Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 2010

906 judgments, newest first — showing 601–800.

AJANTA PHARMA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, MUMBAI

2010 INSC 5949 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., a Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) company, claimed a 100% reduction of export profits while computing "book profits" under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act for AY 2001-02, invoking Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer allowed only an 80% reduction based on Section 80HHC(1B). Both the Commissioner of

NAGBHAI NAJBHAI KHACKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2010 INSC 5889 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants, Nagbhai Najbai Khackar, challenged the inclusion of their "bid lands"—uncultivable waste lands used for grazing—within the ceiling limits of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 as amended by Act 2 of 1974. They argued that the amendment unintentionally omitted the word "includes" in the def

RAM NARESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 5959 September 2010Dismissed

In 1978, appellant Ram Naresh shot at Ram Vilas, injuring him; the FIR was lodged the next morning at a police station 9 km away. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined wheth

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV

2010 INSC 5969 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. claimed depreciation on the cost of its Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) membership card for assessment years 1999-2003, invoking Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding that the membership card was a personal, non‑transferable privile

GLANROCK ESTATE (P) LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 5899 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, Glanrock Estate Ltd., challenged the validity of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act) after it was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Thirty‑fourth Amendment) Act, 1974. They argued that the Act violated Articles 14, 19 and 300A,

MRS. ZAKIYA BEGUM & ORS.versusMRS. SHANAZ ALI & ORS.

2010 INSC 4889 August 2010Dismissed

The landlords, Mrs. Zakiya Begum and others, let a premises to the tenants, Mrs. Shanaz Ali and others, at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. The landlords filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but while the suit was pending the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, repealing the 1961 Act. Th

LAKHANversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 4899 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Lakhan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly burning his wife, Savita. Two dying declarations were recorded: the first by an Executive Magistrate stating the death was accidental, and the second by a police ASI accusing the appellant of pouring kerosene and setting her alight. The trial and

TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WORKERS UNIONversusTATA MEMORIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER

2010 INSC 4879 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union, a trade union registered under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, sought to maintain its recognition against a rival workers' association. The rival argued that the Tata Memorial Centre (TMC) was under the Central Go

VIRENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2010 INSC 4909 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant Virendra Singh, along with his father Hakim Singh and brother Kamlesh, went armed to the house of Bhagirath to force him to reap their crop. When Bhagirath refused, the father and Virendra beat his son Baburam, and on the father's exhortation Kamlesh shot Bhagirath, causing his death. The trial court and

ATBIRversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2010 INSC 4919 August 2010Dismissed

The appellants Atbir and Ashok were convicted for the murder of three members of their step‑mother's family, based solely on the dying declaration of the surviving victim, Sonu (Savita), recorded by a police officer in the presence of a doctor. The Supreme Court held that the declaration was reliable, made in a fit sta

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

SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2010 INSC 3979 July 2010Dismissed

The case involved eight persons accused of murdering Upendra Singh and attempting to murder his brother over a disputed land. The prosecution proved that a group of more than five armed men formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of eliminating the victims, and that Rajeshwar Singh fired the fatal shots. The

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARATversusM/S. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.

2010 INSC 3999 July 2010Dismissed

M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd., a cement manufacturer, entered into a contract to purchase a new cement plant. The supplier failed to deliver the plant on time, and under a liquidated damages clause the assessee received Rs.8,50,000 as compensation. The Revenue argued that the amount was a revenue receipt and should be tax

H. SRINIVAS PAI & ANR.versusH.V. PAI (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 4009 July 2010Disposed off

In a suit for partition of joint family property filed in 1991, the appellants sought a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was dismissed in 1995 and affirmed on appeal. The suit continued, and the appellants later filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Concilia

CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR.versusGEETIKA KHARE

2010 INSC 4019 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The student, Geetika Khare, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Controller, Vinayak Mission Dental College alleging deficiency in service because the college lacked recognition, forcing her to withdraw and causing loss of an academic year and mental harassment. The State Consumer Commissio

IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC.versusUJAGAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.

2010 INSC 3429 June 2010Disposed off

The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, acquired land and was awarded compensation which it failed to pay, leading to the attachment and auction of the property in 1992. The auction purchaser, Jagan Singh & Co., paid Rs.22.65 lakh, but the Trust later filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which were dismissed in defaul

HIRABHAI JHAVERBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & OHS.

