Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Constitution of India

5,773 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 4,201–4,400.

NBCC (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

2025 INSC 549 January 2025Matter referred to larger bench

NBCC (India) Ltd., a micro‑small enterprise, entered into several construction contracts with the State of West Bengal and later filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, 2006 after the contracts were executed. The enterprise then referred a payment dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Cou

M/S. K.P. MOZIKAversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

2024 INSC 279 January 2024

The assessees entered into contracts to provide motor vehicles, cranes and related equipment to ONGC and tank trucks to IOCL, and the tax authorities treated these arrangements as sales under Clause 29A(d) of Article 366, imposing sales tax and VAT. The assessees contended that the contracts were for services, not for

SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEYversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2018 INSC 149 January 2018Disposed off

Shyam Narayan Chouksey filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to ensure public respect for the National Anthem, including a mandatory requirement that all cinema halls play the anthem before feature films and that audiences stand. The Supreme Court’s interim order of 30 November 2016 imposed such dir

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECRGR CENTRAL BANK A OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE "ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2015 INSC 209 January 2015Case Partly allowed

The case concerned whether SC/ST employees of public sector banks are entitled to reservation in promotions from one officer scale to the next. The banks relied on Office Memoranda dated 1‑Nov‑1990 and 13‑Aug‑1997, arguing that they only provided a concession and not reservation for Group‑A posts with a salary ceiling

M/S. KAILASH NATH ASSOCIATESversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

2015 INSC 229 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Kailash Nath Associates, the highest bidder in a Delhi Development Authority (ODA) public auction, deposited 25% earnest money (Rs 78 lakhs) and was later asked to pay the balance 75% with interest. ODA extended the payment deadline twice, but eventually cancelled the allotment and forfeited the earnest money, cit

MAJOR GENERAL H.M. SINGH, VSMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2014 INSC 189 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Major General H.M. Singh, the senior most Major General in the DRDO, was recommended by a Selection Board for promotion to Lieutenant General. As he was due to superannuate on 29‑Feb‑2008, the President granted two extensions of service under Army Rule 16A to allow his promotion to be considered. The Appointments Commi

V.K. NASWAversusHOME SECRETARY, U.O.I. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 109 January 2012Dismissed

V.K. Naswa filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking Rs 10 crore each from Baba Ramdev, Anna Hazare and others for alleged misuse and insult of the National Flag, and also asked the Court to direct amendment of the Flag Code of India, 2002. The petitioner had already lodged criminal complaints against the responde

ASHOK KUMAR MITTALversusRAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

2009 INSC 129 January 2009Dismissed

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

KANHAIYALALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 259 January 2008Dismissed

The appellant Kanhaiyalal was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act based primarily on a statement he gave to an officer under Section 67 of the Act. The key issues were whether such a statement could be used as a confession for conviction, whether it attracted the bar of Sections 24

MAZHAR HASSANversusGANGU SINGH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 289 January 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, Mazhar Hassan, purchased land from decree holders who had obtained a decree of eviction against the respondents under Section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The decree holders' execution application was dismissed as time‑barred, after which the appellant obtained mutat

K.S. KRISHNA SARMAversusKIFAYAT ALI

2008 INSC 309 January 2008Disposed off

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land. During the suit, one of the defendants died and his daughter, a legal representative, was not initially impleaded. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but the High Court set aside the decree, directing that the daug

SANJA Y SINGH & ANR .versusU.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLAHABAD AND ANR.

2007 INSC 189 January 2007Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates of the 2003 Uttar Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, challenging the Commission's use of a statistical scaling system to adjust raw marks. The Court held that the scaling method was arbitrary, irrational, and violated Rule 20(1)

THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR AND ANR.versusMOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE AND ANR.

2004 INSC 289 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent No. I filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging a show‑cause notice issued by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and sought an interim injunction restraining further investigation.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusASSN. OF COURT STENOS, P.A., P.S. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 109 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Court stenographers, personal assistants and personal secretaries of the Bombay High Court claimed that their pay should be equal to that of senior personal assistants to the Chief Secretary after the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Bombay High Court, invoking the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under its wri

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONversusSTATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.

1996 INSC 389 January 1996Case Allowed

The National Human Rights Commission filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of about 65,000 Chakma refugees settled in Arunachal Pradesh, alleging persecution, quit notices and threats of eviction by the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union. The Chakmas had applied for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(a)

OM PRAKASH AND ANR.versusJAI PRAKASH

1992 INSC 39 January 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural land purchased through four sale deeds in which the defendants were named only as benamidar, alleging the defendants held the property benami. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, and the High Court upheld the dismissal

GRIH KALYAN KENDRA WORKERS' UNIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1991 INSC 29 January 1991Dismissed

The Grih Kalyan Kendra, a welfare society under the Ministry of Home Affairs, employed regular staff on deputation and ad‑hoc workers paid only honorarium or piece‑rate without pension or provident fund. The workers' union filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that the Kendra is a 'State' within Article 1

SUBHASH KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1991 INSC 39 January 1991Dismissed

Subhash Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron & Steel Co. were polluting the Bokaro river by discharging slurry from their washeries, thereby violating the right to life under Article 21. He also alleged that the State of Bihar and its Pollu

K.M. SHARMAversusDEVI LAL & ORS.

1990 INSC 19 January 1990Dismissed

K.M. Sharma filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Shri Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister, contending that the oath he took was not the one prescribed by Article 75(4) and Schedule III of the Constitution and that he was still serving as Chief Minister of Haryana when the oath was administered. The Union

KISHEN PATTNAYAK & ANR.versusSTATE OF ORISSA

1989 INSC 49 January 1989Disposed off

Two writ petitions filed under Article 32 highlighted extreme poverty, starvation deaths, and exploitation in Kalahandi and Koraput districts of Orissa. The petitioners alleged that the State had failed to protect lives and sought directions for immediate relief measures. The Court ordered a district judge to investiga

RAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.

1984 INSC 89 January 1984Dismissed

The case concerned a challenge by fertilizer dealers to a Uttar Pradesh Government notification issued under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, which fixed the selling price of fertilizer stocks acquired before 31 May 1974 at the lower price fixed by an earlier Central Government notification of 11 October 1

T.P. GOPALAKRISHNANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2022 INSC 12628 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Agricultural Officer, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for misappropriating funds during 1992-1994. He argued that the prosecution in the 2003 cases was barred by double jeopardy because he had already been tried, convicted, or acquitted in three earlier cases (1999)

AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERSversusARVIND RAI AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 8408 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Junior Engineers of the Mechanical and Civil streams, challenged a seniority list that placed candidates from the Agricultural, Mechanical and Civil streams in the order the three separate select lists were received, contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and the 2009 Su

SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.versusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2021 INSC 8428 December 2021Dismissed

The appellants, sons of M. Krishna Reddy, claimed that 8 guntas of land in Survey No.13, which they alleged was left out of a 1971 acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), had been illegally allotted to other parties. They filed writ petitions seeking cancellation of those allotments, while earlier hav

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNITversusP.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

2020 INSC 6888 December 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of notifications issued under Sections 2(2) and 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 that declared a green‑field stretch (C‑K‑S) as National Highways NH‑179A and NH‑179B and authorised land acquisition for the Chennai‑Krishnagiri‑Salem corridor. The Court held that Parliament, u

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusTELANGANA RASTRA SAMITHI & ANR.

