04‑1992 under proviso (5A) of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970, claiming retrospective seniority from their ad‑hoc appointments in 1978‑79. The Court examined whe

YOGI AGARWALversusM/S, INSPIRNFION CLOTHES & U AND ORS.

2008 INSC 13731 December 2008Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs 9,48,143 relating to consignments and samples supplied. The defendants sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on three invoices issued by a proprietary concern of one defendant that contained an arbi

ANUSUYABEN SADASHIV JADAV AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 13671 December 2008Disposed off

The petitioners, accused under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and other offences, had their bail applications rejected by Special POTA Courts. The Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of sections 2(3) and 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004, deemed the POTA cases withdrawn. Consequentl

SURENDRA PRASAD SHUKLAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2011 INSC 6301 September 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a Head Constable with 34 years of service, was dismissed after his son and two others were arrested for stealing a car under Section 392 IPC, the car being recovered from the government quarters occupied by the appellant. The disciplinary authority held the appellant guilty of negligence, indiscipline, a

MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCESversusPARYANI MUKESH JAWAHARLAL & ORS.

2007 INSC 6771 June 2007Disposed off

The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences prescribed, through its 2002 Ordinance, that internal assessment marks (20% of total) are to be used only for eligibility and aggregate calculation, while theory (including orals) and practicals are to be passed on the basis of external examination marks alone. A group of M

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONERversusVEER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

2010 INSC 1891 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) acquired land for a residential layout, took possession and issued a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Later, the State Government issued a notification on 15 September 2001 under Section 48(1) of the same Act, withdrawing the acquisition o

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusM/S. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.

2010 INSC 1911 April 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra entered into a construction contract with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., and after the arbitral tribunal awarded Rs. 17.81 crore to the company, the State filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award on five grounds. The applic

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPURversusNEMI CHAND NALWAYA

2011 INSC 1691 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a clerk of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, was dismissed after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of allowing a fraudulent withdrawal by an impersonator, constituting gross negligence. He was later acquitted in a criminal trial because the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable d

UNION OF INDIAversusR.K. CHOPRA

2010 INSC 731 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

R.K. Chopra, a Desk Officer, was suspended from service in 1989 and remained under suspension when the Central Civil Services (Revision Pay) Rules, 1997 came into force on 1 January 1996. He claimed entitlement to a revised subsistence allowance based on the new pay scale, filing representations which were rejected, an

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