2010 INSC 2039 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC for an offence committed on 23 July 1986 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction and rejected the appellant's application to compound the offence. After the conviction, the victims filed an affidavit expressing their willi

STATE OF M.P.versusSUGHAR SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 1329 March 2010Disposed off

Eight persons were tried by a Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh for murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court set aside their convictions, and the State appealed, but only four of the accused were impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The Supreme Court, in a 2008 judgment, reversed the ac

DHARAMVEER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 1349 March 2010Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of two persons, based on medical evidence, post‑mortem reports and the testimony of two eye‑witnesses. They appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136, challenging the conviction on grounds of

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusMANOJ KUMAR

2010 INSC 1359 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana filed an appeal after the High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the District Collector’s order directing Manoj Kumar to pay differential stamp duty on a commercial plot that had been sold at a price lower than the circle rate. The sale deed was executed fo

SANGAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 1369 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were acquitted by the trial court. The State appealed, and the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting them under Section 304(Part‑II) read with Section 34, without providing a detailed re‑appreciation of the e

KHILAN & ANRversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 1379 March 2010Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted eight persons for the murder of Toophan Singh, alleging a land dispute and an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. The trial court convicted Prema, Khilan, Gainda and Sangram Singh under IPC sections 302 and 34, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting four o

JAVED MASOOD AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2010 INSC 1389 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Javed Masood and another were convicted for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) based primarily on the testimony of the deceased's brother (PW‑5), who lodged a Parcha Bayan. Independent witnesses, including the shop owner (PW‑6) and several police personnel (PW‑18, PW‑29, PW‑30), testified that the brother and other a

SARV U.P. GRAMIN BANKversusMANOJ KUMAR SINHA

2010 INSC 909 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a bank employee, was found guilty of financial irregularities, fraud and misappropriation and was punished with a reduction of pay after a departmental enquiry. The High Court set aside the punishment on the ground that the enquiry report had not been served to the employee, alleging a breach of natural

RAVI KUMARversusJULMIDEVI

2010 INSC 929 February 2010Dismissed

The husband filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion; the trial court granted the decree, but the High Court, exercising its power under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, set aside the decree. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court, as the first appellate court, may re‑appreci

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

T.G. ASHOK KUMARversusGOVINDAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 8638 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant, T.G. Ashok Kumar, purchased a plot from the second respondent in 1990, unaware of a pending partition suit filed by the first respondent. The partition suit, which was not collusive, was decreed in 1994 and finally divided the property such that three‑quarters went to the first respondent and one‑quarter

UNION OF INDIAversusSHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.

2009 INSC 12918 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard appeals by the Union of India and airlines against a Rajasthan High Court order that struck down conditions imposed on senior‑citizen concessions for airline and railway tickets. The petitioners argued that the conditions—such as booking tickets seven days in advance and a mandatory two‑night st

PANKAJAKSHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusCHANDRIKA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7608 November 2010Hearing Adjourned

The appeal challenged a Kerala High Court Division Bench order that dismissed an appeal against a trial court decree on the ground of a difference of opinion between the two judges on the genuineness of a will. The bench relied on Section 98(2) of the CPC, which the appellant argued should not apply because the disagre

SRI RAMAKRISHNA MUTT REP. BY MANAGERversusM. MAHESWARAN AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6848 October 2010Dismissed

Kannabiran Pillai executed settlement deeds in 1938, 1939 and 1943 creating a life interest in his second wife Kumudammal over certain properties, with the remainder to pass to Sri Ramakrishna Mutt after her death. Kumudammal occupied the property and collected rents from 4 March 1939, while Pillai managed it on her be

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.versusMUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS.

2010 INSC 6878 October 2010Disposed off

The respondents, cultivating tenants of lands endowed to a temple, obtained occupancy rights from the Karnataka Land Reforms Tribunal, which the temple challenged before the High Court. While the land was under acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority, the Single Judge of the High Court upheld the occupancy r

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

M/S DOZCO INDIA P. LTD.versusM/S DOOSAN INFRACORE CO. LTD.