2010 INSC 8628 December 2010Disposed off

The Election Commission of India withheld bye‑elections in the Vemulawada and Sircilla Assembly constituencies because an election petition challenging the previous election was pending. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, which examined the interpretation of Section 151A of the Represent

ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD.versusMAZAGON DOCK LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 9838 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Rochem Separation Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) submitted original and supplementary bids for a defence tender but was rejected because it failed to provide an un‑priced price format. The tendering authority (Respondent No.1) subsequently awarded the contract to Respondent No.4, allowing it to amend its original of

MEERA KANWARIAversusSUNITA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 6058 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent, a Rajput woman, married a Scheduled Caste man and fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate by birth, which was later cancelled. She contested a Delhi municipal corporation election for a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste women and was declared elected. The appellant, another candidate,

M/S. TASHI DELEK GAMING SOLUTIONS LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 6078 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, lottery agents of the State of Sikkim, had invested heavily in an online lottery network in Karnataka. Karnataka issued a notification under Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 prohibiting online lotteries, which threatened the appellants' business and exposed them to penal liability under

AJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1999 INSC 5468 December 1999Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined review petitions that sought to overturn the view that Article 16(4) of the Constitution creates a fundamental right to reservation in public employment. The petitions relied on observations in Indira Sawhney that the reservation power was justified as a reasonable classification. The Court r

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANR.versusSHAH HYDER BEIG AND ORS.

1999 INSC 5498 December 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Council of Ahmednagar issued a notification under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 15 May 1971 and, after a compensation award on 26 April 1976, took possession of land. The respondents, Shah Hyder Beig and others, filed a writ petition in 1992—21 years after the notification and 16

DR. V.P. MALIK AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

1995 INSC 8628 December 1995Dismissed

The petitioners, members of the teaching specialist sub‑cadre of the Central Health Service, challenged the Government’s decision to implement the Tikoo Committee’s recommendation on promotion from the Rs 3,700‑5,000 scale to the Rs 4,500‑5,700 scale with a cut‑off date of 1 December 1991, alleging that the one‑year de

THE PAPNASAM LABOUR UNIONversusMADURA COATS LTD. AND ANR.

1994 INSC 5858 December 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The Madura Coats Ltd. sought a declaration that Section 25‑M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended in 1976), which requires prior governmental permission before a lay‑off, violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Madras High Court held the provision ultra vires, relying on the reasoning in Excel We

UNION OF INDIA AND ORSversusG. VASUDEVAN PILLAY AND ORS. ETC. ETC .

1994 INSC 5888 December 1994Disposed off

The case concerned ex‑servicemen who were re‑employed in civil posts of the Government of India and the validity of the Union's decision to deny dearness relief (DR) on their pensions and family pensions, as well as to reduce their pay by an amount equivalent to the enhanced pension of those who were in post on 1 Janua

ENGLISH MEDIUM STUDENTS PARENT ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 3888 December 1993Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition challenging Karnataka's Government Order No. 87 PRU SE BHA 88, which mandated mother‑tongue as the medium of instruction in classes I‑IV and made Kannada optional from class III for non‑Kannada speakers, with Kannada becoming a compulsory second language from class V. The peti

SABITA PRASAD AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1992 INSC 3358 December 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of district‑wise panels prepared by the State of Bihar for appointing primary‑school assistant teachers. The petitioners argued that inclusion in a panel created a vested right to appointment and that the Government's circular of 2 July 1989, which cancelled the panels but saved

BINOD BIHARI SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA

[1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 4688 December 1992Dismissed

The appellant, Binod Bihari Singh, entered a contract with the Union of India for handling goods at a railway shed, which was terminated early. An arbitrator was appointed and awarded Rs. 82,100 to the appellant on 26 February 1965. The appellant filed an application on 20 May 1966 under Section 17 of the Arbitration A

G.C. GUPTA & ORS.versusN.K. PANDEY & ORS.

1987 INSC 3658 December 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the seniority of temporary Assistant Engineers in the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II. The petitioners, appointed temporarily between 1947‑1950 and later confirmed, claimed that their seniority should be measured from the date they became members of the ser

PRASAD & ORS.versusV. GOVINDASWAMI MUDALIAR & ORS.

1981 INSC 2008 December 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The Karta of a joint Hindu family, K.V. Purushotham, incurred large debts in a personal fungi business and, together with his brother, executed a sale deed on 22 August 1955 transferring almost the entire family property for a nominal Rs.16,500, purportedly to discharge those debts. The sons of the Karta and his brothe

R. S. MAKASHI & ORS.versusI. M. MENON & ORS.

1981 INSC 1998 December 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra created the Bombay Rationing Organisation (BRO) by merging staff from the former Controller of Foodgrains Distribution (CFD) with personnel drawn from various sources. In 1968 it issued a government resolution fixing seniority rules (Rule 4(a), (c) and a proviso to Rule 7) that gave released go

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITYversusNARESH AGARWAL & ORS.

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 16478 November 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court considered a reference to determine the criteria for an educational institution to be considered a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution, and whether the decision in Azeez Basha (which held that Aligarh Muslim University was not a minority institution because it was established by

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

HARI NIWAS GUPTAversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 12278 November 2019Dismissed

Three Bihar judicial officers were dismissed by a Full Court resolution that invoked clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, dispensing with a departmental inquiry. The High Court had failed to record written reasons for dispensing with the inquiry, leading the Division Bench to set asid

VOLUNTARY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF PUNJABversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 10138 November 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard two writ petitions challenging the implementation of the Pre‑conception and Pre‑natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and its Rules. The petitioners sought directions for stricter enforcement, a centralised civil‑registration database, training of officials, and al

AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2012 INSC 5128 November 2012Disposed off

The appellant, Aymubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, was appointed as a senior clerk in the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation under a Scheduled Tribe reservation based on a caste certificate that declared him a member of the Bhil Tadvi tribe. Respondent No.5, a general‑category citizen, alleged that the appellant, being a Muslim,

ORISSA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusBHARATI INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5518 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Orissa Agro Industries Corporation entered into a non‑statutory contract with Sharati Industries to lift unserviceable machinery and scrap. A dispute arose over the value of the items actually lifted, with the respondent claiming breach of contract and seeking a refund of Rs 8.5 lakhs plus interest. The Orissa High

VAIJANATH AND ORS.versusGURAMMA AND ANR.

1998 INSC 4158 November 1998Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the heirs of Veerappa challenging a partition order that gave the widow of Ramshetti a share in the joint family agricultural land. The issue was whether the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, as applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, covered agricultural land, an

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTSversusB. RAVINDRAN AND ANR.

