Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

General Clauses Act, 1897

408 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

STATE OF PUNJABversusHARNEK SINGH

2002 INSC 8415 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against a High Court order that quashed FIRs and subsequent proceedings against Harnek Singh, alleging that the investigations were conducted by police officers not authorized under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused had been investigated under notifications issued under th

MIS. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD. ETC. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.

2014 INSC 98214 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

MIS Opera House Exports Ltd. and others were adjudicated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for alleged violations relating to export bill realizations. The adjudicating authority issued an order on 11 October 2007, which was served on the company on 25 October 2007. The company filed an appeal befo

NAGARAJAN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 70314 May 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA) for selling adulterated curd and various food items, receiving six months' imprisonment and fines. They sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, arguing that Section 20AA of PoFA, which excluded probation,

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P.versusSHAH SADIQ AND SONS.

1987 INSC 10814 April 1987Dismissed

Shah Sadiq & Sons, a partnership firm registered under the Income Tax Act, incurred speculation losses of Rs 60,054 in AY 1960‑61 and Rs 6,839 in AY 1961‑62 and claimed to set them off against a profit of Rs 58,102 in AY 1962‑63. The Income‑Tax Officer rejected the claim, holding that, for a registered firm, losses cou

UMAJI KESHAO MESHRAM & ORS.versusRADHIKABAI W/O ANANDRAO BANAPURKAR & ANR.

1986 INSC 4114 March 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether an intra‑court appeal under clause 15 of the Bombay High Court's Letters Patent is available against a judgment of a Single Judge hearing a petition under Article 227 (or Article 226) of the Constitution. The Division Bench had dismissed the appeal on the basis of a prior Full Bench d

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 19414 February 2019Disposed off

The case involves multiple appeals arising from a Delhi High Court judgment concerning the division of powers between the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) under Article 239AA of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench had earlier interpreted Artic

RAMESH DASSversusRAGHU NATH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 18514 February 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court convicted five accused of offences under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the High Court reduced some sentences, enhanced the fine and ordered the accused to be released on probation under Section 360 of the CrP

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusGIRISH BIHARI AND ORS.

1997 INSC 14114 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Girish Bihari, an IPS officer, was due to retire on 31 March 1996. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh ordered, on 20 March 1996, an extension of his service for six months under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death‑cum‑Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. On 23 March 1996, the Governor cancelled that extension order un

BHARTI ARORAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 104413 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Superintendent of Police, was implicated by a Special Judge for allegedly fabricating a false story that led to the recovery of opium and was issued a show‑cause notice under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge recorded adverse findings against her and other officers without giving the

POONAM VERMA AND ORS.versusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2007 INSC 128813 December 2007Dismissed

The appellants, Poonam Verma and others, had registered under the Fifth Self‑Financing Housing Registration Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) but never received a flat. After the scheme was closed, they sought inclusion in the "out‑of‑turn allotment" (OTA) quota based on a letter dated 24‑08‑2000 from the

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSHRIMATI CHAYA GHOSHAL AND ANR.

2004 INSC 71013 December 2004Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that quashed a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) against Rajen Ghosal, an exporter accused of mis‑declaring export consignments. The High Court had

M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 60213 September 2006Directions issued

The Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) challenged two notifications issued by the Central Government fixing the dissolution date of the erstwhile MPSEB as 15‑Nov‑2000 and apportioning assets, rights and liabilities between MPSEB and the newly formed Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB). MPSEB alleged

NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

1998 INSC 24013 May 1998Dismissed

The Chief Minister of Sikkim and an IAS officer were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for offences alleged in 1984. After the 1947 Act was repealed and replaced by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a Special Judge appointed under the 1988 Act tried the case, but later held it lacked jurisdicti

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 36713 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. denied fire‑insurance claims of Harsolia Motors, a commercial enterprise, which led the respondents to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA 1986). The Gujarat State Commission held the respondents were not "consumers" because the insurance was for a com

PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDUSTRIES ETC. ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 7913 March 1992Dismissed

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman and Diu Barge Tax Act, 1973, arguing that a 'barge' is not a 'boat' within the meaning of Entry 58, List II of the Seventh Schedule, which permits states to tax 'animals and boats'. They contended that the term 'boat' should be limited to vessels p

PUJA FERRO ALLOYS P LTD.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 21713 February 2025Dismissed

The appellant companies, industrial units in Goa, claimed a 25% rebate on electricity tariffs under a 1991 notification that was later rescinded in 1995 and amended in 1996. They argued that their entitlement crystallised when they applied for power and that the State could not withdraw the benefit due to promissory es

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusLALIT SOMDATTA NAGPAL AND ANR.

2007 INSC 12913 February 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (including those committed during the period of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981) fall within the ambit of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). It held that the 1955 Act’s Section 7 sti

VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2015 INSC 2713 January 2015Disposed off

Videocon International Ltd. appealed against SEBI's order that some of its second appeals to the High Court were not maintainable after the amendment of Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. The amendment, effective 29‑Oct‑2002, shifted the second appellate forum from the High Court to the Supreme Court and limited the scope to

SWADESHI COTTON MILLSversusUNION OF INDIA

1981 INSC 1013 January 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Swadeshi Cotton Mills challenged a Government order under Section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, which authorised the National Textile Corporation to take over its management without a prior hearing. The Supreme Court examined whether the principle of audi alteram partem was implied in S

ANIL KUMAR GOELversusKISHAN CHAND KAURA

2007 INSC 127112 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant issued a cheque on 31 March 1998 which was dishonoured on two occasions; notices were served and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 28 November 1998. The appellant sought to quash the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the one‑month limita

VASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAKversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 46512 November 2002Dismissed

Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and contended that the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, lacked jurisdiction because the judge was not a "Special Judge" as defined in Section 3 of the 1988 Act. He argued that the appointment of the judge under a notification issued purs

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORSversusNISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.

2022 INSC 107412 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The lands were acquired for BPCL under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The landowners challenged the acquisition and, after the 1990 Act was repealed, sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).

THE INCOME TAX OFFICERversusURBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

2018 INSC 97112 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) of Kota, created under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, claimed exemption from income tax under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that it qualified as a "local authority" within the meaning of clause (iii) of the explanation – i.e., a Municipal Committee.

CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH AND ANR.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

2017 INSC 89512 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Central Excise Superintendent, filed a complaint alleging that Reliance Industries Ltd. evaded excise duty by taking credit without complying with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After Rule 56A was omitted by a 1994 notification, the respondent sought discharge, but the trial court framed a

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH)versusMOHAN SINGH & OTHERS

2012 INSC 39012 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttarakhand appealed against the Board of Revenue’s order that had allowed a second appeal under Section 331(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, declaring that respondents had acquired Bhumidar rights by adverse possession. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 331(4) inc

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusC. PADMA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 47512 September 2003Dismissed

The respondents were injured in a motor accident on 18 February 1989 and filed a claim petition for compensation on 2 November 1995. The appellant, New India Assurance Co., argued that the claim was barred by the six‑month limitation prescribed in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as read with the repeale

GAJRAJ SINGH ETCversusSTATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. ETC.

1996 INSC 104312 September 1996Disposed off

The appellant, Gajraj Singh, held a stage‑carriage permit originally granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was later renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After the 1988 Act came into force, the State Transport Authority granted overlapping permits to other operators, and the appellant challenged the

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusA. B. P. PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 52512 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India amended a customs exemption notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, withdrawing a 5% concessional duty for a high‑speed printing machine imported by A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd. The assessees challenged the amendment, arguing it was ultra vires and that the High Court correctly set it aside be

UMA SHANKAR & ORS.versusR. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 46312 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The land was acquired by the State in 1959 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and possession was taken in 1975. Subsequent resolutions sought to reconvey portions of the land to R. Hanumaiah, but the Supreme Court held in 2005 that once possession is taken, Section 48 cannot be used to de‑acquire or reconvey the land

M.P. GANGADHARAN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 33612 May 2006Dismissed

The State of Kerala had established a Family Court at Manjeri in 1999, but due to inadequate facilities the Bar Association sought its relocation to the district headquarters at Malappuram. The High Court recommended the shift, and the State Government issued an order effecting it. The appellants challenged the order,

ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2017 INSC 34212 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a convicted history‑sheeter, was first detained under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 on 5 September 2016. That order was revoked on 17 September 2016, and a second detention order was issued on 21 September 2016 on the same grounds that existed before the revocation. The appellant challenged the s

DEVENDER PAL SINGH BHULLARversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2013 INSC 24912 April 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and sentenced to death, sought commutation of their sentences under Article 72 of the Constitution. After a delay of about eight years in deciding the mercy petition, they argued that the delay itself warranted conversion o

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.versusPARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN

2024 INSC 27712 March 2024Disposed off

The respondent, Paresh Nathalal Chauhan, filed a writ petition seeking protection from arrest under the GST Act, prompting the Gujarat High Court to issue an interim order that criticised the prolonged presence of a search party at his residence as unauthorized. The High Court also observed that the good‑faith protecti

VISHESH KUMARversusSHANTI PRASAD

1980 INSC 4612 March 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered five civil revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) that were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC ove

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRISM CEMENT LIMITED & ANR

2025 INSC 19912 February 2025Dismissed

Prism Cement Ltd., a unit that had been granted an absolute tax exemption under the Package Scheme of Incentives 1993 (PSI 1993) through an Eligibility Certificate (20‑02‑1998) and an Entitlement Certificate (24‑03‑1998), challenged the Maharashtra State's attempt to withdraw that benefit after the Finance Act, 2002 am

RENU & ORS.versusDISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI & ANR.

2014 INSC 9512 February 2014Disposed off

The appeal arose from the appointment of Class IV staff in courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court on an ad‑hoc basis without proper advertisement, which the petitioners challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether such appointments could be regularised, wheth

THE RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATIONversusSUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY JAIPUR & ORS,

2013 INSC 9412 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RILLCO) acquired a large tract of land after a Section 4 notification under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society entered into an agreement to purchase a portion of that land after the notification

IBRAHIM BACHU BAFAN & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS .

1985 INSC 2312 February 1985Case Allowed

The petitioners were detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. While their detention orders were pending before the Gujarat High Court, the Court quashed the orders by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, but the same day fresh detention orders were issu

A.C. RAZIAversusGOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3012 January 2004Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the preventive detention of the husband of A.C. Razia under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention order relied on statements and retractions recorded in Malayalam, but the Central Government, which considered the detenu

IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTIONversus.

2023 INSC 105811 December 2023Disposed off

The President of India issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273, which applied the entire Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogated Article 370. Simultaneously, Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, bifurcating the State into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashm

JAGJLT SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 98511 December 2006Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the disqualification of six independent MLAs and two lone party MLAs by the Haryana Assembly Speaker under the Tenth Schedule's anti‑defection provisions. The petitioners claimed violation of natural‑justice principles, alleged the Speaker acted malafide, and argued that paragraph 3 of the Te

MANOHAR JOSHIversusNITIN BHAURAO PATIL AND ANR.

1995 INSC 86911 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Manohar Joshi, the BJP‑Shiv Sena candidate, was elected from Dadar in 1990. Bhaurao Patil filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices under sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, relying on Joshi's speeches, those of party leaders and audio‑video cassettes. The Bombay High Court

RAMAKANT MAYEKAR ETC. ETC.versusSMT. CELINE D SILVA

1995 INSC 87111 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ramakant Mayekar challenged a High Court order that declared his election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly void on grounds of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether the election petition filed on 16 April 1990 was within the 45‑day lim

DR. SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 77011 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Neeru Gupta, committed suicide in 1985 and her brother filed a complaint alleging dowry demand and ill‑treatment by her husband and in‑laws. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding no proof of dowry demand or cruelty and noting the deceased suffered from mental illness. The High Court reversed the

BANK OF INDIAversusVIJAY TRANSPORT AND OTHERS

1987 INSC 32611 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of India sued Vijay Transport and its partners to recover a cash‑credit loan of Rs.18,14,817.91, claiming mortgages over several properties. The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 provides that debts of agriculturists may be "scaled down" under section 13, but section 4(e) excludes de

MARU RAM ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

1980 INSC 21211 November 1980

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which imposes a mandatory minimum of fourteen years’ imprisonment on two categories of life‑sentence convicts – those convicted of offences where death is a possible punishment and those whose death sentence was co

EPURU SUDHAKAR AND ANR.versusGOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 69511 October 2006Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, sons of murder victims, challenged the Governor of Andhra Pradesh’s order granting remission of the unserved portion of a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on respondent No.2 for murder. They argued that the remission was granted on irrelevant and extraneous material, without proper appli

RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2023 INSC 81911 September 2023Disposed off

Religare Finvest Ltd. sued the erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) for alleged misappropriation of fixed deposits used as security for loans, leading to a criminal complaint and FIR under IPC sections 409 and 120B. LVB was placed under moratorium by the RBI and subsequently amalgamated into DBS Bank India Ltd. under a s