2010 INSC 7028 October 2010Dismissed

Dozco India Ltd entered a distributorship agreement with Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd, a Korean company. The agreement contained an arbitration clause (Article 23) stating that disputes would be finally settled by arbitration in Seoul, Korea, under ICC Rules, and Article 22 made Korean law the governing law. When the respo

GURBUX SINGHversusHARMINDER KAUR

2010 INSC 6898 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a principal of an ITI college, filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging cruelty by his wife, primarily citing an incident on the Lohri festival where she verbally abused his elderly parents. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the petition, finding t

MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITANversusRAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR.

2010 INSC 6908 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, brother of the daughter‑in‑law who had filed a dowry harassment case under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against her father‑in‑law, was accused by the father‑in‑law of stealing two gold bangles during a police raid on the matrimonial home. A complaint was filed, the magistrate took

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. & ANR.versusDATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 6938 October 2010Case Partly allowed

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (successor to MSEB) and its Chairman were accused by Datar Switchgear Ltd. of fabricating documents submitted to an arbitral tribunal, alleged to be offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC read with Section 34. The High Court refused to quash the criminal complaint, p

ASOKE BASAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6958 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Asoke Basak, then Chairman of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), was charged in a criminal complaint under Sections 405, 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly refusing to refund a Rs 5 lakh security deposit made by Datar Switchgear Ltd. (respondent No.2). The deposit was adjusted

D.R. RATHNA MURTHYversusRAMAPPA

2010 INSC 6968 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant purchased a plot of land on 23 April 1986 and sold it the next day to the respondent by a registered sale deed. In 1991-92 the appellant claimed the deed was conditional, asserting that the word "Avadhi" and a clause allowing repurchase within ten years had been inserted after execution. The trial court,

KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS.versusKALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6978 October 2010Dismissed

The vendee, Kammana Sambamurthy, entered into a sale agreement with the vendor, Kalipatnapu Kamaraju, for an entire house, paying an advance of Rs.10,000. The vendor's wife, Kalipatnapu Atchutamma, later claimed a half‑share in the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought cancellation of the agr

VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMAversusPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6988 October 2010Dismissed

Vijendra Kumar Verma cleared the written examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttarakhand but was not selected after the interview because a computer expert found him lacking basic computer knowledge. He contended that the computer‑knowledge requirement was introduced midway through the selectio

PITAMBAR SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6998 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, members of a Mitakshara joint family holding 33.95 acres of land, were initially ordered to retain only 18 acres, with the remainder deemed surplus. An appellate authority later held that the appellant's son, being a major on the relevant date, should be treated as a separate family, a decision that was

HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s

GAINDA RAM AND OTHERSversusM.C.D. AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 7018 October 2010Disposed off

The petitioners, street hawkers and vendors in Delhi, challenged actions of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) that restricted their hawking activities, claiming a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court reiterated that this right is subject to reasonable

M/S SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P.) LTD.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2010 INSC 6858 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a mustard oil manufacturer, obtained an open transit insurance policy that required declaration of "each and every consignment" before dispatch. After a railway accident damaged a consignment, the insurer repudiated the claim, alleging the appellant had failed to disclose all dispatches, exceeding the po

RADHA MUDALIYARversusSPL. TAHASILDAR (LAND ACQ.), T.N.H. BOARD

2010 INSC 6868 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation payable to landowners whose 7.06 acres were acquired by the Tamil Nadu government for the Madras Export Processing Zone. The owners argued that the High Court erred by applying a 40% deduction and failing to grant solatium and interest, while the Reference Court had also misc

ALL SIKKIM YOUTH ASSOCIATION & ANOTHERversusH.R. SUBBA & OTHERS

2010 INSC 6928 October 2010Dismissed

The All Sikkim Youth Association filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 226 alleging massive financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds by officials of the Sikkim Public Works Department (Roads and Bridges), seeking a CBI or CVC investigation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that

DINESH KUMAR GUPTAversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6948 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan High Court had issued an interim order on 22 March 2001 staying the implementation of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in favour of United India Insurance. The order was not complied with. Dinesh Kumar Gupta joined the High Court registry as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) only in January 2005, four yea

OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2010 INSC 6918 October 2010Dismissed