1996 INSC 13138 November 1996Dismissed

The case concerned ex‑servicemen who retired before age 55 and were re‑employed in the civil service. Their pay was fixed at the minimum scale, and they claimed advance increments where the total of pay plus pension was less than the pay drawn at retirement, invoking Office Memoranda (OM) of 1958 and 1983. The Governme

SHIV SAGAR TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13148 November 1996

The Supreme Court examined a public interest writ petition challenging the allotment of 52 shops and stalls by the then Minister of Urban Development, Smt. Sheila Kaul. The Court found that the allotments were made without public notice, contrary to the policy she herself had framed in 1994, and were granted to her rel

ABHJJIT TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD.versusTERAI TEA CO. (P) LTD. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6998 November 1995Disposed off

The petitioner, Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., sought the refund of Rs.19,33,873.74 held in court deposit after a Calcutta High Court division bench ordered the High Court Registrar to return the sum. Although the Supreme Court, on 16 August 1994, directed the Registrar to effect the refund, the Registrar failed to do so,

SHYAM LAL SHARMA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

1985 INSC 2398 November 1985Dismissed

The petitioners, railway employees, were dismissed or removed for participating in a strike without any enquiry. They filed writ petitions, which were transferred to the Supreme Court and ultimately dismissed. The petitioners then filed review petitions alleging that they were denied a chance to argue the merits, that

DASHWANTHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 12038 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, kidnapping, rape and offences under the POCSO Act based on four alleged pillars of evidence: a last‑seen‑together theory, CCTV footage, a confession‑derived disclosure statement and DNA profiling. The Supreme Court examined whether each of these pillars was

SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDAversusKARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

2021 INSC 6398 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose over the appointment of a Junior Lab Technician at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, where the appellant was selected based on a merit list that allocated 85% weightage to the qualifying exam, 10% to work experience and 5% to an interview. The third respondent, who had scored higher in the qual

RAM BAHAL &ANR.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS.

2015 INSC 7508 October 2015Dismissed

The appeal concerned plots in Azamgarh where the appellants claimed ownership by adverse possession and payment of compensation, while the respondents sought expunction of the appellants' names from revenue records. The Consolidation Officer ordered expunction, the Settlement Officer later recorded the appellants as Se

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND & ORS.

2013 INSC 6888 October 2013Disposed off

The National Federation of the Blind filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, alleging that the Union failed to provide the mandated 3% reservation for persons with disabilities, especially the blind and low‑vision categories. The High Court directed modificati

MAHAMUDUL HASSANversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2010 INSC 6888 October 2010Dismissed

A Bangladeshi national was convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946 for illegal entry into India and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the conviction and seeking relief from the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether it

DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.versusMADAN LAL NANGIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 5318 October 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of several parcels of land in Delhi that were claimed to be evacuee properties. The petitioners argued that the acquisition, made under the Section 4 notification of 23 January 1965, was invalid because earlier notifications had excluded evacuee lands and because such lands ve

M.D., ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATIONversusSUMANGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2003 INSC 5288 October 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an arbitration award arising from a turnkey housing contract between Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) and Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (Sumangal). The Court held that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass an interim injunction under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 5338 October 2003Dismissed

The petitioners, Common Cause, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Union of India to issue a Gazette notification under Section 1(3) of the Delhi Rent Act, 1995, which required the Central Government to fix the date of the Act’s commencement. The Central Government had not issued such a notification because pending

DR. MUKHTIAR CHAND AND ORS. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1998 INSC 3858 October 1998Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 2(ee)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which defines "registered medical practitioner", exceeded the legislative competence of the Central Government under the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and whether state notifications declaring Vaids/Hakims as practitioner

SUSHMA SURI ETC. ETC.versusGOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR.

1998 INSC 3868 October 1998Disposed off

Sushma Suri, an Additional Government Advocate with more than seven years of experience, applied for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) but was not called for interview. She challenged the decision, arguing that a Government Advocate remains an "advocate" under Article 233(2) of the Constitution and is therefore

ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 2568 October 1991Dismissed

The petitioners, foreign nationals arrested for allegedly smuggling gold biscuits, were denied bail and subsequently detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). They challenged the detention, arguing that there was no compelling necess

MAYA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. RAJ KUMARI BATRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 5858 September 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Maya Devi, sought to enforce a decree for recovery of Rs.60,000 against the judgment debtor, Raj Kumari Batra, whose property was attached and sold at auction in 1978. The parties later entered a compromise whereby the decree‑holder would deposit Rs.35,000 and receive vacant possession, and the executing

ALLWYN HOUSING COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusGOVT. OF A. P. & ORS.

2009 INSC 11188 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association filed a writ petition challenging the allotment of 3 acres 18 guntas of land to the Hyderabad Allwyn Employees Co‑operative Housing Committee. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the persons to whom the plots were allotted were not impleaded. The Suprem

SURENDRA PRASAD TIWARIversusUTTAR PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD AND ORS.

2006 INSC 5888 September 2006Dismissed

Surendra Prasad Tiwari was engaged by the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad on a series of short‑term contractual appointments between 1989 and 1991, each with an automatic termination clause. After the last contract expired, his services were continued for about 14 years under an interim stay order of

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusM/S. PANIHATL RUBBER LTD

2006 INSC 5898 September 2006

M/s. Paniha​ti Rubber Ltd., a manufacturer of hose pipes supplied to Indian Railways, paid central excise duty under protest after the goods were classified under sub‑heading 4009.92 despite its claim that they should fall under 4009.99 with nil duty. The company sought a refund of the duty paid, but the excise authori

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.versusYOGESH CHANDRA DUBEY AND ORS.

2006 INSC 5908 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were engaged on daily wages by the State of Madhya Pradesh without any advertisement, vacancy notification, or sanction of a post, violating the statutory recruitment rules. They sought regularisation and payment of the minimum pay scale of the post they were working in, which the State Tribunal directe

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusSATYENDER SINGH RATHORE

2005 INSC 4118 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The employee, Satyendra Singh Rathore, was appointed on a six‑month contractual basis as Medical Officer of the Haryana Health Services and was terminated on 25 March 2002. The termination order of 11 April 2002 referred to alleged misconduct but no departmental enquiry or finding of guilt was conducted. The employee c

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.versusRAJESH KUMAR BASANDHI AND ANR.

2003 INSC 4588 September 2003Dismissed

The Union Territory of Chandigarh issued a 1996 notification for recruitment of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer fixing the maximum age limit at 30 years. Respondent Rajesh Kumar Basandhi, aged 33, was rejected and challenged the decision, contending that the Punjab Civil Services Rules, amended in 1996, raised

BALRAJ TANEJA AND ANR.versusSUNIL MADAN AND ANR.

