Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

UDAY UMESH LALIT

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

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusPADMANABHAN KISHORE

2022 INSC 114331 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) against Padmanabhan Kishore for allegedly handing over Rs 50 lakh as a bribe to an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Kishore contended that the money remained "untainted" while in his possession and only beca

AROON PURIEversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2022 INSC 114231 October 2022Disposed off

The case arose from an India Today article titled “Mission Misconduct” that alleged sexual misconduct and other improprieties by an Indian Foreign Service officer. The officer, after disciplinary action, filed a criminal complaint against the magazine’s Editor‑in‑Chief (A‑1), the article’s author (A‑2) and several publ

GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.versusMAHAKALI FOODS PVT. LTD. (UNIT 2) & ANR

2022 INSC 114031 October 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from disputes between buyers and micro‑small suppliers under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The core issue was whether Chapter V of the MSMED Act, which provides a special, t

DR. VIJAY MALLYAversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 52331 August 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court had earlier held Dr. Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt for failing to disclose assets and violating injunctions, ordering punishment. Mallya filed review petitions (Nos. 2175‑2178) contending that the Court erred by stating he had not filed a reply to the banks' response, when a reply dated 30‑01‑2017 w

ANIL KUMARversusBRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2018 INSC 77531 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 25‑year‑old cleaner, was struck by a lorry and suffered fractures of both pelvic bones, urethral rupture, abdominal injuries and a 25% partial permanent disability, losing his job and incurring substantial medical expenses. He claimed compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and t

SURINDER KUMAR KHANNAversusINTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

2018 INSC 65831 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Surinder Kumar Khanna was convicted under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act on the basis of statements made by co‑accused Raj Kumar and Surinder Pal Singh, who named him as a participant in a heroin trafficking operation. The High Court upheld the conviction despite the lack of any direct material lin

MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC.versusSTATE BY ULSOOR PS

2022 INSC 132230 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted four appellants for the murder of a 72‑year‑old man in Ulsoor, alleging they confessed to the crime while in police custody and led investigators to a knife and stolen gold. The trial court and the Karnataka High Court convicted them under IPC s.302 r.w. s.34 and sentenced them to life imprisonment

SUSHANTA KUMAR BANIKversusSTATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.

2022 INSC 105330 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sushanta Kumar Banik, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 on the basis of two FIRs for alleged drug trafficking. The State of Tripura sought preventive detention, arguing that he was a habitual offender, while the ap

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSUSHIL KUMAR GODARA

2021 INSC 58030 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, United India Insurance Co., denied the claim of the respondent, Sushil Kumar Godara, for the theft of his Bolero car, arguing that the vehicle was being used without a valid registration, constituting a fundamental breach of the insurance contract. The car had a temporary registration that expired on 19-

BUOY SINHA ROY (D) BY LR.versusBISWANATH DAS & ORS.

2017 INSC 82630 August 2017Disposed off

The appellant's wife died after a hysterectomy performed at a nursing home that lacked ICU facilities, despite her having uncontrolled high blood pressure and severe anemia. The appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence for proceeding with surgery without stabilisin

ANJANA MITTALversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

2019 INSC 83530 July 2019Disposed off

Anjana Mittal, appointed as a temporary assistant in 1983, was absent for 1,968 days between 1987 and 1993, which the corporation later regularised as medical leave. The corporation terminated her service in 1994 under Regulation 24 of the 1975 Service Regulations, treating her as a temporary employee. Mittal challenge

G. .J. RAJAversusTEJRAJ SURANA

2019 INSC 83830 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for two dishonoured cheques filed as a complaint on 4 November 2016. After the 2018 amendment inserting Section 143A, the trial court ordered the appellant to pay interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amounts, which the High Court reduced

KARBHARI AND OTHERSversusDEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 83430 July 2019Dismissed

The Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Sabha, a representative union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, held elections for its Managing Committee. The Election Officer introduced an election programme that created separate electoral colleges for each of the seven units and reserved eight seats for women and the r

SUMIT KUMAR SAHAversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2019 INSC 11430 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a hydraulic excavator in 2007 and insured it for Rs 46,56,600 for the period 22‑07‑2009 to 21‑07‑2010. The excavator was totally destroyed by fire in June 2010. While the insurer’s surveyor calculated depreciation from the original purchase price, the appellant’s surveyor deducted only 10% depre

SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018 INSC 7530 January 2018

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of electronic evidence, particularly videography of crime scenes, in the petition Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh. It considered whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory when the party producing the electronic record does not c

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusRAMESH BISHNOI

2019 INSC 130229 November 2019Dismissed

Ramesh Bishnoi was selected for the post of Sub‑Inspector in the CISF and disclosed an FIR from 2009 alleging offences under IPC sections 354, 447 and 509 that were committed when he was a minor. He was acquitted in 2011 due to lack of evidence, but the screening committee cancelled his appointment on the ground of the

VISHWABANDHUversusSRI KRISHNA AND ANR.

2021 INSC 57029 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent No.2 sued Respondent No.1 for refund of part sale consideration. Summons sent by registered post were returned with a "refusal" endorsement, which under Order V Rule 9(5) and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is deemed to have been served. An ex‑parte decree was passed in favour of Respondent No.2, and t

VINIT GARG AND OTHERSversusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 97929 August 2019Dismissed

The petitioners, 92 diploma‑holding professionals, were admitted to B.Tech. programmes offered by Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET), Patiala, through open and distance learning. TIET had obtained only provisional recognition from the Distance Education Council (DEC) but no prior approval from the Un

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusANIL KUMAR @ BADKA & ORS.

2018 INSC 76029 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Anil Kumar @ Badka and others for offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B. The trial court had acquitted the accused, prompting the State to file an application for leave to appeal under CrPC s.378(3). The Allahabad High Court rejected the application with

BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 31329 June 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered several interim applications concerning the La‑Residentia residential project, which was marketed as an Amrapali Group development promising delivery within 36 months. After a forensic audit, the Court had earlier ordered that 19.75% of the project (632 flats) be surrendered to the Amrapali

BCH ELECTRIC LIMITEDversusPRADEEP MEHRA

2020 INSC 37929 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Pradeep Mehra, served as Chief Operating Officer of BCH Electric Limited for 12 years and, upon resignation in June 2012, claimed gratuity of Rs.1.83 crore based on the company's gratuity scheme which did not impose a statutory ceiling. The employer paid only Rs.10 lakh, the ceiling prescribed under Sec

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERSversusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS

2020 INSC 37629 April 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple writ petitions challenging the seniority and appointment of judicial officers in Rajasthan's District Judge cadre after the 2010 Judicial Service Rules came into force. The petitioners argued that officers promoted ad‑hoc to Fast Track Courts should retain seniority from their initia