The appellants challenged the validity of the State's allocation of land in Survey No. 83 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was agricultural and that the earlier High Court judgments declaring the proceedings void should stand. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine

M/S. KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusSH. MASOOD AHMED KHAN & OTHERS

2010 INSC 5828 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard two separate appeals filed by a builder (Kranti Associates) and Corporation Bank against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) that dismissed their revision petitions without providing adequate reasons. The Court examined whether a quasi‑judicial bod

MANJAPPA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 5838 September 2010Dismissed

The appellants were charged with kidnapping a 13‑year‑old girl, taking her to Bombay, and selling her for prostitution, violating IPC sections 366A, 372, 373 read with section 34. The trial court convicted two of the accused and acquitted the third; the State appealed, leading the Karnataka High Court to set aside the

DHARMARTH TRUST J & K JAMMU & ORS.versusDINESH CHANDER NANDA

2010 INSC 5848 September 2010Dismissed

The architect Dinesh Chander Nanda sued the Dharmarth Trust for professional fees after the Trust terminated his services. The Trust contended that the suit was governed by Article 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995 and was therefore time‑barred, while the lower courts held it fell under the residuary Art

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

CRAIG ALLEN COATESversusSTATE & ANR.

2010 INSC 5818 September 2010Disposed off

Ms. Cynthia Ann Coates, a U.S.-based nurse, sought to adopt Anil, an Indian male child with developmental delays and learning difficulties. The District Judge and the Delhi High Court had refused the adoption petition. The Supreme Court, on a report from a medical board of experts at AIIMS, found that Ms. Coates posses

NAND KISHORE GUPTA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2010 INSC 5868 September 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of land for the Yamuna Expressway project, where the State of Uttar Pradesh, through YEIDA, acquired over 1,600 hectares for an expressway and 25 million square metres for five industrial parcels. Petitioners argued that the acquisition was not for a public purpose, that it wa

MAQBOOL @ ZUBIR @ SHAHNAWAZ AND ANR.versusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 3758 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants Maqbool, Zubir and Shahnawaz were convicted for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and conspiracy (Sec. 120B IPC) based on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence and entries from a diary recovered during investigation. They challenged the convictions alleging that the witnesses were interested, the identification par

SANATAN NASKAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 3768 July 2010Dismissed

The case involved the murder of Phool Guha and robbery of her house, for which Sanatan Naskar and another accused were arrested after they allegedly led police to stolen wrist watches and a camera. The trial court and the High Court convicted them under Sections 302, 34, 392 and 411 IPC, relying on a chain of circumsta

UDAY CHAKRABORTY & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 3778 July 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Uday Chakraborty and his relatives for dowry death under Sec. 304B IPC read with Sec. 498A IPC. Although the FIR did not explicitly mention a dowry demand, the Court held that the cumulative documentary and oral evidence, including the execution of a "Chuktiparta" at the time

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

ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 3798 July 2010Case Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar was convicted under Section 304‑8 IPC for the death of his wife, who died from burn injuries allegedly after being harassed for a dowry demand of Rs.5,000. The appellant argued that the alleged demand did not constitute "dowry" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the phrase

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.

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.versusASHWANI KUMAR

2010 INSC 3818 July 2010Disposed off

The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) issued demand notices for higher tariff and penalties against Ashwani Kumar and other consumers, alleging that two electricity connections operating in what was claimed to be separate premises were in fact in the same premises and therefore should be clubbed under the Electrici

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusJAGDISH PANDEY & ORS.

2010 INSC 3938 July 2010Dismissed

The respondents, Tower Wagon Drivers (TWDs) in the Eastern Railway, obtained a running allowance and were placed on the same pay scale as Goods Train Drivers. The Railways later issued an order withdrawing the higher pay scale, claiming it was granted inadvertently. The respondents challenged this order before the Cent

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD.versusASSTT. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES & ANR.