1999 INSC 3858 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Balraj Taneja and others appealed against a Delhi High Court decree granting specific performance to Sunil Madan. The High Court had passed the decree under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC solely because the defendants failed to file a written statement, without examining a material factual dispute concerning an Income‑Tax

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBAKSHISH SINGH

1998 INSC 3538 September 1998Case Allowed

B. Singh, a police constable, was dismissed for alleged unauthorized absence. The trial court held that the absence had been regularised as leave without pay, so the misconduct charge did not survive, and also found that Singh was denied a personal hearing and that his signatures were obtained under duress. The lower a

DR. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

1995 INSC 5468 September 1995Disposed off

The appellants, who were Homeopathic Medical Officers, were appointed as junior teachers in a government homeopathy college under the Orissa Homeopathy Medical Teaching Service Rules, 1980. Their appointments were challenged on the grounds that the Selection Board had not consulted the Public Service Commission, that s

J. VASUDEVANversusT.R. DHANANJAYA

1995 INSC 5478 September 1995Rejected

The Supreme Court sentenced a State Government officer, J. Vasudevan, to one month’s simple imprisonment for wilful disobedience of its order. The officer applied for remission of the sentence invoking the Court’s mercy jurisdiction, while a colleague had approached one of the judges to seek mercy for Vasudevan, an act

R. CHANDEVARAPPA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 5528 September 1995Dismissed

The original grantee, Dasana Rangaiah, was allotted two acres of government land in 1951 under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. He sold the land to the appellant in 1968, but a 1987 representation led the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the sale as

UNIVERSITY OF DELHIversusRAJ SINGH

1994 INSC 3708 September 1994Dismissed

The Delhi High Court upheld the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 1991 that require a written eligibility test for appointment of lecturers in Delhi University and its affiliated colleges. The University challenged the regulations as beyond UGC's competence, directory rather than mandatory, and an infri

SH. GAURI SHANKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 3698 September 1994Dismissed

The petitioners, who were the legal heirs of statutory tenants of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenged the amendment introduced by Act 18 of 1976 that inserted clause (iii) in Section 2(1), which restricts the heritability of such residential tenancies. They argued that the clause dis

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.versusC. SUBRAMANI AND ORS.

1992 INSC 2398 September 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were involved in the manufacture and sale of illicit liquor that caused several deaths, and were detained under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum‑grabbers Act. They fil

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusCHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARNI & ORS.

1981 INSC 1628 September 1981Appeal(s) allowed

After the reorganisation of states under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Assistant Sales Tax Officers (ASTOs) from the former States of Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad were allocated to the new State of Bombay, where there were no comparable posts. The State Government issued several resolutions altering seniority an

M/S SHIKHAR CHEMICALSversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 9458 August 2025Disposed off

M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenged a decision of the Allahabad High Court that refused to quash a criminal complaint arising out of a civil money recovery dispute. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court t

ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 5908 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC based on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses – a police constable (PW‑12) and the first informant (PW‑11). The Supreme Court found that PW‑12, who had actually brought the weapons to the police station, never lodged a formal complaint

K. ARUMUGAMversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.

2024 INSC 6308 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were registered lottery dealers in Kerala, bought state lottery tickets in bulk at a discount and resold them to retailers on an outright basis, earning a profit. The Central Excise authorities directed them to obtain service‑tax registration and pay tax under the heading ‘business auxiliary service

MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6838 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an FIR registered under Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC alleging that the appellants assaulted the complainant, seized Rs.2 lakh and forced signatures on a stamp paper during a land dispute. The Court considered whether the FIR disclosed the ingredients of dacoity, criminal intimidation or

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6878 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Husna filed FIR No.175/2022 alleging that several persons threatened her to withdraw an earlier FIR against her father‑in‑law. The appellant, Salib alias Salu, was not named in the original FIR but his name appeared for the first time in the informant’s further statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The

VARSHA GARGversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 8078 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the murder of an advocate, for which several accused were tried. During trial the prosecution sought the production of decoding registers of cellular companies to link the accused’s location with cell towers, and to summon the nodal officers as witnesses under Sections 91 and 311 of the CrPC. The tr

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSversusMOHD REHAN KHAN

2022 INSC 8068 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a dependent of a government servant who died in harness, was appointed on compassionate grounds to a Class III Junior Assistant post in Uttar Pradesh, subject to acquiring a computer proficiency certificate and a typing speed of 25 wpm within a year as per Rule 5(1) of the 2014 Rules. He obtained the co

ZONAL MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KOCHI & ORS.versusAARYA K. BABU & ANR.

2019 INSC 8828 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned recruitment of Agricultural Field Officers by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) for Bank of India. The notification dated 17‑11‑2014 required a B.Sc. in Agro‑Forestry, but the two private respondents held B.Sc. in Forestry and were provisionally selected before their appointments we

P. D. GOELversusHIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

2017 INSC 7158 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

P.D. Goel, a District and Sessions Judge of Himachal Pradesh, was issued a notification by the High Court in 2005 stating that he stood retired as of 31 July 2005, i.e., at the age of 58, under the proviso to Rule 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004. He challenged the notification, and a Single Judg

MONICA KUMAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2017 INSC 7138 August 2017Disposed off

Petitioners Monica Kumar and her brother alleged that police officers, acting under the influence of a medical college chairman, assaulted them while they were serving a dasti notice and later harassed them by forcing them to withdraw cases, filing a false FIR and chargesheet. The Supreme Court, after examining multipl

KAMLESH VERMAversusMAYAWATI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5268 August 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a petition filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking a review of its July 6, 2012 order that quashed FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 against Mayawati, finding that the order was correctly based on the earlier judgment that the 18 September 2003 direction did not authorize a separate FIR on disproportionate asse

R.C. CHANDELversusHIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.

2012 INSC 3258 August 2012Dismissed

The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge in Madhya Pradesh, was compulsorily retired in 2004 on the recommendation of the High Court Full Court, which cited adverse entries in his service record. He challenged the retirement before the High Court, obtaining a temporary reinstatement order from a Single Judge, which

RATTAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVESversusS.N. BHALLA & ORS.

2012 INSC 3238 August 2012Disposed off

The appellant purchased a plot in 1978 and paid Rs.50,000 as earnest money. The vendors were contractually obliged to obtain sale permission and an Income Tax clearance, but failed to do so within six months, invoking Clause 9 to terminate the agreement and refunding the earnest money. The appellant protested the refun

AMIT SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 5528 August 2011Case Allowed

Amit Singh was convicted of multiple offences, including murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming that he was a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the offence on 1 May 1999, based on his birth certificate and school records showing a birth date of 10 May 1982. The

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusM/S. P.N.C. CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.

2007 INSC 8218 August 2007Dismissed

The appellant State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a show‑cause notice that sought to revoke a recognition certificate granted to M/s P.N.C. Construction Ltd. under Section 4‑8 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessee, engaged in a works contract to widen roads for the National Highway Authority, purchased raw materi

MRS. SUSETHAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

2006 INSC 4978 August 2006Dismissed

The Okkiam Thoraipakkam Gram Panchayat resolved to build a shopping complex on a disused temple tank to resettle families displaced by a highway expansion, and the Tamil Nadu Government issued a GO permitting the construction. Ms. Susetha filed a writ petition alleging that the tank, as a water body, must be preserved

BINNY LTD. AND ANR.versusV. SADASIVAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 3438 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a private employer could be subjected to a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for terminating employees under a contractual clause. The Court held that mandamus is a public‑law remedy and is available only when the body performs a public function or the duty has a

G.M., O.N.G.C. LTDversusSENDHABHAI VASTRAM PATEL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 3458 August 2005Dismissed

The appellant, G.M. O.N.G.C. Ltd., challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired by the Gujarat State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector had fixed a market value of Rs.1.55 per sq. m. based on deeds of sale, but the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.10 per sq. m. relying solely

BAL PATIL AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 3428 August 2005Disposed off

The petitioners, representing a section of the Jain community, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Central Government to notify Jains as a minority under section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, based on a recommendation of the National Commission. The High Court dismissed the peti

SALKIA BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND ORS.versusHOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPROATION AND ORS.