CBIversusR.R. KISHORE

2023 INSC 81711 September 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The CBI registered a case against Dr. R.R. Kishore for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but conducted the investigation without the prior approval of the Central Government required by Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Delhi High Court allowed the trial

RASHPAL MALHOTRAversusMRS. SATYA RAJPUT AND ANOTHER

1987 INSC 24711 September 1987Dismissed

The landlady (respondent No.1) leased a house in Chandigarh to Haryana Milk Food Corporation (respondent No.2) for the residence of its General Manager, R.P. Malhotra, who signed the lease on behalf of the corporation. After Malhotra left the corporation, the landlady stopped accepting rent and filed an eviction suit u

M/S. FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD. BANGALOREversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

2015 INSC 56111 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. sold its industrial undertaking in Thane (a notified urban area) and earned a capital gain of Rs 1,08,33,044. It paid advances of Rs 1,11,42,973 for purchase of land, plant, machinery and construction of a new factory in a non‑urban area and claimed exemption under s. 54G of the Income‑Tax Act

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 51711 May 2023Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined a 2015 Union Ministry notification that gave the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi control over "services" in addition to public order, police and land. The Court held that, under Article 239AA(3)(a), the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) has legislative and co

THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 29211 April 2011Disposed off

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

ABAN LOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 49211 April 2008Dismissed

The appellants, offshore drilling companies, operated oil rigs in India's designated offshore areas (continental shelf and exclusive economic zone) and sought to import stores for the rigs without customs duty, relying on the exemption for foreign‑going vessels under the Customs Act. The Revenue authorities, citing not

S. PUSHPA AND ORS.versusSIVACHANMUGAVELU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 7111 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the selection of migrant Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates for posts reserved for SCs in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had declared the selection illegal, holding that only SCs listed in the 1964 Presidential Order for Pondicherry were eligible. The Union

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusLABOUR LAW PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

1998 INSC 8111 February 1998Dismissed

The Labour Law Practitioners' Association challenged a Maharashtra Government notification appointing two Assistant Commissioners of Labour as judges of Labour Courts, alleging violation of Article 234 of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court set aside the notification, holding that Labour Courts are courts and their

GIRNAR TRADERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2011 INSC 2611 January 2011Reference answered

The case concerned a parcel of land in Jalgaon reserved for a development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The appellant claimed that the State Government and Municipal Council failed to acquire the land within the time limits prescribed by the MRTP Act and sought relief under the

SRI K. PRASAD & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 37010 December 1987Case Partly allowed

The case concerned seniority disputes between initial recruits (direct recruits under rule 4(2)) and officers recruited later through the Special Selection Board (SSB) under the initial recruitment provisions of the IFS Recruitment Rules. The Court examined whether the SSB must consider all eligible State Forest Servic

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusMAHESH AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 71110 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project (the State agency) acquired land under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, but the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act came into force before an award was made. The landowners challenged the award dated 30 October 2014, arguing that the two‑year

TARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEEversusDINANATH SHARMA

2000 INSC 47510 October 2000Dismissed

In the 1998 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, the appellant was declared elected on 28 November 1998. The respondent filed an election petition under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on 12 January 1999, seeking to challenge the result. The appellant contended that the petition was

STATE OF BIHARversusMURAD ALI KHAN, FARUKH SALAUDDIN & VIKRAM SINGH

1988 INSC 31610 October 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar filed a complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 alleging that the accused killed an elephant and removed its tusks. A Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons, while a parallel police investigation under the Indian Penal Code was ongoing. The accused invoked

GLAXO SMITH KLINE PLC AND ORS.versusCONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS AND ORS.

2008 INSC 102810 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Glaxo Smith Kline PLC and others applied for a patent and an Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) in 1998‑2000. The Controller of Patents rejected the EMR in 2002; the applicants filed writ petitions and a Calcutta High Court Single Judge set aside the rejection and remanded the matter. The Controller again rejected the EMR

T.DEEN DAYALversusTHE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1997 INSC 64710 September 1997Dismissed

T. Deen Dayal, a Rajya Sabha candidate, filed a transfer application in an election petition alleging bias and corruption against the presiding judge. The judge deemed the allegations baseless and scandalous, initiating suo moto contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court convicted Dayal

GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGHversusSTATE OF GOA & ANR.

2022 INSC 54610 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Goa issued a notification on 23/24 May 2016 fixing minimum wages, including a basic rate and a special allowance, after consulting the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and following the procedure prescribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Subsequently, an Errata Notification dated 14 July

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (I)versusINSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND ORS.

2002 INSC 27810 May 2002Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) could de‑register a political party under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 when the party called a hartal that involved force, intimidation or coercion, allegedly violating the Constitution. The Kerala High Court had dire

BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITAversusWALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL)

2023 INSC 33510 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a cooperative society, sought to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but filed the application after the 90‑day statutory period and the additional 30‑day discretionary period had expired because the court was on winter vacation. The appellant argue

CANTONMENT BOARD, MHOW AND ANR.versusM.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.

1997 INSC 40110 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Cantonment Boards of Saugor, Mhow and Jabalpur imposed an entry tax on motor vehicles under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down the tax, holding that Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 barred any local authority from levying such a tax. O

MUKAND LTD.versusMUKAND STAFF AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

2004 INSC 15610 March 2004

Mukand Ltd. entered into several settlements with the Mukand Staff and Officers' Association, asserting that many of its employees were not "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A dispute was referred to an Industrial Tribunal, which awarded wage increases and other benefits to both workmen and non‑workmen

SAKETH INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusINDIA SECURITIES LTD.

1999 INSC 9510 March 1999Dismissed

The appellants issued cheques that bounced, and the respondent served a notice demanding payment on 29 September 1995. Under Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellants had 15 days to pay, which expired on 14 October 1995, giving rise to a cause of action on 15 October 1995. The respondent filed a

BHURI NATH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

1997 INSC 1410 January 1997Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Jammu & Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, which transferred management of the shrine and its endowments to a statutory Board and extinguished the hereditary rights of Baridars to receive offerings. The Baridars argued that the Board was a "controlle

SPECIAL MILITARY ESTATES OFFICERversusMUNIVENKATARAMIAH & ANOTHER

1990 INSC 210 January 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The Special Military Estates Officer appealed two arbitrator awards concerning compensation for land requisitioned by the Union under the Defence of India Act, 1962. The land remained requisitioned beyond 10 January 1968, when the Defence Act ceased to operate and Section 25 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Imm

HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2016 INSC 11199 December 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by HDFC Securities Ltd. and its officers challenging the registration of an FIR and a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing police investigation into alleged unauthorized trades. The appellants argued that the order caused irreparable injury and should be q

COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.versusM/S. D.S.M. GROUP OF INDUSTRIES

2004 INSC 7049 December 2004Disposed off

The appellant, the U.P. Commissioner of Trade Tax, challenged the High Court’s order allowing Mis D.S.M. Group of Industries to claim a trade‑tax exemption under a 1997 Notification. The dispute centered on whether a "unit" for purposes of expansion, modernization or diversification meant each individual plant or the i

RASHIK LAL AND CO.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA

1997 INSC 8019 December 1997Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a partnership firm could claim a tax deduction for a commission of Rs. 28,579 paid to Rashiklal, who was a partner in the firm but also the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The firm argued that Rashiklal acted only as a nominee of the HUF, so the payment should not fall within

MONICA BEDIversusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 7659 November 2010Disposed off

Monica Bedi and four co‑accused were convicted under the Indian Penal Code (sections 120‑B, 419, 420) and the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conspiracy to obtain a passport in an assumed name. Bedi argued that her conviction violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution because she had already been tried and sentenced

VIJAYA KUMARI S & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 12099 October 2025Case Allowed

The petitioners, three intending couples, had completed the embryo‑freezing stage of surrogacy in 2020‑2021, before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 25 January 2022. After the Act’s commencement, the statutory age limits (female ≤50, male ≤55) barred them from obtaining the eligibility certificat

THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKOTTAI, TAMILNADUversusA. PARTHIBAN

2006 INSC 6859 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

A. Parthiban, a public servant, was convicted for demanding and receiving illegal gratification, an act that attracted charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 and one year’s

POONJABHAI VARMALIDASversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD

1990 INSC 3119 October 1990Dismissed

The assessee, Poonjabhai Varmalidas, had written off certain debts as bad under Section 10(2)(xi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 in 1959‑60. His business ceased before the amounts were later recovered in the assessment years 1964‑65, 1965‑66 and 1967‑68, after the 1961 Act had repealed the 1922 Act. The Revenue taxed the

N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2017 INSC 7259 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired Survey No.50 in 1977‑78 and took physical possession on 23 March 1984, handing it over to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The land owners repeatedly challenged the acquisition, but the Karnataka High Court dismissed their writ petitions, finding that possession had been taken and the acqui

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.versusK. SHYAM SUNDER & ORS.

2011 INSC 5559 August 2011Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu government enacted the Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 to introduce a common syllabus and textbooks for all schools, which was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court after certain provisions were struck down. After a change of government in 2011, the new administration hurriedly pass

K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2011 INSC 5549 August 2011Dismissed

The case concerned lands in the Roerich estate that were exempted from Karnataka's Land Reforms Act, 1961 under Section 107 for linaloe cultivation. The State Government withdrew this exemption by issuing a notification under Section 110 of the Act in 1994, and later enacted the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (

MANPHUL SINGH SHARMAversusSMT. AHMEDI BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER ALLEGED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE/SUCCESSORS (A) SH. M. A. KHAN (B) DELHI WAKF BOARD

1994 INSC 3089 August 1994Appeal(s) allowed

Ahmed Begum, the owner of Dharampur Lodge, leased the entire premises to S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar, who was authorized to sub‑let. The appellant, Manphul Singh Sharma, and other sub‑tenants claimed to be lawful sub‑tenants and sought protection under Section 20 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The landlord

AMIR SHAD KHAN AZIZ AHMEDKHAN @ AZIZ MOHD. KHANversusL. HMINGLIANA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 1799 August 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Amir Shad Khan and Aziz Ahmed Khan, were detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 after gold bars were recovered from their vehicle. They were served detention orders that allowed them to make representations to the State Government, Central Go

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusSANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS.

2010 INSC 3959 July 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under s.95 CrPC ordering the forfeiture of every copy of the book "Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India" on the basis of an FIR alleging offences under s.153, s.153A and s.34 IPC. The High Court quashed the notification, holding it failed to state the grounds of the Gover

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. SOBNA IAKAI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 7269 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The National Insurance Co. issued a motor insurance policy to the respondents that expired on 29‑06‑1994. An accident occurred on 20‑07‑1994 at 9:15 a.m., three weeks after the policy had lapsed, and the policy was renewed only at 2:00 p.m. on the same day via a Motor Renewal Endorsement. The claim petition was allowed

SRILEKHA GHOSH (ROY) AND ANR.versusPARTHA SARATHI GHOSH

2002 INSC 2949 July 2002Disposed off

The case involved a dwelling house inherited by a brother (respondent) and his two sisters (appellants) who had received their shares by gift from their mother. The sisters filed a partition suit; during the proceedings the younger sister married and the brother sought to pre‑empt her share under Section 4 of the Parti

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusM/S. KUMHO PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 4769 June 2017Dismissed

The case concerned the levy of anti‑dumping duty on imports of Acrylonitrile‑Butadiene‑Rubber (NBR) from Korea. The original notification imposing the duty was extended by a five‑year notification dated 02‑01‑2009, which expired on 01‑01‑2014. A third sunset‑review was initiated on 31‑12‑2013, and the Government issued

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusDINKAR SINHA

2007 INSC 5499 May 2007Case Allowed

The respondent, Dinkar Sinha, was commissioned as an Indian Army officer in March 1979, discharged in 1988, and later joined the Uttar Pradesh Police Service under vacancies reserved for ex‑army personnel. He sought additional seniority under the Uttar Pradesh Non‑Technical (Class‑II/Group B) Services Appointment of De

RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR

2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe

M/S. PUROHIT AND COMPANYversusKHATOONBEE AND ANR.

2017 INSC 1229 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents' daughter died in a motor accident on 02‑02‑1977. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 23‑02‑2005, more than 28 years after the accident. The Tribunal entertained the claim, and the High Court upheld it, holding that th

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. & ANR.versusASHOK IRON WORKS PVT. LTD.

2009 INSC 1319 February 2009Disposed off

Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., a private limited manufacturing company, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) for delay in electricity supply. The key issues were whether a private limited company qualifies as a ‘person’ under s.2(1)(d) of the Act

M/S ANVITA AUTO TECH WORKS PVT. LTD.versusM/S AROUSH MOTORS & ANR.

2025 INSC 12028 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Aroush Motors, sued Anvita Auto Tech Works for recovery of monies after terminating a dealership agreement. The defendant failed to file its written statement within the statutory 120‑day period and sought multiple extensions, eventually filing the statement

SHANTI LALversusSTATE OF M.P.