2010 INSC 3948 July 2010Disposed off

Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. purchased printing ink for newspaper production in 2001‑02 and claimed a concessional 3% tax rate by filing Form 18 under Section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Assistant Commissioner issued a penalty notice alleging that newspaper printing does not constitute "manufactur

DHARNIDHARversusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 3828 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murders of Bahadur Singh and his father Pyare Lal. The prosecution proved that four accused, armed with guns and a spear, killed Bahadur Singh, after which all five accused, including Dharnidhar, proceeded to kill Pyare Lal with guns and a kulhari. The defence argued that the key e

PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 3838 July 2010Dismissed

The petitioner, Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel, complained of a mob assault and theft on 11 September 2008, filing three separate police complaints that contained differing versions of the incident. Respondents No.2 and No.3 obtained anticipatory bail from an Additional Sessions Judge, which the petitioner sought to can

RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.versusU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3848 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants Rakesh Kumar Goel and others purchased two government plots in Ghaziabad through an auction purportedly held under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The High Court set aside the auction on the ground that the appellants failed to deposit the required 25% of the bid immed

DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LTD.versusJAYARAM CHIGURUPATI & ORS.

2010 INSC 3748 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Daiichi Sankyo acquired a controlling stake in Ranbaxy, which had earlier bought shares of Zenotech at Rs.160 per share. When Daiichi made a public offer to acquire Zenotech shares, it offered Rs.113.62 per share, citing the market price as the highest of the methods prescribed under Regulation 20(4)(c). The respondent

SUBHADRA AND ORS.versusTHANKAM

2010 INSC 3858 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants entered into an agreement to sell a 5‑cent parcel of land together with the structures described in Exhibit 81 to the respondent for a total price of Rs.45,250. After paying earnest money, a dispute arose over the extent of the property to be transferred, with the appellants contending that only the land

LAXMAN TATYABA KANKATE & ANR.versusTARAMATI HARISHCHANDRA DHATRAK

2010 INSC 3868 July 2010Dismissed

The respondents entered into an agreement to sell land to the appellants and paid Rs 10,000 as earnest money, but the appellants failed to execute the sale deed. The respondents sued for specific performance and, alternatively, for refund of the earnest money. The trial court awarded only the refund, while the first ap

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

BALWANT SINGH (DEAD)versusJAGDISH SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 3888 July 2010Dismissed

The landlord Balwant Singh filed an eviction suit which was appealed up to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the sole appellant died on 28 November 2007. The legal representatives filed applications on 15 April 2010, 778 days after the death, seeking to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S. PROTECTION MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD.

2010 INSC 3898 July 2010Dismissed

The insured's factory suffered a fire and the insurer, New India Assurance Co., appointed a surveyor, joint surveyors, and later an investigator who alleged arson, before seeking the opinion of former Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud who concluded the fire was accidental. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissi

NARESH KUMARversusDEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3908 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a former Indian Air Force air corporal who later served with the Department of Atomic Energy and Nuclear Power Corporation, had elected a pro‑rata pension on retirement and subsequently sought to change his option to a combined civil‑military pension. His multiple representations to the authorities from

TRANSMISSION CORPN. OF A.P. LTD. & ANR.versusSAI RENEWABLE POWER PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3918 July 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation and several non‑conventional energy developers over the purchase price of electricity and the restriction on third‑party sales imposed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC). The developers had entered into

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusV.N. SINGH

2010 INSC 2018 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned alleged irregularities in local purchase of goods at the 4th Reserved Petroleum Depot, leading to a series of inquiries and disciplinary proceedings against Lt. Col. V.N. Singh. After a Technical Court of Inquiry and a Staff Court of Inquiry implicated Singh, a General Court Martial (GCM) imposed for

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

CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS.versusPEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.

2010 INSC 1308 March 2010Dismissed

The case concerned a 29‑acre property originally owned by Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt, which was subject to a permanent lease patta dated 11‑03‑1931 in favour of Mandaram Munikannaiah and subsequently sold to the appellants. The Mutt sought eviction of the appellants on the ground of non‑payment of rent under the Andhra Prade

THAKUR KULDEEP SINGH (D) THR. L.R. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 1318 March 2010Dismissed

The appellants owned a 2,475‑sq‑yd plot in Karol Bagh, Delhi, which the Union of India acquired for the public purpose of constructing Joshi Memorial Hospital. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value at Rs 550 per sq yd, which the appellants challenged under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; t

V. KISHAN RAOversusNIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & ANOTHER.

2010 INSC 1298 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's wife was admitted to Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital with intermittent fever; the hospital failed to diagnose malaria and treated her for typhoid, leading to her death after being transferred to another hospital. The District Consumer Forum held the hospital negligent and awarded Rs. 2 lakh compensatio

SANTOSHversusJAGAT RAM & ANR.