G H QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIMITEDversusJANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LIMITED

2020 INSC 38029 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd entered into four rental agreements with Janardan Nirman Pvt Ltd, each containing an arbitration clause under the Construction Industry Arbitration Association (CIAA). One agreement stipulated Kolkata as the place of arbitration, but the sole arbitrator conducted proceedings in Delhi a

PILCOMversusWEST BENGAL-

2020 INSC 37529 April 2020Dismissed

PILCOM, a joint committee of the cricket boards of Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka that organised the 1996 World Cup, made payments from its London bank accounts to the International Cricket Council and various non‑resident cricket associations. The Income Tax Officer issued a show‑cause notice under s.194E for failure t

UNION OF INDIAversusRADHA YADAV

2019 INSC 10929 January 2019Disposed off

In 2003 a railway passenger, Dasarath Yadav, died after his head struck a post when he leaned out of a train compartment. The Railway Claims Tribunal held he was responsible for his own death and denied compensation under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. The High Court reversed, invoking strict liability under Se

NARAYAN MALHARI THORATversusVINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 111728 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant's son and daughter‑in‑law were teachers at a school where the first respondent, Vinayak Bhagat, repeatedly called and harassed the daughter‑in‑law. Despite the son’s attempts to stop the calls, an altercation occurred and the son later committed suicide, leaving a note blaming the respondent. An FIR under

DOONGAR SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017 INSC 115428 November 2017Directions issued

The case concerned the murder of Bhagwan Singh in Sikar, Rajasthan, where twenty accused were tried and nine were convicted. The Supreme Court noted that after the examination-in-chief of a key witness, the trial was adjourned for over four months, leading to several witnesses turning hostile. The Court held that under

KOSHY JACOBversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 115328 November 2017Disposed off

Koshy Jacob, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to the Union of India to implement the Supreme Court's guidelines issued in the 2009 Destruction of Public and Private Properties case. He alleged that frequent strikes and agitations were causing widespread destruction of public prope

ADANI GAS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 55828 September 2021Dismissed

Adani Gas Limited sought to overturn the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) Board's exclusion of three disputed areas from its city gas distribution (CGD) authorization and to challenge the validity of Regulation 18 of the CGD Regulations, 2008, claiming a "deemed authorization" under the proviso to Sec

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusKAMALINI KHILAR & ANR.

2021 INSC 27328 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Odisha appointed a government teacher (Respondent No.1) after a higher‑ranked candidate (Respondent No.2) failed to join due to a mis‑addressed appointment letter. The Odisha Administrative Tribunal ordered that the post be given to Respondent No.2 and that the person appointed in her place (Respondent No.

P. MEENAKSHISUNDARAMversusP. VIJAYAKUMAR & ANR.

2018 INSC 28928 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant had mortgaged a marriage hall property and later entered into a sale agreement with respondent No.1, who paid part of the consideration. Disputes arose over the existence of the mortgage and the performance of the contract, leading respondent No.1 to sue for specific performance. The trial court ordered s

CANARA BANKversusP. SELATHAL AND ORS. ETC.ETC.

2020 INSC 23428 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Bank had granted a term loan secured by mortgage of property belonging to a partnership firm and a guarantor. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed an ex‑parte decree against the guarantor and the firm, which the guarantor unsuccessfully tried to set aside. Fifteen years later the guarantor’s successors filed

DINESH TEXTILESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT

2019 INSC 29428 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, traders of cotton fabrics and made‑ups, supplied raw material to over 70 job workers and cleared goods worth more than Rs 1.45 crore without paying excise duty. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging duty liability, arguing that under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules the traders are to be tr

ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS.versusMAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.

2019 INSC 29328 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, lecturers and professors appointed to the University College of Engineering, Thodupuzha (a self‑financing institution under Mahatma Gandhi University), challenged the university's refusal to extend pay‑revision benefits, arguing that they were appointed to substantive, permanent posts and thus were "tea

CCI PROJECTS (P) LTD.versusVRAJENDRA JOGJIVANDAS THAKKAR

2018 INSC 110827 November 2018Disposed off

Two consumers who had booked residential flats in 2012 filed complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking possession and compensation for delay, as the developer failed to deliver possession by the contractual deadline of August 2014. The developer argued that a mandatory re‑submission of plans for fire‑

MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANAversusDR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI & ORS.

2021 INSC 67827 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Musunuri Satyanarayana, a cultivating tenant, claimed under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act that he retained his tenancy and was entitled to purchase the land leased to him. The Tribunal upheld his claim, finding that he had never surrendered his tenancy and that a payment of Rs 4

INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2019 INSC 109727 September 2019Dismissed

IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd imported a set of equipment for a cable TV "Head End" and declared the items individually under various tariff headings. The Customs Department alleged that the declaration was false, the goods were undervalued, and that software and related services, which were embedded in the equip

SHIVKISHANversusSUJATA TARACHAND MAKHIJA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 109527 September 2019Dismissed

The dispute concerned a cooperative housing society for LIC employees where the respondent, Sujata Makhija, claimed to be a depositor who had paid Rs.4,750 and attended the 18‑December‑1988 meeting, opting for Plot No.2. The appellant, Shivkishan, was allotted the same plot despite an interim injunction. The Supreme Co

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSAHI RAM

2019 INSC 109627 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan charged Sahi Ram under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of 223 kg of poppy husk seized from his vehicle. The trial court convicted him, but the High Court acquitted on the ground that the entire bulk of contraband was not produced before the court, deeming the prosecution's eviden

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICEversusRAHUL MODI AND ANR. ETC.

2019 INSC 40827 March 2019Disposed off

The Central Government assigned the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate a group of companies under an order dated 20‑06‑2018, directing a report within three months. The SFIO arrested Rahul Modi and others on 10‑12‑2018, after the three‑month period had expired, leading the petitioners to file habe

PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC & ANR.C (INDIA) LTD.versusHSCC (INDIA) LTD

2019 INSC 128526 November 2019

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr (applicants) entered into a design‑consultancy contract with HSCC (India) Ltd (respondent) that contained Clause 24 for dispute resolution by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of HSCC. The applicants invoked arbitration on 28 June 2019; the resp

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR

2018 INSC 110126 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The respondent, Abhijit Singh Pawar, applied for police posts in Madhya Pradesh and disclosed in an affidavit that a criminal case (Sections 323, 325, 506, 34) was pending against him. Within four days the parties compromised and the offences were compounded under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., resulting in his acquittal.

