Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

SANDEEP MEHTA

22 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

V. VINCENT VELANKANNIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 74830 September 2024Disposed off

The appellant, a fitter appointed in the semi‑skilled grade in 1996, was promoted to the skilled grade in 1999 and later to the highly skilled grade in 2008. He challenged a seniority list that placed him below private respondents who were promoted earlier, arguing that seniority should be based on his initial appointm

JASMINBHAI BHARATBHAI KOTHARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 17230 January 2025Dismissed

Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, convicted under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34 and the Arms Act, sought an extension of temporary bail, which the Gujarat High Court refused. While filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, he also filed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from surre

SHEIKH JAVEED AHMAD & ANR.versusSTATE OF J&K & ORS.

2025 INSC 62427 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad and Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather were appointed as Senior Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at SKIMS with the promise of sponsorship for a two‑year diploma and subsequent appointment as Assistant Professors. The diploma could not be obtained because the sponsoring institute failed to sec

RAHIL & ANR.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

2025 INSC 85825 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Rahil and Noor Ahmed, were convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC after the Delhi High Court reversed their trial‑court acquittal. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence that the deceased had called the co‑accused Suraiya and allegedly went to her residence, where he was later fo

IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” versus

2025 INSC 101822 August 2025Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, took cognizance of a news report of a child’s death from a stray dog bite in Delhi and issued directions to pick up, sterilise, deworm and vaccinate stray dogs across the National Capital Region, initially prohibiting their release back onto the streets. Several NGOs and individuals

IRFANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 101218 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant alleged that Respondent No.2 and his two sons murdered his father and injured his brother, leading to an FIR under sections 147, 148, 302, 304 and 34 of the IPC. After the charge‑sheet, the trial proceeded to the stage of recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Respondent No.2 app

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASHOK KUMAR SHARMA

2024 INSC 56418 July 2024Dismissed

The Delhi Transport Corporation dismissed a senior officer after a disciplinary enquiry that found seven of eight charges proved, but the enquiry was conducted without any prosecution witnesses or admitted documents. The officer challenged the dismissal, arguing that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the Board wer

TR. A. BABUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 79918 March 2025

The appellant, a 68‑year‑old former managing trustee of two charitable trusts, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of grant‑in‑aid funds meant for schools for specially‑abled children. The High Court rejected his appeal agains

RAJESH KUMARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 110817 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, suffered a motor vehicle accident in which his car overturned and later caught fire due to short‑circuiting while he was attending to an injured co‑passenger. He claimed the full insured sum under his policy, but the insurer denied part of the claim, citing delay in intimation and the vehic

DASTAGIRSABversusSHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA POLICE PATIL (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2025 INSC 112016 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a coparcener of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), challenged the sale of a suit land by the Karta (father) to the fifth defendant, alleging the sale was not for legal necessity but to meet the Karta's personal habits. The central issue was whether the sale was made to meet the legal necessity of the Karta'

TRISHA SINGHversusANURAG KUMAR

2024 INSC 45015 May 2024Case Allowed

The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, and the parties later reached an amicable settlement before a Supreme Court mediator, wherein the husband paid alimony and the wife agreed to dissolve the marriage. The wife subsequently withdrew from the settlement, claiming she wo

M/S SHIV STEELSversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

2025 INSC 112611 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Shiv Steels challenged reassessments for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 that the Assam tax authorities had made after the original assessments were held time‑barred under Section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The revenue department obtained prior sanction from the Commissioner and invok

JYOTI LIMITEDversusBSE LIMITED & ANR

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 111710 December 2024Dismissed

Jyoti Limited sought to list equity shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) that were allotted to an Asset Reconstruction Company (RARE) after converting part of its debt into equity. The BSE rejected the application, stating that Jyoti had not obtained in‑principle approval from the exchange and had not secured a sh

GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 113410 September 2025Disposed off

The heirs of cultivating tenant Govindappa Gounder sued the landowners K. Vijayakumar and others, who sought eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 alleging that the tenants had cut trees, dug pits and caused damage to the land. The Revenue Court, relying on a commissi

TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS.versusRAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 9459 December 2024

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically the interplay between sub‑sections (1) and (2) regarding whether a Hindu female's possession of property, whether by will, gift, or maintenance, confers absolute ownership or a restricted estate. The appellant, a purch

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2025 INSC 9376 August 2025Directions issued

The three Delhi distribution companies (BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) tariff orders that created and perpetuated a large regulatory asset to bridge revenue gaps, which had ballooned to over Rs 27,

AMANJOT SINGH CHADHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 11274 September 2025Disposed off

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution directing all States and Union Territories to implement Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, which mandates rules for registering Sikh Anand Karaj marriages. The Court noted that while some jurisdictions had notified such rules, many had not, resul

BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJUversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 9344 August 2025Dismissed

The father was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his ten‑year‑old daughter. The trial court, relying on the victim's testimony, corroboration from her elder sister, and forensic DNA evidence, sentenced him to life imp

RAJANversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2025 INSC 10812 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant Rajan was convicted for murder under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act based primarily on the ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses, despite the alleged firearm not being recovered. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s delay of two years and five m

PHIRERAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 10742 September 2025Disposed off

The appellant, the original complainant, filed an FIR for murder and related offences, after which the accused was released on bail by the High Court with specific conditions prohibiting intimidation of witnesses. Subsequent FIRs alleged that the accused threatened a key witness, prompting the appellant to seek cancell

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