2010 INSC 838 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widowed woman, filed a suit in 1990 seeking declaration of ownership of land inherited from her deceased husband and alleging that a consent decree dated 26‑03‑1985, which transferred the property to the respondents, was procured by fraud. The trial court, after evaluating testimonies of four witnesses

RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADEversusDIV. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 848 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased workman suffered a heart attack six months after being involved in a vehicular accident. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded compensation, which the insurer challenged. The Karnataka High Court set aside the award against the insurer, held that the employer (vehicle owner) was liable despit

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

M/S. THE TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LIMITEDversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, KARNATAKA

2010 INSC 868 February 2010Dismissed

The Totgars' Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., a cooperative credit society, invested surplus funds in short‑term bank deposits and government securities and earned interest. It claimed that this interest was business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Offic

S. NARAHARI RAOversusSATHYANARAYANA & ORS.

2010 INSC 878 February 2010Disposed off

The appellant filed a suit and a temporary injunction application in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking to restrain the respondents from constructing on the suit property. The trial court directed the parties to maintain the status quo, but the respondents moved to vacate this order, arguing that the same dispute

S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusB.R. VASUDEVA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 888 February 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the Mysore Inam Abolition Act, 1954, where two inamdars applied for occupancy registration of land that the State had meanwhile granted to a teachers' association (Sangha) for house sites. The inamdars settled their suit with the Sangha, withdrew their claim, and later

MULLA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 898 February 2010Disposed off

The appellants Mulla and Guddu were convicted for abducting and murdering five villagers for ransom, based on the testimony of injured eye‑witnesses and a test identification parade (TIP) conducted after a delay. The Supreme Court held that the TIP was properly conducted and its evidence admissible, and that the eye‑wi

TAMEESHWAR VAISHNAVversusRAMVISHAL GUPTA

2010 INSC 208 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved two cheques that were dishonoured and a notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served on the drawer. The drawer received the first notice on 14 June 2006 but the payee did not file a complaint within the 15‑day period prescribed under Section 138(c). A second notice was sent

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S. INTERNATIONALAUTO LIMITED

2010 INSC 218 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Central Excise sought interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on differential duty that International Auto Ltd. paid after the date of clearance of goods because the selling price was later revised upward. The assessee contended that the purchase order prices were final, there wa

PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS.versusDUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS.

2010 INSC 228 January 2010Dismissed

The tenants (Pinninti Kistamma and others) claimed tenancy rights over 19.80 acres of land and obtained a permanent injunction against the landlords (Duwada Parsuram Chowdary and others). The landlords filed cross‑suits for a larger 181.90 acres and challenged the Tehsildar's order that declared the tenants as cultivat

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusM/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

2010 INSC 238 January 2010Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan terminated a construction contract and the contractor, M/s Nav Bharat Construction Co., sought arbitration of several claims. After an initial umpire award was set aside, a new umpire was appointed and his award was filed in the Supreme Court. The State applied to make the award a rule of court w

JITENDER KUMAR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2010 INSC 248 January 2010Disposed off

The case concerned the direct recruitment of Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in Uttar Pradesh, where a certain percentage of posts were reserved for women, outstanding sportspersons, and backward classes with accompanying fee and age relaxations. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection, arguing that age

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

BALASAHEB @ RAMESH LAXMAN DESHMUKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2010 INSC 8547 December 2010Dismissed

The appellant was recorded as a witness under Section 161 of the CrPC in a police case concerning an assault, and later named as an accused in a separate complaint case arising from the same incident. He sought to invoke Article 20(3) of the Constitution to refuse to give testimony in the police case, claiming a blanke

M. SUDAKARversusV. MANOHARAN & ORS.

2010 INSC 8537 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

M. Sudakar, the President of the Aruppukkottai Nadarkal Uravinmurai Pothu Abiruthi Trust, was debarred by a General Body resolution dated 7 January 2007 from holding any post in the Trust for ten years. He filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to restrain the registration of the resolution.

SAROJ & ORS.versusHET LAL & ORS.