M. RAVINDRANversusTHE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

2020 INSC 60826 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, accused under the NDPS Act, was remanded to judicial custody on 4 August 2018. After the statutory period of 180 days elapsed on 31 January 2019, he filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on 1 February 2019, offering to furnish bail. While the bail application was being he

JAGDISH PRASAD SAINI & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2022 INSC 102326 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, teachers appointed in a grant‑in‑aid school in Rajasthan, were regularised by the Supreme Court but were denied leave‑encashment and gratuity benefits. The High Court held that payment of salary arrears sufficed, ignoring the entitlement to leave encashment and gratuity. On appeal, the Court examined wh

AKHILESH PRASADversusJHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

2022 INSC 47426 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Cooperative Development Officer appointed under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category in undivided Bihar, was transferred to the successor State of Jharkhand after the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. He applied for promotion to Deputy Collector through a limited departmental examination that required a cas

VINOD KUMAR DHALLversusDHARAMPAL DHALL (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

2018 INSC 42126 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Dharampal Dhall (deceased) filed a suit for restoration of possession, mesne profits and a permanent injunction over a house in Tagore Garden, claiming exclusive ownership based on a lease deed and subsequent name change. The defendants, his brother and sister, contended that the house was a family (joint) property acq

SHAKTI PRASAD BHATT ETC. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 42026 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Kurk Amins originally appointed in Uttar Pradesh, claimed that they were government servants as held by the Allahabad High Court (1985) and affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey (2001). After the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh and creation of Uttarakhand in 2000, they w

M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

2019 INSC 26926 February 2019Dismissed

The case concerns a land acquisition of 136 acres where the award initially fixed compensation at Rs 25 lakh per acre. The Reference Court later raised it to Rs 41.81 lakh per acre, but the petitioner (M/s Model Economic Township Ltd., holding 15 acres) did not file a reference application. It subsequently filed an app

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCOASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2019 INSC 27226 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India issued show‑cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, demanding service tax from Coastal Container Transporters Association and its members, classifying their activities as "cargo handling services". The respondents contended that their services fell under the "goods transport agency"

MISS XYZversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

2019 INSC 119925 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Miss XYZ, a personal assistant to the managing director of a company, filed a complaint alleging that the director repeatedly blackmailed her with nude photographs, threatened her employment, and raped her on several occasions. An FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 499 and 506(2) of the IPC. The director filed a specia

SHAILESH BANDU SWAMI AND ANOTHERversusDIPAK AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 87825 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the constitution of the Standing Committee of Latur City Municipal Corporation and the election of its Chairman under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Because of an Election Commission "code of conduct" the corporation could not complete the statutory steps for retiring eight members

HIND CHARITABLE TRUST SHEKHAR HOSPITAL PVT., LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 64625 September 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court issued clarifications to its earlier interim order dated 18 September 2014 concerning admissions to private medical colleges. It held that the order also applies to institutions that sought an increase in intake capacity but were denied permission after any renewal or inspection in the current academi

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6versusKHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 86425 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd., advanced Rs 10 crore to a builder for the purchase of commercial premises, which later stalled and the amount was written off as a bad debt in 2009. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the advance was either a business de

UNION OF INDIAversusDYAGALA DEVAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 63825 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) acquired about 101 acres of land for a railway line under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed a low per‑acre value, which was challenged, leading the Civil Court (Reference Court) to determine a market value of Rs 21,29,600 per acre an

HARIS MARINE PRODUCTSversusEXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION (ECGC) LIMITED

2022 INSC 47125 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Harish Marine Products (the appellant) purchased a Single Buyer Exposure Policy from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) covering the risk of a foreign buyer’s non‑payment for goods exported between 14‑12‑2012 and 13‑12‑2013. The goods were loaded onto the vessel on 13‑12‑2012 (as per the Bill of Lading) and the

UNIVERSITY OF DELHIversusDELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

2021 INSC 20925 March 2021Disposed off

The University of Delhi advertised 255 Junior Assistant posts in 2013 while about 300 contract assistants had been employed since 2003. The contract employees, represented by the Delhi University Contract Employees Union, sought regularisation and related benefits through a writ petition, which was rejected by the High

PAVAN VASUDEO SHARMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY

2019 INSC 39625 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Pavan Vasudeo Sharma, was arrested during a raid on a kidnapping case and a 9 mm service pistol, live cartridges and two mobile phones were seized from him. The prosecution alleged that the pistol, originally belonging to a police Naik, was used to murder Bhima Waghmare and that the seized mobile phone w

DEVILAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 11825 February 2021Disposed off

The case concerned the murder of Ganeshram in July 1998, for which Devilal, his son Gokul and Amrat Ram (AR) were charged under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and the SC/ST Act. The trial court relied on the FIR as a dying declaration and on eyewitness testimony of the victim's wife (PW1) and sister‑in‑law (PW2), corroborated by r

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBABLU @ OM PRAKASH

2021 INSC 78224 November 2021Case Partly allowed

The case involved a violent assault on the house of an informant during Holi, resulting in the death of Dhanpal. Thirteen persons were charged under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 452, 302 and 307. The trial court convicted all of them, but the High Court upheld convictions only of two accused and acquitted the remai

ACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018 INSC 85624 September 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants were arrested in connection with a multi‑offence FIR and remanded to police/magisterial custody on 8 April 2018. The High Court, on 3 July 2018, ordered that the investigation be conducted by a gazetted officer of at least the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and that a report be filed within

JAI SINGH AND ORS.versusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.

2018 INSC 86124 September 2018Dismissed

Seven petitioners who enrolled in 2004-2005 for engineering degrees through open distance learning at a deemed university challenged the validity of their degrees, seeking writs directing AICTE to clarify that such degrees are valid without its approval. The central issue was whether a deemed university can launch engi

FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

2020 INSC 36224 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant partnership firm owned 249.60 bighas of land that was slated for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the benefit of the respondent company. An agreement dated 01.02.1980 provided that about 145 bighas would be sold to the respondent, with the price to be fixed by arbitration. The sole arbitrator fix

MUKESH KUMAR & ANRversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 22924 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Jagdish Harijan, an Indian Railways employee, died leaving a son, Mukesh Kumar, born of his second wife. The Railway Board circular barred children of a second wife from receiving compassionate appointments, leading to the denial of Mukesh's application. The appellant challenged this denial, arguing it violated constit

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.versusBAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS.