2001 INSC 3508 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Salkia Businessmen's Association feared displacement due to a fly‑over and obtained a writ petition that was disposed of by a settlement, the terms of which were incorporated into the Calcutta High Court’s order on 13 Feb 1991. The Howrah Municipal Corporation and other authorities later failed to give the alternat

PAIARA LALversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

1999 INSC 3128 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a police constable appointed in the former State of PEPSU in 1949, was allotted to Punjab after PEPSU merged with Punjab on 1 November 1956. PEPSU regulations prescribed a retirement age of 60 years for Class‑IV employees, whereas Punjab prescribed 58 years. The Superintendent of Police retired the appel

HIRA MANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1997 INSC 6038 August 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a class‑IV employee, was promoted to the post of clerk in a government‑aided college. Respondent No. 4, the son of a government servant who died in service, claimed a compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and sought

RAJENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8508 August 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a licensee of several liquor shops under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, failed to pay licence fees for July and August 1994. The authorities issued a show‑cause notice, gave him a date to appear, and later published a notification of cancellation and re‑auction, which was subsequently held. The appellant

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusJAIN SHUDH VANASPATI LTD. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8568 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents imported 13,500 metric tonnes of RBD palm oil in stainless‑steel containers, which are a prohibited item, but the containers were painted to appear as mild‑steel. Customs issued show‑cause notices under Section 28 (duty not levied or short‑levied) and Section 124 (confiscation) of the Customs Act. The D

P. CHINNANNA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 3018 August 1994

The State of Andhra Pradesh, invoking urgency under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired 6 acres 29 guntas of land for a market yard in 1977, publishing a Section 4(1) notification and a Section 6(1) declaration, and took possession in 1978, vesting the land in the State. The appellants, who claimed t

YOGENDRA MURARIversusSTATE OF U.P.

1988 INSC 2078 August 1988Dismissed

Yogendra Murari was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 after three violent incidents that disturbed public order. He challenged the detention on grounds that the order improperly included incidents unrelated to public order, was delayed beyond four months, was intended to defeat a bail order

RAJINDER KAURversusPUNJAB STATE & ANR.

1986 INSC 1648 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Rajinder Kaur, a temporary lady constable, was discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 on the ground that she was "unlikely to prove an efficient police officer." She contended that the order was a disguise for dismissal on misconduct, based on a secret enquiry conducted without a charge‑sheet, hea

M. NIRMALA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

1986 INSC 1658 August 1986Dismissed

The petitioners were temporary Group IV employees appointed after April 1974 under a ban on direct recruitment. Special qualifying tests in 1973 and 1976 were held for regularisation, but the petitioners could not appear because they lacked the required two‑years service. The Government later exempted them from any exa

SMT. SAROJ RANIversusSUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA

1984 INSC 1348 August 1984Dismissed

The wife filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and a consent decree was passed. After a year, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 for divorce, claiming that no cohabitation had occurred following the decree. The trial court held that the husband

B. VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS ETCversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

1983 INSC 898 August 1983Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Rule 13(1) of the 1973 Adhoc Rules and Rule 6 of the 1974 Adhoc Rules governing seniority and promotion of Junior Lecturers in Andhra Pradesh junior colleges. Petitioners, who were first or second class post‑graduate degree holders, claimed that the 1976 seniority list,

KATHIAWAR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusJAFFRABAD MUNICIPALITY

1979 INSC 1468 August 1979Dismissed

Kathiawar Industries Ltd operated a salt manufacturing plant where raw (uncrushed) salt was produced outside Jaffrabad Municipality and then transported into the municipality's octroi limits for crushing before export. The municipality demanded octroi on the salt, asserting that the salt, once brought into the area for

SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

2024 INSC 4728 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, trustees of a trust, entered into sale agreements with the second respondent and his brother, which later led to a suit for specific performance. The suit was withdrawn after an out‑of‑court settlement, but the second respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud and other offences. The appellant

BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI

2024 INSC 4788 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from a slum redevelopment project where the respondent, Samir Narain Bhojwani, alleged default by the appellant, Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited, leading to arbitration and an award in favour of the respondent. The appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitratio

MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 4668 July 2024Dismissed

The appellants challenged the recruitment of Prabodhak teachers in Rajasthan, arguing that Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, which gave age relaxation to persons who had served in certain educational projects, violated Article 14 of the Constitution, and that the award of bonus m

NIPUN MALHOTRAversusSONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2024 INSC 4658 July 2024Disposed off

The appellant, a person with arthrogryposis, challenged the portrayal of persons with disabilities in the film ‘Aankh Micholi’, alleging violations of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and the Cinematograph Act, 1952. He sought the inclusion of disability experts on the Central Board of Film

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusDR. SANAT KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.

2024 INSC 4698 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal appointed 24 Vice‑Chancellors in 2022, but the High Court held the State‑constituted Search Committee invalid for lacking a UGC‑nominated member, rendering those appointments unlawful. Subsequent attempts by the State to extend tenures and appoint interim Vice‑Chancellors were also challenged,

FRANK VITUSversusNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ORS.

2024 INSC 4798 July 2024

Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national, was charged under Sections 8, 22, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge granted him bail but imposed two conditions: a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria that he would not leave India and a requirement to drop a PIN on Google Maps to disclose his locati

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusRAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)

2014 INSC 4798 July 2014

The State of Punjab filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order that barred recovery of excess pensionary payments made to the respondent, a white washer, on the ground that the employee had not committed fraud. The Supreme Court examined the apparent conflict between earlier decisions: Shyam Babu Ver

THREESIAMMA JACOB & ORS.versusGEOLOGIST, DPTI. OF MINING & GEOLOGY & ORS.

2013 INSC 4478 July 2013Disposed off

The petitioners, holders of jenmi rights in Malabar, Kerala, challenged the State's demand for royalties on minerals extracted from their lands, arguing that they owned the sub‑soil. The Kerala High Court held that the minerals belonged to the State and dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examine

KHAZIA MOHAMMED MUZAMMILversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3788 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Khazia Mohammed Muzammil, was appointed as a District Judge on probation under the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 and served for 3 years 10 months before being discharged on the ground of unsuitability. He claimed that, having completed the probation period without a specific exten

VIJETA GAJRAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2010 INSC 3808 July 2010Disposed off

The complainant filed an FIR alleging dowry demands, criminal breach of trust and illicit relations against Vijeta Gajra under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. Gajra sought to quash the FIR via a petition under Article 226 and Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing she was not a "relative" of the complainant or her husband.