2010 INSC 8557 December 2010Remitted to Lower Court

The legal representatives of the deceased Joginder Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, the vehicle owner and the insurer, alleging that a Tata 207 vehicle owned by the respondent and driven rashly caused Singh's death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed

M/S. GOVIND IMPEX (P) LTD. AND ORS.versusAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

2010 INSC 8567 December 2010Dismissed

The appellants leased premises for nine years with a clause allowing the lessee to extend the lease for a further nine years, subject to conditions. The Income Tax Department treated the lease as exceeding twelve years, invoking Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act and requiring filing of Form 37‑1. The appellants contend

SURAJ BHAN MEENA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2010 INSC 8577 December 2010Disposed off

The Rajasthan High Court quashed two state notifications that granted consequential seniority to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers promoted under reservation, on the ground that the state had not complied with the requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj's case. The petitioners, members of the Rajasthan Administ

SURENDER & ORS.versusGADDA BALAIAH & ORS.

2010 INSC 8587 December 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard appeals arising from a single‑bench order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that dismissed the State's revision petition and allowed the respondents' revision petition, thereby restoring an earlier revenue order concerning tenancy rights over 190 acres in Gachibowli Village. Both parties conteste

MOTI RAM (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 8597 December 2010Hearing Adjourned

In a landlord‑tenant dispute, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Chandigarh Mediation Centre. The mediation did not result in an agreement, and the mediator submitted a report that disclosed the parties' settlement offers. The Court held that mediation proceedings are strictly confidential under CPC s.89(2) a

ANJANI MOLU DESSAIversusSTATE OF GOA & ANR.

2010 INSC 8617 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded for 3,65,375 sq.m. of orchard and paddy land acquired in Goa for a railway project. The Land Acquisition Collector had based the market value on two sale deeds, one for a comparable orchard parcel sold at Rs.43.80 per sq.m. and another distant parcel sold at Rs.3 per

CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS.versusPALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO

2010 INSC 8607 December 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a civil appeal arising from a suit for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiffs claimed title based on inheritance, while the defendants asserted ownership either through a purported sale or by adverse possession. The High Court, in a Letters Patent appeal, held that a Division Bench ma

CHANMUNIYAversusVIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR.

2010 INSC 6817 October 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, Chanmuniya, claimed that after the death of her first husband she was married to her brother‑in‑law according to Kushwaha customs, with Katha and Sindur, and lived with him as husband and wife. The husband later deserted and stopped maintenance, prompting her to file a petition under Section 125 of the C

RAM KRISHNA SINGH & ORS.versusTHAKURJI SHIVJI

2010 INSC 6827 October 2010Dismissed

The case concerned a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. An ex‑parte decree against the original tenant was set aside after the court found that summons had not been served, and the tenants deposited the arrears

SAMJUBEN GORDHANBHAI KOLIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2010 INSC 6837 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli, was convicted by a trial court and the conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. She appealed to the Supreme Court seeking remission of the remaining portion of her sentence. The Supreme Court held that remission or commutation of a sentence is a power vested exclusively

LAXMAN RAM MANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2010 INSC 6807 October 2010Dismissed

Vasudha, married to Laxman Ram Mane, drowned in a river about one and a half years after her marriage. The prosecution alleged that the husband, aided by his sisters, harassed her and maintained an illicit relationship with a woman named Pragati, leading to her suicide. The trial court convicted the husband under Secti

SWAMI NATHversusNIRMAL SINGH

2010 INSC 5727 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, tenants, challenged eviction orders passed by Rent Controllers under Section 13‑B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by their landlord‑respondents who were non‑resident Indians. The tenants argued that the landlord already possessed another shop in the same building, lacked a bo

STATE OF HARYANAversusSATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND ANOTHER

2010 INSC 5737 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Satish Kumar Mittal, an Assistant District Attorney, discovered an error in his recorded date of birth nine years after joining the Haryana government service and sought correction. The service rules required any application for correction of date of birth to be filed within two years of entry, a deadline he missed. Af

K.K. POONACHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 5747 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 on the ground that it was not reserved for the President’s consideration and did not receive his assent as required by the now‑repealed Article 31(3). The Supreme Court examined whether the Act, enacted under Entry 5 of List II for city developmen

MAMTAJ BI BAPUSAB NADAF & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.