2021 INSC 77323 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) issued a series of office orders between 1989 and 1990 to address stagnation among Junior Engineers, including an upgradation order dated 29‑03‑1990 that raised 20% of Junior Engineer‑II posts to a higher pay scale. The respondents, Junior Engineers, filed a writ petition seeki

JEETUBHA KHANSANGI JADEJAversusKUTCHH DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

2022 INSC 100623 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a watchman employed since 1992, was terminated in 2002 without notice or compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He claimed continuous service under Section 25B and sought reinstatement; the Labour Court and a Single Judge affirmed his right to reinstatement but denied backwages. The Division

GIRISH SHARMA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

2017 INSC 79723 August 2017Disposed off

An FIR was lodged for corruption and a charge‑sheet was filed against 16 persons, while three individuals—Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav—were recorded as witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and not named as accused. Some of the accused applied under Sections 193/319 to have these thre

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

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2019 INSC 127722 November 2019Dismissed

Genpact India Private Limited bought back shares from its Mauritius holding company and was assessed a tax under Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee denied liability and challenged the assessment order through a writ petition under Article 226, arguing that no statutory appeal was available. The Hig

M/S. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITEDversusOSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 99422 September 2022Directions issued

Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award of about INR 2,562 crore against 20 respondents, including Oscar Investments Ltd and the Singh brothers. The Supreme Court examined whether the Singh brothers (contemnors 9 and 10) had willfully violated multiple orders and undertakings of the Delh

SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2021 INSC 52522 September 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined applications filed by the petitioners seeking to exclude the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust (SPSTT) from a special audit ordered under paragraph 116(g) of its earlier judgment dated 13 July 2020. The Court considered reports of the Temple’s Administrative and Advisory Committees, which hig

AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED AND ORS.versusCAPT. GURDARSHAN KAUR SANDHU

2019 INSC 94622 August 2019Dismissed

Capt. Gurdeep Kaur Sandhu, a pilot with Air India Express Ltd, tendered her resignation by email on 3 July 2017, invoking the six‑month notice period required under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR). The company accepted the resignation on 2 September 2017, engaged and trained a replacement pilot at considerable co

M/S LAUREATE BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.versusCHARANJEET SINGH

2021 INSC 34722 July 2021Case Partly allowed

The builder Laureate promised delivery of a flat by October 2015. The original allottee, after paying several instalments, sold the flat to Charanjeet Singh in 2016, who stepped into her rights. Construction stalled due to environmental orders, and the builder failed to deliver possession. Singh sought a refund of the

NAND KUMAR MANJHI & ANR. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 54622 April 2019Dismissed

The State of Bihar advertised 40 Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) posts in 1985 and filled them by December 1987. Unsuccessful candidates, including the appellants, lobbied the government and were appointed on 13 April 1988 despite the merit list being exhausted, an appointment the Court held to be illegal and fo

RAMESH ALIAS DAPINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2021 INSC 19822 March 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Ramesh alias Dapinder Singh, was the driver of two maternal uncles (S and N) who assaulted the informant PW1 and his friends, resulting in the death of one friend. The trial court convicted all three accused under Sections 302, 323, and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, a conviction affirmed by the Hi

M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTSversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 68322 March 2018Disposed off

The dispute concerned the execution of a works contract which was referred to an arbitrator who awarded in favour of M/s Lion Engineering Consultants. The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and sought to amend its objections after three years, whi

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusM/S BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 96222 March 2018Dismissed

The State of Bihar challenged the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 excluded the Central Act for works contracts. The parties had a contract dated 22 June 2012 containing an arbitra

MOHD. FIROZversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 112921 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd. Firoz, was convicted of rape and related offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and 376A of the IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to life imprisonment (with the qualification ‘remainder of his natural life’) for the IPC offences and 20 years for the 3

UNION OF INDIAversusNISAR PALLATHUKADAVIL ALIYAR

2019 INSC 94121 August 2019

The Union of India challenged the opinion of an Advisory Board under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) which held that there was no sufficient cause to continue the detention of Nisar Pallathukadavil Aliyar under section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioner file

RAMESHWAR AND ORSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2022 INSC 73821 July 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of the term "transfer" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that it includes development and collaboration agreements and licences issued during the suspect period (27‑08‑2004 to 29‑01‑2010). It examined numerous applications concerning projects such as Green Heights, Godr

RAKESH BIRANI (D) THROUGH LRS.versusPREM NARAIN SEHGAL & ANR.

2018 INSC 25321 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The auction of an immovable property was held on 14 February 2013, where the appellant was the highest bidder and paid the required earnest money and 25% of the sale price. The secured creditor confirmed the sale by letter on 27 February 2013, after which the appellant deposited the remaining 75% on 13 March 2013, with

SANJAY SINGH AND ANR.versusCENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

2019 INSC 25121 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants booked a residential plot for a villa with the respondent, paying all instalments but later being demanded a balance of Rs.5,13,850 plus interest. The respondent filed a summary suit for recovery, which was dismissed, and the appellants obtained a consumer forum order directing delivery of the villa agai

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOL MIDDLE EAST LIMITEDversusBAKER HUGHES SINGAPORE PTE

2022 INSC 112320 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Ltd entered into three oil‑field service agreements with Baker Hughes Singapore Pte. The respondent terminated the agreements and, when the petitioner invoked the arbitration clauses, raised a contention that the contracts were unstamped under the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The respondent p

SHARAD HIRU KOLAMBEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 85220 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Sharad Hiru Kolambe was convicted under several IPC provisions (364A, 395, 397, 387) and three provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and sentenced to imprisonment, hefty fines and default imprisonment for non‑payment of those fines. After serving the substantive term of 14 years, he was r

SMT. BIRWATI CHAUDHARY & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2018 INSC 72320 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking an ad‑interim stay of proceedings concerning a disputed parcel of land. The High Court rejected the stay on the ground that the land was vacant, without providing a detailed justification. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, conte

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusRAJ KUMAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 60520 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Himachal Pradesh government amended its Labour Officer recruitment and promotion rules in 2006, increasing the total posts from five to twelve and introducing a 75:25 ratio of promotion to direct recruitment. Three Labour Officers (respondents 1‑3) who were already in service argued that the vacancies created befor

MANOJ & ORSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 60620 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants Manoj, Rahul (Govind) and Neha Verma were convicted for the triple murder of three women during a robbery on 19 June 2011 and sentenced to death, which the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the trial and appellate courts failed to provide an effective sentencing hearing under s.235(2) CrPC

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC.versusANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 17920 February 2018Disposed off

Unsuccessful candidates of the 2010 Civil Services Preliminary Examination filed a writ petition under Art. 226 seeking the UPSC to disclose raw and scaled marks, cut‑off marks, scaling methodology, model answers and the complete result. The Delhi High Court, both Single and Division Benches, directed UPSC to provide t

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusKILLU @ KAILASH AND ORS.

2019 INSC 126419 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Five accused entered the house of Balaprasad Pathak at midnight, each armed; two used axes to inflict fatal injuries while the other three were armed with lathis and a ballam but did not strike the victim. The trial court convicted all five under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court acquitted th

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETYversusTHE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AND ANR.