DINESH CHANDRA PANDEYversusHIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.

2010 INSC 3878 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a civil judge, was charged with possessing assets disproportionate to his known income and, during the departmental enquiry, was denied permission to engage a legal practitioner. He challenged the denial as a violation of natural justice and of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rul

SINDHI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.versusTHE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2010 INSC 3928 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Sindhi Education Society, a linguistic minority school in Delhi, challenged a 1989 government circular that made reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in teaching posts a condition for receiving grant‑in‑aid under Rule 64(1)(b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The Society argued that, as a

REFERENCE NO. 1/2006 UNDER ARTICLE 317 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OFversus*

2009 INSC 8908 July 2009Reference answered

The President, on the Governor's request, referred a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court to determine whether Shri Ashok Darbari, Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, should be removed on grounds of misbehaviour. Four specific allegations were examined: irregularit

HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusKAILASH CHANDRA AHUJA

2008 INSC 7798 July 2008Case Allowed

Kailash Chandra Ahuja, a technical officer of Haryana Financial Corporation, was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry in which the Inquiry Officer’s report was not furnished to him before the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty. The High Court set aside the dismissal on the ground that non‑supply of the report

SASA MUSA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1996 INSC 6998 July 1996Disposed off

The case concerned the validity of Sections 4A, 4B and 33M inserted by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Acts of 1992‑1993 and the power of the State Government to add or delete items from the Schedule of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 using Section 39. The sugar mills argued that inc

STATE OF RATASTHANversusMANGILAL PINDWAL

1996 INSC 7088 July 1996Disposed off

Mangilal Pindwal, an Upper Division Clerk of the Rajasthan Government, was compulsorily retired on 31 March 1973 under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, with payment of three months' salary. He challenged the order, and the Rajasthan High Court set aside the retirement on the ground that th

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.versusDHARAM BIR

1998 INSC 2478 June 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appointed Dharm Bir as Principal of an Industrial Training Institute on an ad‑hoc basis, but the 1985 Madhya Pradesh Industrial (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules required a degree or diploma in Engineering for that post. When the Rules were promulgated, a promotion committee found Bir ine

P.D. AGGARWAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1987 INSC 1638 June 1987Dismissed

The case concerned Assistant Engineers in Uttar Pradesh who had been substantively appointed to temporary posts before the 1969 and 1971 amendments of the U.P. Service of Engineers Rules. They claimed that the amendments, which made seniority dependent on appointment to substantive vacancies, violated Articles 14 and 1

ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLAversusJAGAT DHARI

2026 INSC 4638 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought specific performance of a sale deed for 3.75 acres of land, and the trial court decreed payment of the balance consideration within a month or deposit in court. The appellant failed to pay or deposit until November 2020, while the respondent filed an appeal that was dismissed for non‑prosecution in

INDIAN RAILWAYSversusWEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2026 INSC 4648 May 2026Dismissed

Indian Railways sought open access to procure 100 MW of power and claimed it is a deemed distribution licensee (DDL) under the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby exempt from cross‑subsidy surcharge (CSS) and additional surcharge. The dispute centered on whether activities under sections 11(g) and 11(h) of the Railways Act

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.versusRANJAN KUMAR & ORS.

2026 INSC 4668 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant State of Jharkhand sought to uphold the dismissal of Constable Ranjan Kumar, who was found to have obtained dual appointments in Jharkhand and Bihar police forces using forged documents and assumed a false identity. The respondent contested the dismissal, alleging lack of evidence, procedural irregulariti

MAHENDRA KAUR ARORAversusHDFC BANK LTD

2024 INSC 4328 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlady, leased part of her commercial premises to HDFC Bank for nine years. The bank gave three months' notice to terminate the lease but failed to hand over vacant possession and did not pay use‑and‑occupation charges, while also not refunding the security deposit. The Rent Tribunal decreed eviction

T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusK. KANAGARAJ & ORS.

2023 INSC 5028 May 2023Dismissed

The appellants, who joined the Puducherry Electricity Department as Junior Engineers with engineering degrees, challenged the promotion of diploma‑holding engineers who obtained a degree during service and were immediately promoted under the degree quota. The issue was whether service rendered before acquiring the degr

SSANGYONG CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.versusNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)

2019 INSC 6478 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) awarded a construction contract to Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., which included a price‑adjustment formula based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) old series. When the Ministry of Industrial Development stopped publishing the old series and introduced a

STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBIversusLALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADAY

2017 INSC 4528 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand, represented by the CBI, appealed against the Jharkhand High Court’s order quashing several criminal cases arising from the fodder scam on the ground that the accused had already been convicted in one case, invoking Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC (double jeopardy).

MR. VIKRAM BAKSHI & ORS.versusMS. SONIA KHOSLA (DEAD) BY LRS.

2014 INSC 3818 May 2014Disposed off

Two business groups that had entered into a joint venture fell out over shareholding and director appointments, leading to a cascade of more than 80 proceedings, including company law petitions, contempt suits and criminal complaints under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted the deadlock and, rather than adjudi

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. & ORS.versusANANTA KISHORE ROUT & ORS.

2014 INSC 3748 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

National Aluminium Company Ltd. (NALCO) had established two schools for the children of its employees and entered into management agreements with external trusts. The school staff filed writ petitions claiming they were employees of NALCO and entitled to parity of pay with NALCO's own workers. The High Court held that

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAFIQUE SHAIKH BHIKAN & ANR.

2012 INSC 2128 May 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Union of India's 2012 Hajj Policy, focusing on the eligibility conditions for Private Tour Operators (PTOs) such as a minimum 250 sq ft office, Rs 1 crore turnover, and a Rs 25 lakh security deposit, as well as the family‑restriction clause, the constitutionality of the Hajj subsidy, and

PRIYA GUPTAversusSTATE OF CHHATISHGARH & ORS

2012 INSC 2138 May 2012Disposed off

The appellants, Priya Gupta and Akanksha Adile, were admitted to the MBBS programme at Government Medical College, Jagdalpur on 30 September 2006 through a hurried process that ignored higher‑ranking candidates, allegedly due to favouritism (the father of the second appellant was the Director of Medical Education). The

NAGESHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2012 INSC 2168 May 2012Dismissed

The victim, a college student, was staying with accused No.1 in Belgaum when accused No.2 (the appellant) allegedly attempted to outrage her modesty, assaulted her and administered poison, leading to her death. Multiple eyewitnesses saw the deceased being taken in a car by the accused, with police present, and later ob

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusJAGDISH NARAIN CHATURVEDI

2009 INSC 7528 May 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether ad‑hoc, daily‑wage or work‑charge appointments made under various Rajasthan service rules constitute appointments to the cadre/service in accordance with the recruitment rules. The petitioners argued that such appointments should be treated as regular service for purposes of seniority

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.versusWEST BENGAL REGN. COPY WRITERS ASSN. & ANR.

