Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

VINEET SARAN

38 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

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

2020 INSC 52131 August 2020Case Partly allowed

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

DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (HIGHER AND TECHICAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR.

2022 INSC 37531 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, eight retired assistant professors and a college librarian from Manipur, claimed a revised pension entitlement effective from 1 April 2010 based on an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 5 May 2010, which was issued by the Governor and had statutory force. The State Government issued a later OM on 24 December

SURENDRANversusSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2021 INSC 31730 June 2021Case Partly allowed

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

RAJESH GUPTAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2022 INSC 35929 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior Income Tax officer, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.15,000 from the complainant, Madhu Bala, during a CBI‑operated trap. The prosecution relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony and on the recovery of currency notes

RAMDAS WAYDHAN GADLINGE (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS. VATSALABAI RAMDAS GADLINGE & ORS.versusGYANCHAND NANURAM KRIPLANI (DEAD) THR LRS. DHRUPADABAI & ORS.

2021 INSC 36328 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages, claiming purchase of the property by a registered sale deed dated 1 October 1992. The defendant contended that the deed was a security for a loan and that he had repaid part of the consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the deed was

MINISTRY OF AYUSHversusDR. VANITHA R. & ANR.

2018 INSC 90727 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a vacancy in the office of President of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) after the member representing Uttarakhand lost his council membership, creating a casual vacancy. An election was held on 14 March 2017 and Dr Vanitha R was elected President. The Ministry of Ayush held that the ele

MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019 IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARAversus.

2019 INSC 40927 March 2019

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu contempt petition (CrL.) No.1 of 2019, affirmed that advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara had committed contempt of court for statements made in the face of the Court. He tendered an affidavit of apology and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, suspended on condition of future goo

M/S PURI INVESTMENTSversusM/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO. & ORS.

2022 INSC 22523 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Puri Investments, the landlord, filed an eviction suit under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the tenant, M/s Young Friends & Co., had sub-let portions of the shop to three medical practitioners without the landlord's consent. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, but the Appellate

XXXversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2021 INSC 77022 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged an FIR filed by the respondent by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court. The High Court, on 20 April 2021, quashed the FIR by a detailed reasoned order. On 28 April 2021, the same High Court, acting suo moto, recalled its earlier order. The app

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITEDversusSHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR

2022 INSC 45420 April 2022Dismissed

Hyundai Motor India Ltd. appealed against the award of compensation and punitive damages granted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for a defect in the air‑bag system of a Creta car that failed to deploy in a frontal collision, causing i

BALRAM GARGversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2022 INSC 44219 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Balram Garg and related parties against SEBI’s orders that they had engaged in insider trading. SEBI had alleged that the appellants were "connected persons" or "immediate relatives" of the company’s chairman and MD and had traded on unpublished price‑sensitive information (UPSI

B. L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTDversusM/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR.

2022 INSC 6018 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., a steel supplier, filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC against a real‑estate firm (defendant No.1) and its contractor JMS Steels & Power Corp. (defendant No.2) for non‑payment of Rs 89,50,244. The trial court denied both defendants leave to defend, holding that no triable issues

M/S. SS GROUP PVT. LTD.versusAADITIYA J. GARG & ANR.

2020 INSC 70817 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents booked flats with the appellant‑builder but the flats were not delivered on time, prompting them to file consumer complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking a refund. Under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the appellant had 30 days to file

VINOD KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORSversusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS

2021 INSC 74417 November 2021Disposed off

The appellants, appointed as Judicial Magistrates in 2002‑03, were placed higher in the merit list than the petitioners belonging to reserved categories. The State prepared a gradation list for promotion using Rule 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, which applied roster points meant for direct recruitmen

NARESH KUMAR & ORS.versusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2019 INSC 115117 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award dated 01‑10‑2003 granted them compensation of Rs.1,97,08,397. On 14‑07‑2004 the Collector issued a "review" award reducing the compensation by Rs.49,39,195 on the ground that certain structures on the land were illegal. The appellants c

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

NAHAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 31416 March 2022Dismissed

The victim of a rape alleged that, besides the two persons named in the FIR, a third individual, Nahar Singh, participated in the offence; his name appeared only in the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of t

SALEM MUNICIPALITYversusP. KUMAR & ORS.

2018 INSC 105815 November 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a parcel of land that formed part of the Chinneri tank bund, leased intermittently by the predecessor S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar and later purchased by P. C. Pachiappan. The plaintiff sought declaration of title and a permanent injunction against the State of Tamil Nadu, Salem Municipality and Anna Tran

DR. NAGORAO SHIVAJI CHAVANversusDR. SUNIL PURUSHOTTAM BHAMRE & ORS.