2022 INSC 111119 October 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether societies and trusts claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income‑Tax Act must exist exclusively for educational purposes and not for profit. It held that “solely” means the institution’s objects must be limited to education; any surplus is permissible only if it arises

IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCESversusIN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES

2022 INSC 98719 September 2022Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court, hearing Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2022, examined whether a separate, meaningful hearing on sentencing is required after conviction for a capital offence under Section 235(2) of the CrPC. It noted divergent judicial opinions on same‑day sentencing and the lack of a uniform framework for co

PANKAJ KUMARversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2021 INSC 41419 August 2021Leave Granted & Disposed off

The case concerned employees who were serving in the undivided State of Bihar before its bifurcation into Bihar and Jharkhand under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The petitioners, members of SC/ST/OBC, claimed that their reservation benefits should continue in Jharkhand, where they were now resident, and that they

UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusM/S. WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 43019 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Willowood Chemicals and another filed writ petitions alleging that the Union of India delayed refunds of integrated tax on exports for periods ranging from 94 to 290 days, violating Sections 16 and 20 of the IGST Act and Sections 54 and 56 of the CGST Act. The Gujarat High Court awarded simple interest at 9% per annum

MOHD. FIROZversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 42919 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd. Firoz, was convicted for the rape, sexual assault and murder of a four‑year‑old girl, under Sections 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(m), 6 POCSO. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, the "last seen together" theory, DNA evidence and the appellant's own adm

VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETCversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 130219 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by four members of the Dandupalya gang convicted of murder and robbery. The trial court had relied on the accused’s voluntary statements recorded by police, shown on DVD, and a chart of gang activities to uphold death sentences under Section 396 IPC. The Court examined the admissibi

K PAVITHRA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 32119 March 2020Dismissed

The applicants, 277 petitioners in B K Pavithra, challenged a Government Order dated 15 May 2019 and a circular dated 24 June 2019 issued by the Karnataka government to implement the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act 2018, seeking directions for post‑based reservation, application of the creamy‑layer p

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THANESARversusVIRENDER KUMAR ETC.

2019 INSC 22719 February 2019Case Partly allowed

The Municipal Council Thanesar auctioned shop premises to the respondents, but disputes arose over completion and possession. An arbitrator awarded the council to complete the work and to pay interest on advance rent and non‑refundable security at 7% per annum, without specifying the mode of calculation. The executing

SAURAV YADAV & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 71418 December 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the selection of police constables in Uttar Pradesh where two female candidates—one OBC and one SC—scored higher than the cut‑off for the General Female category but were denied selection. The dispute centered on whether the "second view" (adopted by the Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Cour

G H M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEEversusK. DEVAMANI & ORS.

2019 INSC 140918 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a holder of an F.L.-1 wholesale liquor licence, applied to shift its licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal, another region of the Union Territory of Puducherry, under Rules 163 and 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules. The Deputy Commissioners granted permission subject to two additional conditions, but a re

ANOKHILALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 139918 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Anokhilal, was convicted of kidnapping, rape and murder of a nine‑year‑old girl and sentenced to death along with several other terms of imprisonment. He was represented by an Amicus Curiae appointed by the Legal Services Authority on the same day that charges were framed, leaving the counsel no time to

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIAversusSATISH AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 76218 November 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two convictions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – one involving a 12‑year‑old girl (Satish) and another involving a 5‑year‑old girl (Libnus). The central issue was the interpretation of Section 7, specifically whether "touch" or "physical contact" required "s

RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 64618 November 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined challenges to the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to fix minimum qualifying marks of 65% for General and 60% for reserved candidates in the 2019 Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE-2019) after the exam had been conducted, and to allow B.Ed. candidates to participate in the sel

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAIversusM/S I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED, MUMBAI

2019 INSC 116618 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee filed its return for AY 2006-07 under the E‑Module scheme and the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on 5 Oct 2007 to the address recorded in the PAN database. The assessee claimed that it had changed its registered address and that the notice was therefore not ser

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR.versusD. SARALA & ANR.

2020 INSC 55618 September 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the vendor, upholding the lower courts' decree that the vendee was entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement for the remaining 200 square yards of land after the vendor had already conveyed 100 square yards to a third party. The court found that the vendee h

M/S TECNIMONT PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

2019 INSC 105418 September 2019Disposed off

The Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 requires a 25% pre‑deposit of the additional demand before a first appeal can be entertained under Section 62(5). Assessors, including Punjab State Power Corporation, filed appeals and sought waiver of this requirement on grounds of financial hardship, challenging the provision as o

HIND CHARITABLE TRUST SHEKHAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 64618 September 2014Directions issued

The Supreme Court was approached by several private medical colleges whose recognition for the 2014-15 academic session had not been renewed, risking a large number of vacant MBBS seats. The petitioners argued that defects identified in earlier inspections had been remedied and sought permission to admit students. The

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, CHANDIGARHversusM/S. ABC PAPERS LIMITED

2022 INSC 84418 August 2022Disposed off

M/s ABC Papers Ltd. challenged assessment orders for assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14, which led to a series of appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and two High Courts (Punjab & Haryana and Delhi). The core dispute was which High Court has jurisdiction un

R.A.H. SIGURANversusSHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA & ANR.

2017 INSC 77718 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, R.A.H. Siguran, was charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 for procuring minor girls for prostitution. The investigation was conducted by an officer who was not a Special Police Officer as required by the Act, leading the respondent to invoke Section 482 of the CrPC to have the proceedi

HARNEK SINGH & ORS.versusGURMIT SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 58318 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the death of Mrs. Manjit Kaur following a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by Dr. Gurmit Singh (Respondent 1) at Preet Surgical Centre (Respondent 2). After postoperative abdominal pain, greenish drainage and respiratory distress, the patient was shifted to another hospital where a large bowel p

TATA MOTORS LTD.versusANTONIO PAULO VAZ AND ANR.

2021 INSC 10318 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Antonio Paulo Vaz purchased a car from dealer Vistar Goa Ltd, paying the full price in 2011, but was delivered a used 2009 model instead of a new 2011 model. Vaz refused delivery and sought a refund or replacement, filing a consumer complaint. The district forum, state commission, and National Consumer Disputes Redress

DR. HIRA LALversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 20418 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Hira Lal, a former Touring Veterinary Officer of Bihar, was suspended in 2002 and retired in 2008 while criminal proceedings were pending against him. The State of Bihar, relying on circulars of 1974 and a 1980 government resolution, withheld 10% of his pension and the entire gratuity. The appellant challenged this

SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR.versusKAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.