2009 INSC 7618 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The members of the West Bengal Registration Copywriters' Association were licensed under the West Bengal Registration (Copywriters) Rules, 1982/1999 to prepare true copies of documents for registration. They sought to be absorbed as regular Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) on the basis of parity with the earlier absorbed "

C. VENKAT REDDY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 7698 May 2009Disposed off

Twenty-five petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 claiming freedom‑fighter status and entitlement to pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983, but were denied benefits. The Union of India and the Government of Andhra Pradesh reported that after preliminary verification only 22 of the c

SABIR SIDDIQ MALIKversusBOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

2009 INSC 7788 May 2009Dismissed

The appellants, including Sabir Siddiq Malik, contended that they were not encroachers in Sanjay Gandhi National Park and challenged the Bombay High Court's order directing the formation of a Grievance Redressal Committee to resolve the dispute. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Environmental Act

RAMANUJ PANDEYversusTHE STATE OF M. P. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 7798 May 2009Case Partly allowed

Ramanuj Pandey, a Head Constable of the Madhya Pradesh Police, apprehended Laxmi Narain, a dam operator, and lodged a complaint under Section 13 of the Lunacy Act alleging insanity. Laxmi Narain's son filed a complaint, leading to a departmental inquiry that found Pandey guilty of detaining a public servant without cau

NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2008 INSC 6118 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR at Vadodara Police Station on 23 December 2006 alleging cheating and related offences by the respondents for canceling a child's admission after receiving a large sum of money. The Vadodara police began investigation, but the appellant applied to the Gujarat High Court on 26 December for tran

JAYA BACHCHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 3028 May 2006Dismissed

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

S. NARAYANAversusMD. AHMEDULLA KHAN AND ORS.

2006 INSC 3048 May 2006

S. Narayana, a senior assistant, was promoted and later appointed temporarily as an Extension Officer in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj Service. His services were regularised in the Extension Officer post, and his lien on the senior assistant post was terminated on the ground that he was not confirmed in that post.

S.D.S. SHIPPING PVT. LTD.versusJAY CONTAINER SERVICES CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2858 May 2003Disposed off

The plaintiff, a container leasing company, sued the defendant for non‑return of 92 leased containers and for arrears of rent after the lease expired and was extended by one month. The Bombay High Court rejected a motion for a receiver but later directed the defendant to deposit Rs 82 lakhs as interim security for the

JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL AND ANR.versusTARAK NATH GANGULY AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2718 May 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, clerk‑cum‑cash collectors, sought promotion and financial benefits under a 1984 Government Order, arguing that they performed duties similar to lower‑division clerks. The Calcutta High Court, in a contempt proceeding, held that the respondents had not complied with its earlier judgment and, beyond that

KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1998 INSC 2228 May 1998Directions issued

In 1989 the Governor of Bihar promulgated Ordinance 32 to take over 429 private Sanskrit schools, vesting their assets in the State and converting the teachers into government servants. The Ordinance was repeatedly re‑promulgated until 1992 without ever being placed before the legislature. The teachers filed writ petit

DR. ANURADHA BODI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .

1998 INSC 2248 May 1998Dismissed

Petitioners were appointed as General Duty Medical Officer Grade II by the Delhi Municipal Corporation between 1982 and 1985 on a purely ad‑hoc, stop‑gap basis, with explicit terms that the posts would be regularised only after passing the UPSC examination. After appearing before UPSC, they were regularised on 27 June

GAYA BAKSH YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6428 May 1996Disposed off

The case concerned the method of preparing an All‑India seniority list for officers of the Customs Appraisers Service, Class II. The Government had issued a circular in 1986 that placed promotee appraisers together based on continuous service and direct recruits based on UPSC ranking, then merged the two lists in a 1:1

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusROADWAYS MINISTERIAL STAFF ASSOCIATION U.P. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6458 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Rule 8(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts & Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1982, which dealt with pension and gratuity liabilities when government employees on deputation were deemed absorbed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp

BISWA RAN.JAN SAHOO AND ORS.versusSUSHANTA KUMAR DLNDA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6468 May 1996Dismissed

The case concerned the selection of six Chargemen ‘B’ Grade posts in the Mechanical and Electrical Division of Indian Railways under advertisement No. 6/92. The petitioners alleged massive irregularities, including alteration of answer‑book marks and interview scores, leading to wrongful appointments. The Central Admin

R.L. BANSAL AND ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 1538 May 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Assistant Engineers in the Central Public Works Department, challenged the 1979 (amended 1982) Rules that made seniority for engineers appointed after 22 December 1959 depend on the date of confirmation, arguing that this classification unfairly disadvantaged promotees and violated Articles 14 and 16(1

SUB-COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 1368 May 1991Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition filed by the Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability seeking directions concerning an inquiry into alleged misconduct of a sitting Supreme Court judge for his conduct as former Chief Justice of a High Court. The petition questioned the validity of the Lok Sabha Speaker’s admissi

ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKAversusADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.

1986 INSC 1148 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, a police inspector with an exemplary service record, was reverted to the rank of sub‑inspector on 4 January 1985, with a note that the reversion would not affect future promotion. He claimed the reversion was punitive and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and filed a writ petition under Ar

K.C. VASANTH KUMAR & ANOTHER.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

1985 INSC 1278 May 1985Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Karnataka's reservation orders (1977, 1979) that set aside 68% of seats in professional colleges and 66% of posts in government services for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The Court held that reservation m

DR. P. NALLA THAMPY TERAHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1985 INSC 1288 May 1985Dismissed

The petition challenged the constitutional validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which exempts expenditures incurred by political parties or other persons (other than the candidate or his agent) from being counted towards the candidate's election‑expense ceiling. The

S.S. MOGHE & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1981 INSC 1168 May 1981Dismissed

The petitioners, who were directly recruited on a temporary basis to the Aviation Research Centre (ARC) between 1965‑71, challenged the legality of promotions granted to deputation officers (respondents 8‑67) from 1968‑75, the constitutionality of the Aviation Research Centre (Technical) Service Rules, 1976 (Rules 6‑8,

FAZLUNBIversusK. KHADER V ALI AND ANR.

1980 INSC 1128 May 1980Appeal(s) allowed

Fazlunbi, a Muslim woman, was deserted by her husband K. Khader Vali who obtained a divorce and paid a meager mahar of Rs.500 and iddat maintenance of Rs.750, after which the magistrate cancelled the earlier maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such payment satisfied

M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC

2025 INSC 8048 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 3

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTHE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2025 INSC 4818 April 2025Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu challenged the Governor's actions in withholding assent to 10 bills and reserving them for the President's consideration after the bills were repassed by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Governor's powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, including whether

KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2024 INSC 2858 April 2024Dismissed

The appellant's vehicle was seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act after the driver was found carrying liquor well beyond the permissible limit. The appellant filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution with the High Court seeking the vehicle's release, without first invoking Secti

RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 3478 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing dishonoured cheques and also faced an FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC for allegedly cheating a complainant after taking an advance for a laser cutting machine. Both parties initially agreed to settle the dispute

NOEL HARPER & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2022 INSC 4118 April 2022Disposed off

The petitioners, a group of NGOs and individuals, challenged the 2020 amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, specifically sections 7, 12(1A), 12A and 17, alleging that the prohibition on transfer of foreign contributions, the requirement to open a single FCRA account with SBI, and the mandatory

RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS.versusSANJEEV KUMAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3328 April 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the selection of 1,983 Physical Training Instructor (PTI) posts by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). The Commission had initially announced a written test and interview criteria, later cancelled the written test and altered the short‑listing process without publishing new criteri

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 3008 April 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition challenging the Government's decision to allow migration of Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) spectrum to a Unified License (UL) and the imposition of a Rs 1,658 crore migration fee and a 1% spectrum usage charge (SUC) on Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. The petitioners alleged that t

RAJANversusJOSEPH & ORS.