2007 INSC 10138 October 2007Disposed off

Shanti Lal was caught carrying 7 kg 60 g of contraband opium and was convicted under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh, with an additional three years' imprisonment for default of fine;

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

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ETC.versusV.K. SEHGAL AND ANR.

1999 INSC 4688 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI and the State of Haryana prosecuted V.K. Seghal, a public servant, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for receiving a bribe. The Special Judge convicted him and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Seghal appealed to the Punjab and Haryana H

J. THANSIAMAversusSTATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

2015 INSC 6518 September 2015Dismissed

J. Thansiama filed a suit for declaration of title against the State of Mizoram. The trial court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to Mizoram and allowed the suit. The Gauhati High Court reversed this, holding that the Limitation Act was applicable and dismissed the suit as time‑barred. On appeal, the Su

STATE OF KERALA & ORS.versusM/S. MAR APPRAEM KURI CO. LTD. & ANR.

2012 INSC 2058 May 2012Reference answered

The State of Kerala amended its Chitties Act, 1975 to bring chitties registered outside the state but with substantial Kerala subscribers within its regulatory ambit. Private chit firms challenged the amendment as repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 under Article 254(1). The Supreme Court was asked whether re

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusBHAJAN KAUR & ORS.

2008 INSC 6128 May 2008Dismissed

The appeal concerned an accident that occurred in 1983 for which a claim under Section 92‑A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was awarded. The State of Punjab sought to increase the compensation by invoking Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which raised the no‑fault liability amount. The Supreme Court examined

UNION BANK OF INDIAversusKHADER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2668 May 2001Dismissed

The respondent, a public limited company, filed a suit as an indigent (in forma pauperis) plaintiff under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant, Union Bank of India, challenged the suit, arguing that the term "person" in the Order refers only to natural persons and that a company could not

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusSOLID & CORRECT ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.

2010 INSC 2028 April 2010

The case concerned whether the erection of an Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant using duty‑paid components constitutes the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the manufacturers of the plant’s parts were eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Supreme

B.B. RAJWANSHIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1988 INSC 1008 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a workman dismissed by his employer, obtained a favourable award from the Labour Court. Before publishing the award, the Uttar Pradesh Government exercised its power under sub‑section (4) of section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to remit the award for reconsideration, without giving notice

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2018 INSC 1158 February 2018Directions issued

The case involved the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The main issue was whether non-deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act resu

PARIMALversusVEENA @ BHARTI

2011 INSC 1108 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Parimal filed a divorce suit against his wife Veena. The wife repeatedly refused to accept the court's notice, after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and granted a decree of divorce. Four years later she applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, alleging improper service, fraud and lack of suf

OM PARKASHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 858 February 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Section 6 declarations issued after Section 4 notifications for land acquisition in Delhi, where the notifications were dated November 1980 and the declarations were issued in 1985‑86. The appellants argued that the three‑year limitation for issuing a Section 6 declaration sho

ALOK KUMAR VERMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 368 January 2019Disposed off

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India issued orders on 23 October 2018 divesting Director Alok Kumar Verma of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of his powers, functions and supervisory role. The Director challenged the legality of these orders, arguing that under Section 4B(2) of th

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusKALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.

2010 INSC 258 January 2010Dismissed

Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., a sick industrial unit, sought a five‑year sales‑tax exemption under Bihar's Industrial Policy, 1995, as a condition for a financial restructuring package. The State repeatedly assured the company that a notification would be issued, but later withdrew the promise and issued orders on 6 January 2

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusHAT SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 48 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan prosecuted Hat Singh and others under the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 for "glorification of Sati" (Section 5) and for contravention of a prohibitory order issued by the Collector (Section 6(3)). The High Court held that once a prohibitory order was issued, Section 5 merged into Section

MOHAMED IQBAL MADAR SHEIKH AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1996 INSC 268 January 1996Dismissed

The appellants were charged under the IPC and Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for setting fire to a house during the 1993 Bombay riots, resulting in many deaths. The Designated Court denied bail, and the appellants contended that because TADA was a temporary

T. BARAIversusHENRY AH HOE AND ANOTHER

1982 INSC 927 December 1982Dismissed

The appellant, a food inspector, charged the respondents with adulterating food under s.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as it stood in West Bengal after the 1973 State amendment, which prescribed life imprisonment and made the offence triable only by a Sessions Court. While the case was pendin

V. JAGANNADHA RAO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 5637 November 2001Dismissed

The appellants, senior assistants of the Factories and Boilers Department, challenged Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 that allowed their transfer to higher posts in the Labour Department. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had declared those Rules void for violating the Presidential Order is

SH. MOHAN SINGH AND ORS.versusINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13047 November 1996Dismissed

The International Airport Authority of India acquired land for airport expansion by invoking the urgency power under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dispensing with the Section 5‑A enquiry and taking possession under Section 17(4). The appellants challenged the validity of the notification under Section 4(1)

SATYA DEO @ BHOOREYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2020 INSC 5777 October 2020Directions issued

The appellant Satya Deo was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (aged 16 years 7 months) and sought relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court examined the applicabi

THYSSEN STAHLUNION GMBH ETC.versusSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

1999 INSC 4637 October 1999

The Supreme Court examined three appeals concerning the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the new Act) versus the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the old Act) and the Foreign Awards Act, 1961. In Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH v. SAIL (CA 6036/98), arbitral proceedings began in 1995 under the old Act and the

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHERversusSMT. SUSHILA MAFATLAL SHAH & OTHERS

1988 INSC 2647 September 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra detained Bhadresh Mafatlal Shah under the COFEPOSA Act after he was caught with gold biscuits. The detention order was issued by D.N. Capoor, a specially empowered officer, who informed the detainee that he could make representations only to the State and Central Governments. The detainee’s mot

UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.

2014 INSC 3687 May 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a large tract of land in Delhi. Tenure‑holders had filed objections under Section 5‑A, which were heard by one Land Acquisition Collector but the report was prepared by his successor, prompting the Delhi High Cour

M/S. T.T.G. INDUSTRIES LTD., MADRASversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2004 INSC 3797 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Bhilai Steel Plant to design, supply, and erect hydraulic mudguns and tap‑hole drilling machines. Components were imported and some were manufactured at its Chennai factory, then shipped to the steel plant where they were assembled on a concrete platform 25 feet above

V.K. AGARWAL, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSversusVASANTRAJ BHAGWANJI BHATIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 997 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia and others for possession of primary gold under the Customs Act, 1969 (Sec. 111 read with Sec. 135); one respondent was convicted and two were acquitted. The same authorities later sought to prosecute the three respondents under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Sec. 85) for

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA)versusA. P. STATE WAKF BOARD & ORS.