2019 INSC 139017 December 2019Dismissed

The developer and landowners entered into an unregistered agreement of sale for 54 acres of agricultural land, with a clause stating that physical possession of the entire land was handed over to the developer at execution. Disputes arose over whether the developer actually possessed the 17.31‑acre suit portion and whe

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND ORS. ETC.versusMERLIN J. N. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2022 INSC 84017 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the appointment of Dr. M.S. Jayakumar as Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Kerala in 2012. Dr. Jayakumar held a Ph.D. awarded in 2006, i.e., before the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations that introduced a NET exemption only for Ph.D. degrees obtained under those regulations. The Kerala High Court and it

SATYENDER AND ORS.versusSAROJ AND ORS

2022 INSC 83917 August 2022Disposed off

The plaintiffs (respondents) sued for declaration and possession of agricultural land, alleging the defendants were tenants who sub‑let the property. The defendants denied tenancy and filed a counter‑claim for two other plots. The trial court dismissed the suit but allowed the counter‑claim; the first appeal upheld thi

PYARE LALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2020 INSC 45717 July 2020Directions issued

The appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, was released in 2019 under a Haryana Government policy granting special remission to elderly convicts who had served a minimum period. The policy was implemented by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution without placing the individual fa

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.versusT. NATARAJAN

2018 INSC 61417 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) terminated the dealership of T. Natarajan for alleged breaches, leading to arbitration which upheld the termination but gave the dealer liberty to seek reconsideration. The dealer filed a representation for restoration, which IOC rejected; the dealer then filed a writ petition. The Sing

USHA UDAY KHIWANSARAversusUDAY KUMAR JETHAMAL KHIWANSARA

2018 INSC 61817 July 2018Disposed off

The husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by the Family Court. The High Court later set aside that order and granted an ex parte divorce decree in favor of the husband without hearing the wife. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing prejudice due to the lack

M/S. PAWAN HANS LIMITED & ORS.versusAVIATION KARMACHARI SANGHATANA & ORS.

2020 INSC 5117 January 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Pawan Hans Ltd., a government‑owned company, was exempt from the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and whether its contractual employees were entitled to provident‑fund benefits. The trade union representing the contractual workers claimed tha

G H DSGversusAKG

2019 INSC 137616 December 2019Disposed off

The mother, alleged to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, filed a guardianship petition seeking custody of her minor daughter, while the father sought custody on grounds of the mother’s mental illness and alleged cruelty. The mother counter‑alleged that the father sexually abused the child. Three counsellors reported

MAHARAJA AGRASEN HOSPITAL & ORS.versusMASTER RISHABH SHARMA & ORS.

2019 INSC 137816 December 2019Disposed off

The case arose from a complaint by the mother of a pre‑term baby who became totally blind due to alleged failure to screen for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the hospital and three doctors negligent and awarded Rs. 64,00,000 in compensation. On appeal, the Sup

NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

2020 INSC 60416 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, professors at Kumaun University, challenged an office order that fixed their retirement dates as the last day of the month in which they turned 65, invoking Statute No. 16.24 which they argued allowed continuation of service until 30 June of the following year. The High Court had rejected this claim, in

BOOTA SINGH & OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2021 INSC 25616 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The police received a secret tip that the accused were selling poppy straw in a jeep (registration GUD‑4997) and raided the vehicle parked on a public road, seizing 75 kg of poppy straw. The trial court and High Court held that the seizure was covered by Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which applies to seizures in a "publi

ASHATAI W/O ANAND DUPARTEversusSHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD.

2019 INSC 54016 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widow, claimed that her deceased husband had paid an insurance premium for a loan secured by Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., but the finance company delayed forwarding the premium to its sister insurance company, resulting in a failure to activate the policy. The District Forum and State Commission he

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2021 INSC 18816 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the selection list dated 11‑11‑2019 for police constable posts, alleging that candidates originally selected under reserved categories (OBC/SC/ST) were shifted to the open category, thereby prejudicing general‑category candidates. The Supreme Court had earlier directed that the remaining 3,29

G H STATE OF PUNJABversusBALJINDER SINGH & ANR.

2019 INSC 114515 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted Baljinder Singh, the driver of a vehicle, and Khushi Khan, his companion, for possession of poppy husk under Section 15 of the NDPS Act after police stopped their vehicle and recovered seven bags of poppy husk weighing 34 kg each. The accused were personally searched after arrest, but the search wa

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TAMIL NADU AND ORS.versusK. BASKARAN

2020 INSC 42815 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by the Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others against K. Baskaran concerning the valuation of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. It held that Rule 11‑A authorises the a

VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2020 INSC 42715 June 2020Dismissed

The case concerned agricultural land in Surat district that was held by Samubhai Budhiabhai, a tenant who became a deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Samubhai executed a will bequeathing the land to Vinodchandra Kapadia, who was not an agriculturist. The State challenged the dis

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusKARAMJIT SINGH

2019 INSC 52915 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Karamjit Singh, was initially appointed as a daily‑wage chowkidar and later regularized through an Office Order that allegedly interpolated his name into the final list of employees, despite not having the requisite three years of continuous service. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (

ABHAY JAINversusTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR

2022 INSC 30915 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a judicial officer appointed in 2013, granted bail on 27 April 2015 in a corruption case, which led to a departmental enquiry alleging misconduct and extraneous motives. While the enquiry was pending, a Higher Judicial Committee recommended his discharge and a Full Court ordered his termination on ground

B.S. MURTHY & ORSversusA. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 30515 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise recruited either directly (DRIs) or by promotion (PRIs) under the 1979 Recruitment Rules which prescribe a 75%:25% ratio. The dispute arose over the applicability of the 1986 Office Memorandum (OM) that introduced a rotation‑and‑bunching mechanis

DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)

2019 INSC 38915 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the murder of Parasram Yadav, Deputy Sarpanch, allegedly committed by a mob of 25‑30 persons. The FIR named several individuals, and 17 persons, including the four appellants, were tried and convicted under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 323, 342 and 450 of the IPC. The appellants appealed, ar

P. BANDOPADHYA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 39015 March 2019

The appellants were employees of the Overseas Communications Service (OCS) which was converted into Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) in 1986. They exercised the option to be absorbed into VSNL on 2 January 1990 and also chose to retain pension benefits under Central Government rules, despite having less than ten yea

GIRIRAJ GARGversusCOAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 21115 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a coal buyer, entered into several sale orders under Coal India Ltd.'s 2007 e‑auction scheme, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 11.12). After the appellant was deemed to have breached the scheme and his earnest money deposit was forfeited, he invoked the arbitration clause, but the respondent

ESSAR SHIPPING LTD.versusTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA

2019 INSC 20315 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Essar Shipping's vessel M.V. Chennai Nermai collided with a coal loader while being berthed at Haldia Dock, causing damage. The Master initially denied liability but later signed an endorsement accepting responsibility under protest. The Government appointed a four‑member technical Committee which concluded that the ac

PERRY KANSAGRAversusSMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

2019 INSC 21515 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a custody dispute over a child born to Perry Kansagra and Smriti Madan Kansagra. After mediation failed, the High Court had held that the mediator’s and counsellor’s reports were confidential and could not be used, and later set aside that decision on review. The Supreme Court held that the High Co