2018 INSC 106215 November 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan, challenged his transfer to the post of Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon, arguing that the order violated the three‑year normal tenure prescribed under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The respo

SACHIN KASHYAP & ORS.versusSUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

2021 INSC 33515 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Allahabad High Court entertained a writ petition seeking removal of an LCD from a specific area and, in addition, issued a direction that no permission for a DJ should be granted because the noise was deemed unpleasant and beyond permissible limits under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. 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

INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED & ANR.

2021 INSC 29613 May 2021Dismissed

India Resurgence ARC Private Ltd., a dissenting secured financial creditor, challenged the approval of a resolution plan for VSP Udyog Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) failed to consider the full value of its security interest, alleging denial of fair and equitable treatment. The CoC had ap

RAJENDRA DIWANversusPRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.

2019 INSC 135310 December 2019

The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which provides a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. The Court examined whether the State Legislature had competence to legislate on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. By ana

PURAN MALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2022 INSC 29710 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the State of Haryana, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to Mahesh Kumar, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, on the ground that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons despite two prior bail rejections by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing bail

MIHAN INDIA LTD.versusGMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS

2022 INSC 5349 May 2022Dismissed

Mihan India Ltd (MIL) invited global tenders for the up‑gradation, modernisation, operation and maintenance of Nagpur Airport. GMR Airports Ltd (GAL) emerged as the highest bidder after negotiating a higher revenue‑share and MIL issued a letter dated 07‑03‑2019 accepting the revised proposal, which GAL acknowledged. De

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC.versusK. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC.

2019 INSC 409 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether structural modifications to motor vehicles that alter dimensions or specifications beyond those originally specified by the manufacturer constitute a prohibited "alteration" under section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act 27 of 2000. Several writ petitions challenge

ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 5818 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Three postgraduate medical students were suspended from their college and hospital after a FIR was lodged alleging they were responsible for a junior colleague's suicide. The suspension was based solely on the FIR, not on a prima facie finding under Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999. The

DR. A. SURESH KUMAR & ORS.versusAMIT AGARWAL

2021 INSC 3258 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and others. The appellants filed their written statement 7 days after the 45‑day deadline prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and sought condonation of the delay. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Co

NARENDRA HIRAWAT AND CO.versusSHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 2687 March 2022Directions issued

The appellant, Narendra Hirawat & Co. (NHC), entered into film‑licence agreements with Sholay Media Entertainment (SME) for a total consideration of Rs 20 crore, later amended by addenda and a Deed of Settlement dated 03‑12‑2018 requiring NHC to pay Rs 8.71 crore in four tranches. Disputes arose over the issuance of in

YERUVA SAYIREDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2022 INSC 12977 March 2022Disposed off

The appellant, convicted of murder under IPC s.302, appealed his conviction and sentence. While the appeal was pending, he died in prison after about twelve years. Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. provides that an appeal abates on the death of the appellant unless a near relative applies within thirty days for continuance. N

REDDY VEERANAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 5205 May 2022Disposed off

The appellant, Reddy Veerana, owned a scheduled parcel of land in Noida that was later allotted to DLF and subsequently acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had fixed compensation at Rs 1,10,000 per square metre (the circle rate) but allowed a 50 % deduction for development charges

J. SEKAR @SEKAR REDDYversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2022 INSC 5195 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

J. Sekar Reddy, managing partner of SRS Mining, was searched by the Income Tax Department in December 2016, leading to the seizure of about Rs 107 crore in cash and gold. The CBI registered FIRs for scheduled offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached the

UNION OF INDIAversusKRISHNA MODI & ANR.

2022 INSC 1443 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a claim by Krishna Modi for a pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. He alleged he was underground for eight months during the 1942 freedom movement, filing the claim on 27 December 1982, more than twenty years after the event. The High Court had allowed the pension

SANJAY JAINversusNATIONAL AVIATION CO. OF INDIA LTD.

2018 INSC 10321 November 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Sanjay Jain, a permanent Assistant Aircraft Engineer with Air India, served a five‑year bond and thereafter gave a 30‑day notice of resignation effective 1 October 2006. After the notice period, Air India refused to accept his resignation and demanded he report for duty, withholding his pending dues. The Supreme Court

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSIONversusPRIYANKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2021 INSC 4361 September 2021Dismissed

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised for Post‑Graduate Teacher positions requiring a B.Ed. degree, with a cut‑off date of 12 October 2015 for applications. Several candidates had appeared for the B.Ed. exam but the final results were pending; they submitted provisional/confidential results issued by their

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