2015 INSC 2918 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant, husband of a domestic worker who died from electric shock while operating a washing machine in the respondents' house, filed a private complaint under Section 304A of the IPC alleging negligent conduct by the employers. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the washing machine was

S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC.versusCENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.

2015 INSC 2988 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals by several coal traders (including S.J. Coke Industries) seeking a refund of excess amounts paid under a government‑mandated e‑auction scheme for coal, which had been declared ultra vires and void by the Court in the Ashoka Smokeless Coal case. The Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) oppo

AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAHversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2013 INSC 2248 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, including Amit Shah, challenged the registration of a second FIR (dated 29‑04‑2011) and a fresh charge‑sheet (dated 04‑09‑2012) filed by the CBI in connection with the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20 and 21 and contra

RUMI DHARversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2009 INSC 4608 April 2009Dismissed

Rumi Dhar and her husband, along with several bank officials, were charged under Sections 120‑B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for conspiring to defraud a bank. The bank recovered the loan amount through a settlement before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the accused paid Rs. 25.51 lakh. Rumi Dhar filed an application unde

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

2009 INSC 4648 April 2009Disposed off

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

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusVIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS.

2009 INSC 4658 April 2009Dismissed

Vijay Krishna Neema, employed by the Central Bank of India since 1973, took leave in 1986 and failed to report back, despite several memos and a show‑cause notice. The bank invoked Clause 16 of the Shastri Award, a bipartite settlement, to deem him to have voluntarily retired and terminated his service. Neema changed h

ANDHRA PRADESH SERVICE COMMISSIONversusBALOJI BADHAVATH & ORS.

2009 INSC 4688 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) appealed against a High Court order that declared the Government Orders (GOMs) of 31‑12‑1997 and the 27‑12‑2007 notification, which used a 1:50 shortlisting ratio irrespective of community, ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examine

THE HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS.versusSADHU RAM

2008 INSC 4668 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board conducted an open auction of shop and booth plots under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, but did not disclose the reserve price in the public notice. The respondents were declared highest bidders, deposited 25% of the bid amount, yet the Chief Administrat

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusAKHIL GUJARAT PRAVASI V.S. MAHAMANDAL AND ORS.

2004 INSC 2468 April 2004

The State of Gujarat amended the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (via Gujarat Act No.9 of 2002) to impose a higher tax on "designated omnibuses" (contract carriages) and to require advance payment with a refund mechanism for non‑use. Bus operators challenged the amendment, alleging violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g

ACHUTANANDA BAIDYAversusPRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3888 April 1997Dismissed

Achutananda Baidya sold land to Prafullya Kumar Gayen, who later claimed the sale was made under distress and that an oral agreement existed for reconveyance, invoking the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Lands Act, 1973. The Special Officer allowed restoration, but the appellate authority set aside that order, fin

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.versusM.R. ALAGAPPAN AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3898 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, promoted Deputy Agricultural Officers in Tamil Nadu's Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service, claimed parity in pay with directly recruited Agricultural Officers, arguing that they performed substantially the same duties. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal granted them equal pay under the doctr

T.R. THANDURversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4908 April 1996Disposed off

The petitioner booked a flat in a building constructed on excess vacant land that had been exempted under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The promoter refused to transfer the flat and the land share, citing a Karnataka High Court order based on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. V

DR. HANIRAJ L. CHULANIversusBAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA

1996 INSC 4918 April 1996Dismissed

Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani, a practising surgeon, applied for enrollment as an advocate but was rejected by the Maharashtra and Goa State Bar Council under Rule 1, which bars persons engaged in any other profession from being enrolled. He challenged the rule on grounds of excessive delegation of legislative power and viola

TARUN BHARAT SANGH, ALWARversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1993 INSC 1478 April 1993

The Supreme Court heard a petition filed under Article 32 by the environmental NGO Tarun Bharat Sangh, seeking to stop illegal mining in the Alwar Tiger Reserve, which is also a sanctuary, national park and protected forest under various statutes. The Court examined whether the mining leases granted by the Rajasthan Go

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusSWAIKA PROPERTIES & ANR.

1985 INSC 778 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 authorized the acquisition of land in Jaipur for a public development scheme. A notice under s.52(2) was served on the respondents at their Calcutta office, and the land was later vested in the State of Rajasthan by a notification under s.52(1). The respondents filed a writ pet

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusMANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC.

2022 INSC 2798 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered two appeals filed by the Union of India against former and serving officers who sought promotion to Junior Administrative Grade‑I (JAG‑I) and the associated pay‑upgradation. The first appellant had voluntarily retired in 2010 and claimed that he was entitled to promotion and enhanced pay un

KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2021 INSC 1608 March 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants, Krishna Lal Chawla and others, challenged a private complaint filed in 2018 by their neighbour (Respondent No.2) under Section 200 CrPC, which alleged offences arising from a 2012 altercation. The complaint was filed six years after the incident, despite a charge‑sheet already being filed against the co

GANGADHARA PALOversusTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOTHER

2011 INSC 1918 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a review petition in the High Court after a special leave petition (SLP) against the High Court's judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court without reasons. The High Court dismissed the review petition and the application for condonation of a 71‑day delay. The Supreme Court held that the delay sho

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusBHARAT SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 1908 March 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two questions arising from the selection of principals for aided/affiliated degree and postgraduate colleges in Uttar Pradesh. First, it held that the High Court was correct in quashing the appointment of a Divisional Commissioner as an enquiry officer because a parallel state inquiry would d

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCILversusPAN SINGH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2608 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) had 17 senior Shift‑In‑Charge employees who voluntarily became Meter Readers and were given a higher pay scale as an ad‑hoc, personal measure. An industrial dispute was later raised by other Meter Readers, and the Industrial Tribunal awarded pay parity to those Meter Readers who w

U.O.I.versusJAI PRAKASH SINGH AND ANR.

2007 INSC 2638 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The writ petitioner sought permission to operate a Gramin PCO (Village Public Telephone) and the Allahabad High Court, in a non‑reasoned order, held that the Ministry of Communications' guidelines were arbitrary and violative of Article 14, directing the allotment of a VPT. The appellants appealed, contending that the

M/S. SRIRAM INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.versusMAHAK SINGH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2668 March 2007Dismissed

The workmen claimed they were illegally retrenched because they had completed at least 240 days of service in a calendar year, satisfying the condition precedent to retrenchment under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer produced only an extract of the attendance register for the twelve mo

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