URVASHIBEN & ANR.versusKRISHNAKANT MANUPRASAD TRIVEDI

2018 INSC 121214 December 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13 March 1992, alleging that the entire consideration of Rs.32 lakh had been paid but the sale deed was never executed and the property was later sold to a third party. The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the

PRAKASH CHAND DAGAversusSAVETA SHARMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 121314 December 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Prakash Chand Daga, sold his Santro car to Saveta Sharma on 11 September 2009 and the vehicle was involved in an accident on 9 October 2009, injuring Rakesh Kumar. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12.47 lakh, holding the driver and the first respondent (the buyer) liable. The

GUPTESWAR BEHERAversusSTATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 121114 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Raghumani was allegedly attacked by five persons and, while dying, named the assailants in separate statements to his brother (PW1) and the investigating officer (PW15). The prosecution relied on these dying declarations, eye‑witness testimony recorded days later, and medical evidence indicating fourteen inj

H. K. SINGLAversusAVTAR SINGH SAINI & ORS.

2018 INSC 120914 December 2018Disposed off

The complainant deposited money with the Employees Co-operative USE Thrift and Credit Society, which failed to repay the amount with interest as promised. The District Forum ordered the society to pay the maturity amount, interest, compensation and costs, and also sentenced the society's secretary, H. K. Singla, to two

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIAversusM/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD.

2019 INSC 124614 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Excise Department conducted a search at the premises of M/s Krishna Wax (P) Ltd., alleging unauthorised manufacture of foots oil and wax without payment of excise duty. The respondent, not registered under the Act, challenged the Department's jurisdiction and the issuance of a show‑cause notice, leading the

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 125014 November 2019Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution against the State of Karnataka and the Union of India, alleging that Karnataka's construction of a 500 Mcft check‑dam and related pumping schemes on the Markandeyanadhi tributary of the Pennaiyar River violated the 1892 and 1933 inter‑state wate

S. RUKMINI MADEGOWDAversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS

2022 INSC 95814 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant, S. Rukmini Madegowda, was elected as a councillor (later mayor) of the Mysore Municipal Corporation. She filed an affidavit of assets that falsely omitted her husband's property, violating the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (KMC Act) and the Representation of People Act (RP Act). An election petiti

KANWALJIT SINGHversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

2019 INSC 90714 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant had been purchasing individual mediclaim policies for his family since 2007 and in 2014-15 bought a family mediclaim policy with a sum insured of Rs 5,00,000. During the policy period his son was hospitalized and incurred medical expenses of over Rs 8,00,000, but the insurer initially repudiated the claim

IMTIYAZ RAMZAN KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2018 INSC 71214 August 2018Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two unrelated special leave petitions challenging convictions under Section 302 IPC, both of which had been affirmed by respective High Courts. The petitioners argued that the convictions were unsafe, but the Court found the evidence of eye witnesses reliable and saw no merit in overturning

M/S ALAGU PHARMACY & ORS.versusN. MAGUDESWARI

2018 INSC 70914 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, operating as M/s Alagu Pharmacy, claimed tenancy of a premises based on a lease dated 22‑02‑2012, which the respondent landlord alleged was forged and lodged a police complaint. A compromise was entered on 29‑01‑2014, before the landlord filed an eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease a

U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANRversusRAHUL SINGH & ANR.

2018 INSC 55414 June 2018Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) conducted a preliminary examination for Upper Subordinate Services and published key answers that were later challenged by several candidates. The Commission had first moderated the key answers through two expert committees and, after receiving 962 objections, a 26‑me

SANJAI KUMAR & ORS.versusDR. PRABHAT KUMAR ETC.

2019 INSC 137213 December 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined contempt petitions filed by a group of assistant‑teacher candidates who alleged that the Uttar Pradesh government had failed to appoint them despite interim orders directing the appointment of all candidates who scored at least 70% (general) or 65% (reserved) in the Teacher Eligibility Test.

STATE OF U.P.versusRAGHUVIR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2017 INSC 122313 December 2017Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir, Mehngu and Prem Yadav for the murder of Lallu Singh, alleging an ambush and shooting on 30 July 2003. The trial court, relying on two eye‑witnesses, recovery of a pistol from Prem Yadav and a ballistic report linking the weapon to cartridges found at the scen

SUBRAMANYAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 108313 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Subramanya was charged with murdering Kamalamma along with co‑accused Gowri and Seetharam Bhat. The trial court acquitted all three, but the Karnataka High Court convicted Subramanya under IPC s.302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying on an extra‑judicial confession by Seetharam, motive, and d

RAMANAND @ NANDLAL BHARTIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 107513 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ramanand (alias Nandlal Bharti) was convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly murdering his wife and four children, based largely on circumstantial evidence comprising a discovery statement of the murder weapon, extra‑judicial confessions to two witnesses, alleged motive stemming from an extramarital

THANKAMONY AMMA & ORS.versusOMANA AMMA N. & ORS.

2019 INSC 89613 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a theatre built on land owned by Sankara Kurup. After his death, his son Viswanatha claimed ownership, while the son‑in‑law Kumara managed the theatre and later claimed tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal rejected Kumara’s tenancy claim, finding he was only a manager. The

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusLAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

2019 INSC 89913 August 2019Dismissed

The assessee, Laxman Das Khandelwal, a broker, was subjected to a search and seizure and subsequently assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with large additions. He appealed, and the Revenue filed a cross‑objection alleging that no notice under Section 143(2) had been issued, rendering the reassessm

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.versusDEPINDER SINGH DHESI AND ORS.

2019 INSC 89713 August 2019Dismissed

The petitioners, junior engineers who obtained B.Tech (Civil) degrees through distance education between 2001‑2005, passed the AICTE test in June 2018 and claimed that the respondents had violated Supreme Court directions by not granting them promotions and other benefits. The Supreme Court had earlier, in a civil appe

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAIversusM/S. S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 13313 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

M/s S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd. received brokerage from its parent company at a rate of 0.05%, which the Assessing Officer (AO) deemed lower than market rates and made a transfer pricing addition of Rs.2,89,82,746 under Section 92 of the Income Tax Act. The AO did not refer the matter to a Transfer Pricing Off

NOORULLA KHANversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2021 INSC 33013 July 2021Dismissed

The Sandur Gram Panchayat and its chief officer were convicted under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction, holding that the chief officer, as a public servant, was protected by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedur

SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2020 INSC 45113 July 2020Disposed off

The case concerns the management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram, which has been historically managed by the Travancore royal family. After the integration of princely states, a Covenant in 1949 and the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 preserved the Ruler's control over the

DISHA PANCHAL AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 55313 June 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, candidates of the 2018 Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), complained that technical glitches, power failures and inadequate facilities caused loss of examination time for 4,690 of them. They sought either a fresh test or a method to compensate for the lost time. The Supreme Court examined the evidence,

KAMATCHIversusLAKSHMI NARAYANAN

2022 INSC 42213 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a wife, filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in 2018 seeking protection under Sections 17 and 18. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings, arguing that the application was barred by limitat

G H JASMEET KAURversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2019 INSC 136112 December 2019Disposed off

The petitioner, a U.S. citizen, married a U.S. citizen husband and had two children who are U.S. citizens. After a visit to India, the petitioner refused to return to the United States with the children, prompting the husband to obtain custody orders in a Connecticut Superior Court and later file a habeas corpus petiti

CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1

2022 INSC 106912 October 2022Dismissed

The appellants, including Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., deposited employees' EPF and ESI contributions after the statutory due dates and claimed deductions under s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, holding that the amounts constituted "income" under s.2(24)(x) and we

ARAVALI POWER COMPANY PVT. LTD.versusMIS. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD.