2022 INSC 1557 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) challenged an errata notification issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board that added 1,654 acres and 32 guntas of land to the list of Wakf properties, claiming the Board had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Wakf Act, 1995. The High Court had dismissed the Stat

PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusPOST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 1567 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) in joint names and, relying on an agent named Rukhsana, handed the certificates to her for transfer. Rukhsana encashed the KVPs at a different post office and received Rs. 25,54,000 in cash, which she kept. The appellants filed a consumer complaint; the NCDRC dismissed

K. LAKSHMINARAYANANversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 11616 December 2018Leave granted

The petitioners challenged the nomination of three members to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly by the Central Government under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, arguing that the Central Government must consult the Union Territory’s Council of Ministers or Chief Minister, that a constitut

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERSversusM/S. BASANT AGROTECH (INDIA) LTD.

2013 INSC 8096 December 2013Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan issued a notification on 23 January 2009 amending a 2008 notification that levied an environment and health cess on mineral rights, increasing the rate for rock phosphate and applying it retrospectively from 1 April 2008. Mining lease‑holders challenged the constitutional validity of the amendmen

LUDOVICO SAGRADO GOVEIAversusCIRILA ROSA MARIA PINTO AND ORS.

2016 INSC 8556 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a successful purchaser at a sealed‑tender sale, sought to enforce a sale certificate issued after the execution of an award under the Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act, 1984. The respondents, borrowers, had defaulted on a loan and the property was sold after multiple failed public auctions. The High

UMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

2013 INSC 5906 September 2013Disposed off

The case arose from a complaint alleging that a senior police officer, V. Dinesh Reddy, had amassed disproportionate assets, which was later claimed to be forged and signed by a fictitious MP. An investigation led to a charge sheet against Umesh Kumar under IPC sections 468, 471, 120‑B and 201, and the appellant sought

VINOD GURUDAS RAIKARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ORS.

1991 INSC 2236 September 1991Dismissed

The appellant suffered injuries in a road accident on 22 January 1989 and filed a claim petition on 15 March 1990, seeking condonation of delay. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under which the accident occurred, was repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 1 July 1989; both statutes prescribe a six‑month

CHANIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006 INSC 4026 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Channi, who had been convicted under the IPC and whose sentence was partially altered by the Allahabad High Court. Channi applied for release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, alternatively under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but t

CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., COAL INDIA LTD., & ORS.versusANANTA SAHA & ORS.

2011 INSC 2766 April 2011Disposed off

A Medical Officer employed by Coal India Ltd and posted at its subsidiary Eastern Coalfields Ltd assaulted his senior officer and other staff, leading to disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his dismissal by the subsidiary's CMD. The dismissal was challenged in the Calcutta High Court, which quashed the order and

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.

2020 INSC 2946 March 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the word 'or' in Section 24(

JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 866 February 2024Dismissed

The respondents, who had been tenants of an urban immovable property (a rolling mill) since 1949, filed a suit for pre-emption after the owners sold the property to the appellants in 1983, invoking the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellants contended that a State Government notification dated 08‑10‑1985, issued u

SHIVNARAYAN (D) BY LRS.versusMANIKLAL (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 1526 February 2019Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit in the Indore court seeking declarations of nullity of a will, a sale deed, and transfer documents relating to two immovable properties—one in Indore and another in Mumbai—along with a claim of joint family ownership. Defendants 7 and 8, who were parties to the Mumbai sale deed, moved to dism

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusGUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

2007 INSC 12325 December 2007Dismissed

The Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB), a statutory authority created under the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 to develop minor ports, applied to be registered as a charitable institution under Section 12A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961 to claim exemption under Section 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the applicati

R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

1995 INSC 8455 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

R. Balakrishna Pillai, a former Kerala Minister for Electricity, was charged with criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120‑B) and an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act for supplying electricity to a private firm in Karnataka without the Kerala Government's consent. The Kerala High Court held that sanction under CrPC

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2020 INSC 6345 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint was lodged in 1989 alleging adulteration of Dalda Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The trial magistrate initially absolved the company’s directors and continued prosecution against the nominated officer, Nirmal Sen, who was later convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulter

EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1985 INSC 2385 November 1985Disposed off

The petitioners, Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others, challenged two notices: one issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office, for re-entry upon forfeiture of lease, and another by the Zonal Engineer (Building), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for demolition of the Express Building. The petitioners al

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusTARINI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS.

2016 INSC 5005 July 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a tariff fixed under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is immutable and beyond the review of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC). The Court held that tariff determination is a statutory function of the SERC under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is subje

SAI BHASKAR IRON LTD.versusA.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.

2016 INSC 5025 July 2016Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Regulation 45‑B, which prescribes a formula for calculating the fuel surcharge adjustment (FSA) and excludes agricultural consumption until metering is completed. They argued that the regulation was ultra vires the Andhra Pradesh Electric

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

2010 INSC 3525 July 2010Dismissed

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

SHRI RANAJOY BOSEversusSHRI A.B. ROY AND ANR.

2002 INSC 1865 April 2002Dismissed

The appellant, Ranajoy Bose, was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated tea leaves. The prosecution was launched after obtaining consent from the District Health Officer (IV) under Section 20(1) of the Act, as per a state notification. The appellant challenged the validity o

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusL.K. AHUJA & CO.

1988 INSC 925 April 1988Dismissed

The Union of India entered into four construction contracts with L.K. Ahuja & Co., which were completed and final bills were accepted. Later the respondent claimed a balance of Rs 1,91,137 and sought arbitration, but the government replied that no dispute existed. The respondent filed an application under Section 20 of

SUSHIL ANSALversusSTATE THROUGH CBI

2014 INSC 1685 March 2014Case Partly allowed

The Uphaar Cinema tragedy in Delhi on 13 June 1997 resulted in 59 deaths and over 100 injuries due to asphyxiation from smoke. The Ansal brothers, as occupiers and licensees of the cinema, were convicted under Sections 304A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 IPC and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The High Court

D.K. TRIVEDI AND SONS AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1986 INSC 285 March 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, holders of quarry and mining leases for minor minerals in Gujarat, challenged a series of state notifications and a circular that altered rates of royalty and dead rent and classified building stones. The core issue was whether Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1

KRISHNAMOORTHYversusSIVAKUMAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 9605 February 2015Dismissed

The appeal concerned the election of Krishnamoorthy as President of Thekampatti Panchayat, where he had filed a nomination affidavit disclosing only one pending criminal case while suppressing eight other embezzlement cases. The High Court had declared his election void on the ground of corrupt practice, holding that t

ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC.versusTHE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.

2023 INSC 165 January 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, life‑imprisoned convicts in Goa, were released on parole under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and subsequently applied for premature release on the ground that they had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. The High Court held that the period spent on parole must be excluded from the calculation of t

M.T. KHAN AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 105 January 2004Dismissed

The appellants challenged the appointment of two Additional Advocate Generals by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, arguing that Article 165 of the Constitution permits only a single Advocate General and that the additional appointments were unconstitutional. The State contended that the appointments were necessary due

SANGAM SPINNERSversusREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I

2007 INSC 12234 December 2007

Sangam Spinners set up a factory on 1 September 1995 and claimed exemption from the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 under clause (d) of Section 16(1), which provided a three‑year infancy protection. In 1998, the clause was omitted by amendment Act No. 10 of 1998 with retrospective effect from 22 September 1997, and

M/S. OCL INDIA LTDversusSTATE OF ORRISA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 11634 November 2022Dismissed

The petitioners OCL India Ltd., SAIL and Hindalco challenged the levy of entry tax under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (and similar statutes in Uttar Pradesh) on the ground that industrial townships, which had been excluded from municipal limits by notifications under the proviso to Article 243Q, were not "local areas

THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESHversusRAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR.

2019 INSC 11264 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed against a Gauhati High Court order that road‑traffic offences must be dealt with solely under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was without legal sanction. The Supreme Court examined whether the special Motor Vehicles Act override

H. ANRAJ ETC.versusGOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU ETC.

1985 INSC 2214 October 1985Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether state lotteries organised by Tamil Nadu and West Bengal could be taxed under the states' sales‑tax statutes. The petitioners, dealers in lottery tickets, argued that lottery tickets are not "goods" but merely actionable claims, rendering the amendments to the Tamil Nadu General Sales

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERSversusR.K.B.K. LTD. & ANR.

2015 INSC 6434 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal appealed against an order of the Director of Consumer Goods that imposed a penalty on R.K.B.K. Ltd., a licensed kerosene oil agent, for alleged excess distribution. The dispute centered on whether the Director or the District Magistrate had authority under Paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosen

U.P. HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELANversusSTATE OF U.P.

2014 INSC 5944 September 2014Dismissed

The appellant U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan challenged the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1989, which added Section 3 to the 1951 Act and a notification declaring Urdu as a second official language for seven specified purposes. The issue was whether, after adopting Hindi as the

M/S. GENERAL FINANCE CO. AND ANR.versusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB

2002 INSC 3654 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, General Finance Co. and another, received deposits in 1985 and were prosecuted in March 1989 under Section 276DD of the Income Tax Act for violating Section 269SS. Section 276DD was omitted from the Act by the Direct Tax Law (Amendment) Act, 1987, effective 1 April 1989. The High Court held the prosecut

M/S. FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD.versusJINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

2001 INSC 2554 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. entered into a supply contract with Jindal Exports Ltd. which gave rise to a dispute arbitrated before the International General Produce Association, resulting in a foreign award dated 13 August 1996. The award was sought to be enforced in Delhi High Court, but the court dismissed the execut

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHIMLAversusTILAK SINGH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1994 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant insurer had issued a statutory third‑party motor insurance policy for a scooter sold by respondent No.5 to respondent No.1 in March 1989, but no notice of the transfer was given to the insurer. The scooter was involved in an accident on 31 October 1989, after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force,

ANKIT ASHOK JALANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 2664 March 2020Case Allowed

The petition challenged the continued detention of two persons under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) after the Detaining Authority, a specially empowered Joint Secretary, failed to consider their representations until after the Central Advisory Board’s re

VEERAMANIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1994 INSC 464 February 1994

Veeramani was detained on 16 February 1993 under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, on the ground that he was a "goonda" and likely to commit acts prejudicial to public order if released on bail. He challenged the detention before the High Court, which dismissed his habeas corpus

DAGI RAM PINDI LAL AND ANRversusTRILOK CHAND JAIN AND ORS.

1992 INSC 374 February 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff sought recovery of a sum and, during trial, obtained court summons for the Income Tax Department to produce assessment records of the defendants for years 1964-65 to 1971-72. The Department produced the records in sealed covers, claiming privilege under the then‑applicable Section 137 of the Income Tax Ac

SHOBHABAI NARAYAN SHINDEversusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK & ORS.

2022 INSC 94 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, elected as Sarpanch and member of a village panchayat in Dhule, were alleged to have failed to lodge election expense accounts and were therefore subject to disqualification proceedings under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Collector, acting as delegate of the State E

GULZARversusSTATE OF M.P.

2007 INSC 74 January 2007Case Partly allowed

Gulzar was convicted of stealing an attache containing about Rs 55,000 from Vinod Kumar Aggarwal on a bus; the attache was later recovered from Gulzar’s possession but he could not explain the source of the money. The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 of the Indian Penal

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusHIRENDRA PAL SINGH ETC

2010 INSC 8453 December 2010Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh Legal Remembrancer Manual was amended on 13 August 2008 to reduce the retirement age of District Government Counsels from 62 to 60 years and to dispense with the requirement of consulting the District Judge. The Allahabad High Court stayed the amendment and directed the State to renew the services of

BASANT SINGH AND ANR.versusROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION

2002 INSC 4243 October 2002Leave granted

The landlord (respondent) sued the tenants Basant Singh and others (appellants). The trial court issued summons by ordinary process and by registered post, but receiving no service report it ordered fresh summons and substituted service by publishing notice in the newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar". The notice was actually pub

SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDEversusPUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4663 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Sulochana Chandrakant Galande, challenged the acquisition of her land by the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was not within urban limits at the Act's commencement and that the later repeal of the Act should invalidate the acquisition. The Supreme Court

ADITYAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2873 May 2006Dismissed

The Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (the Authority) challenged a notice issued by the Income Tax Department requiring the bank to deduct TDS on interest earned on its fixed deposits, arguing that its income was exempt under Article 289 of the Constitution and Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act as a lo

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALOREversusSMT. R. SHARADAMMA

1996 INSC 4843 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73 that had been referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 deleted sub‑section (2) of Section 274 with effect from 1 April 1976. The

RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 3063 March 2009Dismissed

The appellants, owners of approximately 160 kanals of land in Jagadhri, Haryana, challenged the State's failure to make a compensation award within two years of the declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the statutory lapse under Section 11A amounted to a withdrawal from acquisition under Sectio

N. RAJENDRANversusS. VALLI

2022 INSC 1403 February 2022Disposed off

The husband (appellant) filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty after his wife (respondent) left him and returned to her parental home. The Family Court granted the decree of dissolution, but the wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; the appeal was filed on 09‑09‑2004. The appell

JITENDRA PANCHALversusINTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB & ANR.