2017 INSC 89412 September 2017Disposed off

Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) and M/s. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (respondent) entered into a contract for constructing a township for a thermal power project, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 56) stipulating that disputes be referred to the Project In‑charge or, failing that, to a person app

GAUTAM NAVLAKHAversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

2021 INSC 29512 May 2021Dismissed

The appellant, Gautam Navlakha, was arrested in connection with a UAPA case and placed under house arrest for 34 days after a transit remand order was stayed by the Delhi High Court. He later surrendered and was taken into police custody, seeking default bail on the ground that the house‑arrest period should count towa

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusPEARL BEVERAGES LTD.

2021 INSC 24712 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Pearl Beverages' Porsche, insured with IFFCO Tokio, was destroyed in a high‑speed crash on 22 December 2007. The driver, Aman Bangia, was reported to have smelled of alcohol and was later convicted under IPC 279 for rash driving, but no breath or blood test was conducted. IFFCO Tokio denied the claim invoking an exclus

M/S. NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF UP & ORS. ETC.

2021 INSC 71611 November 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by Newtech Promoters and Developers challenging orders of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority that directed refund of home‑buyers' money with interest. The promoters argued that the authority, a single member, lacked jurisdiction, that the Real Estate (Regulatio

MOHAMMAD IRFANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 66411 July 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by four accused (A‑1, A‑4 to A‑6) who were convicted for conspiring to wage war against the Government of India under IPC s.121A, along with offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution relied on recovered explosives, arms, inflammatory lit

IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRAversusIN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA

2022 INSC 70611 July 2022

The Supreme Court heard a suo moto contempt petition against Perry Kansagra, a Kenyan citizen of Indian origin who had obtained custody of his son Aditya through Indian courts based on undertakings to submit to the jurisdiction of Indian courts and to comply with court orders, including obtaining a "mirror order" from

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORSversusDR. VIJAY MALLYA

2022 INSC 70011 July 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard contempt petitions filed by State Bank of India and other banks against Dr. Vijay Mallya for willfully disobeying High Court of Karnataka orders that restrained him from transferring or alienating assets, including the disbursement of US$40 million to trusts for his children. The Court found Mal

ATMA RAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019 INSC 51611 April 2019Dismissed

The appellants were convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death. The trial court recorded the statements of twelve prosecution witnesses without the accused being present, violating Section 273 of the CrPC. The High Court set aside the conviction and ordered a de novo examination of those witnesses in the pres

SRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 4611 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant alleged that the appellants had forged his signature to obtain bonus shares of Reliance companies and refused to return the original shares, leading to a criminal complaint under various IPC sections. The magistrate initially dismissed the complaint, but a revision remanded it, after which the appellant

WAZIR & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 4511 January 2019Disposed off

In 2002 the Haryana government acquired about 1,500 acres of land in six villages for the Manesar industrial township. The landowners challenged the compensation awarded under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market values fixed by the High Court – Rs 41.40 lakhs per acre for most villages

SRI CHANAPPA NAGAPPA MUCHALAGODAversusDIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

2019 INSC 134510 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a heavy‑vehicle driver, suffered permanent injury to his right leg after his truck lost control due to an axle cut, rendering him unable to work as a driver. He claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the Commissioner initially awarded Rs 1,81,494 based on a 50% functional di

ABCDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 134710 December 2019Disposed off

The petitioner (ABCD) filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing that investigations under FIR No.58/2018 (rape) and FIR No.256/2018 (extortion) be transferred from Delhi Police to an independent central agency, along with protection under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Court examined the progress of the investig

RAJAversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 134610 December 2019Dismissed

The case involved seven accused of a dacoity during which five eye‑witnesses were seriously injured. All six of the accused (Nos.1‑6) were identified by the injured witnesses in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and were convicted under Sections 394, 395, 396 and 449 of the IPC; accused No.7 was acquitted. On appeal,

SHANTHAMALLESHAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2018 INSC 118310 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were charged under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly throwing kerosene on a thatched shed and setting it alight. The trial court convicted all four accused and imposed fines; the High Court enhanced the sentence of accused No.1 and set aside the convictions of the others. On appeal,

AMOL VITTHALRAO KADUversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2018 INSC 118510 December 2018Disposed off

Parents and daughter of Pravin filed a writ petition alleging his custodial death in a police lock‑up. The Bombay High Court ordered the State to pay Rs 7 lakhs as compensation and directed that the amount be recovered from the Investigating Officer‑in‑Charge (IOIC). The IOIC appealed, contending that recovery could no

M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITEDversusAFTAB SINGH

2018 INSC 118410 December 2018Dismissed

Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (appellant) entered into a buyer's agreement with Aftab Singh (respondent) that contained an arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Singh filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) invoking the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and

UNIVERSITY OF DELHIversusSMT. SHASHI KIRAN & ORS. ETC.

2022 INSC 54310 May 2022Disposed off

The University of Delhi issued a 1987 notification deeming all employees who were CPF beneficiaries on 1 January 1986 to "come over" to the General Provident Fund (GPF) unless they opted to stay in CPF before a cut‑off date of 30 September 1987. While 2,611 employees opted to remain in CPF and a further 626 exercised t

B K PAVITRA AND ORS.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2019 INSC 67110 May 2019Dismissed

The Karnataka government enacted the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 to grant consequential seniority to SC/ST promotees, after the earlier 2002 Act was struck down in *B K Pavitra I* for lacking the data required under *M. Nagaraj*. T

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusTHE BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER & ORS.

2019 INSC 68010 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Bihar "Niyojit" teachers, appointed under the 2006 Rules and recruited by Panchayati Raj institutions, were entitled to pay parity with the pre‑2006 Government teachers under the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The Court held that the two cadres are distinct, the Government‑

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