2009 INSC 1003 February 2009Dismissed

Jitendra Panchal was arrested in Austria, extradited to the United States and convicted under the US Controlled Substances Act for conspiracy to possess and distribute hashish, serving a 54‑month sentence. After deportation to India, he was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau and charged under the NDPS Act for imp

VIDYAWATI GUPTA AND ORS.versusBHAKTI HARI NAY AK AND ORS.

2006 INSC 713 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a civil suit in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court without attaching an affidavit, as required by the 2002 amendments to Section 26, Order IV and Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held the suit non‑est and set aside the interim

SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 8432 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Congress party member, was accused of instigating party workers to fire on BJP supporters, resulting in a murder eight days later. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the High Court rejected. The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's cas

V. RAJA KUMARIversusP. SUBHARAMA NAIDU AND ANR.

2004 INSC 6332 November 2004Dismissed

The appellant was charged under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring a cheque. The complainant sent a legal notice to the appellant, which was returned stamped "house locked". The trial magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the notice was not served. The A

MAKHAN LAL GOKUL CHANDversusTHE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR.

1999 INSC 5072 November 1999Dismissed

M.L. Gokul Chand was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the General Clauses Act. He challenged the detention order through three successive writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions, all of which were dismissed. On 7 May 1983 he filed a representati

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusAJAY SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

1992 INSC 2992 November 1992Dismissed

The Madhya Pradesh Government constituted a single‑member Commission of Inquiry to investigate the Churhat Children’s Welfare Society, appointing Justice S.T. Ramalingam. After his retirement, the State replaced him by notifications appointing retired judges G.G. Sohani and later Kamlakar Choubey. Writ petitions challe

RAJENDRA KUMARversusKALYAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

2000 INSC 3702 August 2000Dismissed

The appellant Rajendra Kumar claimed possession of property left by Mohanlal, asserting that he had been adopted by Radhabai, the widow of Mahadeo, who was allegedly an adopted son of Mohanlal. The lower courts held that the adoption of a child by a widow to her deceased husband under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions a

OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5592 July 2018Dismissed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, challenged income‑tax notices on the ground that it qualified as a "local authority" and was therefore exempt under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The ce

DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 4572 April 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, led by Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2017 which introduced sections 35AA and 35AB, and contended that the RBI circular of 12‑02‑2018 directing banks and NBFCs to resolve stressed assets within six months was ultra vi

SRIDEVI DATLAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 1412 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Sridevi Datla, challenged the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) dismissal of her appeal against the environmental clearance for the Bhogapuram Greenfield Airport, arguing that the appeal was filed within the extended 60‑day period because the last day fell on a Sunday and that the NGT erred in refusing to

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOWversusU.P. FOREST CORPORATION

1998 INSC 1202 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation claimed exemption from income tax on the ground that it was a "local authority" under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and alternatively that it was a charitable institution under Section 11(1). The assessing officer rejected the claim, the Commissioner of Income Tax (App

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.versusHONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. A. MEHTA (RETD) & ORS.

2013 INSC 12 January 2013Dismissed

The Gujarat Lokayukta post remained vacant since 2003 and the State Government sought to appoint Justice R.A. Mehta under the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986. The Act requires the Governor to appoint the Lokayukta after "consultation" with the Chief Justice of the High Court and, where applicable, the Leader of Opposition.

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusVIMAL KUMAR SURANA AND ANOTHER

2010 INSC 8401 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Vimal Kumar Surana, who had passed the Chartered Accountant examination but was not a member of the Institute, impersonated a chartered accountant, prepared audit reports and forged the Institute's seal before tax authorities. The Institute filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under the Chartered Accountants Ac

STATE BANK OF HYDERABADversusTOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

2006 INSC 9401 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of Hyderabad sued the Town Municipal Council for an injunction concerning a plot it had purchased at public auction. During the proceedings the bank sought leave to amend its plaint, which was initially allowed by the appellate court. The High Court set aside that order, relying on the proviso added to O

LACHMAN DAS ARORAversusGANESHI LAL AND ORS

1999 INSC 3731 September 1999Dismissed

The appellant, Lachman Das Arora, who lost the Sirsa Assembly election held on 10 May 1996, filed an election petition on 1 July 1996 challenging the election of Ganeshi Lal. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 mandates that such petitions be presented within 45 days of the election. The 45‑day period expired du

MOHD. ALIversusAZAD MOHD.

1999 INSC 3741 September 1999Dismissed

The appellant filed an election petition on July 1, 1996, the first day after the Punjab and Haryana High Court resumed from its summer vacation, although the 45‑day limitation period had expired during the vacation. The High Court, relying on a November 27, 1995 notification that the court was not "closed" for electio

RAM KISHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 5291 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Kishan, a constable of the Delhi Police, was charged with facilitating an under‑trial prisoner to consume alcohol and with abusing superior officers. The departmental inquiry found the first charge unproved and the second partly proved, but the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (ADC), acting as disciplinary

SUBODH S. SALASKARversusJAYPRAKASH M. SHAH & ANR.

2008 INSC 8901 August 2008Case Allowed

The appellant had taken a loan and issued post‑dated cheques which were later dishonoured; a legal notice was sent on 17‑01‑2001 and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 20‑04‑2001, later amended to include Section 420 IPC. The High Court held that the amendment to Section 142(b)

T. KALIAMURTHI & ANR.versusFIVE GORI THAIKAL WAKF & ORS.

2008 INSC 8961 August 2008Case Allowed

The Wakf instituted suits for recovery of possession of certain properties, which the appellants claimed were private and barred by limitation under Article 134‑B of the Limitation Act, 1908, also pleading adverse possession. The trial court held the properties were Wakf property and barred by limitation; the first app

DURYODHAN ROUTversusSTATE OF ORLSSA

2014 INSC 4431 July 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant Duryodhan Rout was convicted of rape, murder and concealment of evidence of a ten‑year‑old girl based solely on circumstantial evidence and his own confession recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial court sentenced him to death for murder, rigorous imprisonment for the rape and concealmen

RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 3841 July 2013Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan acquired 15.5 hectares of land to set up a North‑Western Railway Zone complex and staff quarters. The landowners challenged the acquisition, arguing that because the project was a railway (a Union subject) only the Central Government could be the "appropriate Government" under Sections 4 and 6 of

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