2010 INSC 5807 September 2010Dismissed

Two workmen were unloading maize from a tractor‑trailer into an underground storage bin when they fell into a pit while cleaning it and died of asphyxia. Their legal representatives filed claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held United India Insurance liab

M/S. INDIA METERS LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 5757 September 2010Dismissed

India Meters Ltd., a dealer in electric meters, collected freight and insurance charges separately from its customers but omitted them from its declared turnover. The assessing authority treated 50% of these charges as part of the sale price and levied sales tax. The dealer appealed, arguing that under Rule 6(c) of the

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.versusK.K. VERMA

2010 INSC 5767 September 2010Disposed off

The respondent, a manager of Punjab National Bank, was charged with serious irregularities and subjected to a departmental inquiry under the bank's 1977 service regulations. The disciplinary authority found him guilty on three charges and, despite the inquiry officer’s finding on the fourth charge, imposed removal from

MAIN PALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 5777 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was charged with trespassing into Prakashi Devi's house and assaulting her with intent to outrage her modesty under IPC sections 452 and 354. Evidence showed that the assault was actually on Prakashi Devi's daughter‑in‑law, Sheela Devi, and not on Prakashi Devi. The trial court convicted the appellant on

M. CHANDRAversusM. THANGAMUTHU & ANR.

2010 INSC 5787 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M. Chandra, was elected from a Tamil Nadu assembly seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, but the election petitioner challenged her eligibility on the ground that she was a Christian and not a member of the Hindu Pallan Scheduled Caste. The High Court shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant to demon

PALRAJversusTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC

2010 INSC 5797 September 2010Disposed off

Palraj, a bus driver for a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, suffered a severe accident that left him unable to drive but capable of performing other duties. The corporation reassigned him as a peon with the same salary. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation initially awarded compensation based on an 85%

LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT. COMMNR. & ANR.versusSHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS.

2010 INSC 3677 July 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a large batch of appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings in Karnataka concerning the liability to pay interest on solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The key issue was the interpretation of "closed execution" in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India and whether the limitation

GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.versusRAVI PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR.

2010 INSC 3687 July 2010Dismissed

Visually‑impaired candidate Ravi Prakash Gupta cleared the Civil Services Examination and was placed fifth among candidates of his disability category, but was denied appointment because only one post was offered for visually‑handicapped candidates. He claimed entitlement to a reservation under Section 33 of the Person

M/S. KANCHANGANGA SEA FOODS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2010 INSC 3697 July 2010

Mis. Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd., an Indian exporter of seafood, chartered fishing vessels from a Hong Kong company and agreed to pay the charter fee as 85% of the gross earnings from fish sales. The catch was brought to Chennai, valued, and customs duties were paid before the non‑resident company received its share. T

PRADIP BURAGOHAINversusPRANATI PHUKAN

2010 INSC 3707 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Pradip Buragohain, challenged the election of Pranati Phukan to the Assam Legislative Assembly on the ground that she committed seven acts of corrupt practice, chiefly bribery of Rs.500 per voter and organizing a feast on polling day. The High Court dismissed the election petition, finding the oral testi

EAST COAST RAILWAY & ANR. ETC.versusMAHADEV APPA RAO & ORS.

2010 INSC 3717 July 2010Disposed off

The East Coast Railway conducted a type‑writing test for Chief Typist posts on 30 Oct 2006 and announced results on 22 Nov 2006. After complaints by some unsuccessful candidates about defective type‑writers, the railway cancelled the test on 14 Dec 2006 without recording any reasons. A fresh test was held on 16 Dec 200

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusA.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3727 July 2010Dismissed

The testator’s 1951 Will gave life interest in two houses to her sisters and, after their deaths, vested absolute title in the male heirs, subject to a clause that any sale must be to the other male heirs at market price and not to strangers. After a partition, Rukmani Ammal and her son sold one house (property B) to K

M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD.versusM/S. CHOWGULE BROTHERS & ORS.

2010 INSC 3737 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose from a work contract for port services that was initially for one year and extendable for a second year, subject only to statutory wage increases for dock labourers as per Clause 2.03. The contractor claimed additional payment for wage escalations that occurred after the commencement of the extended p

NORTHERN MINERAL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3657 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Northern Mineral Ltd., a manufacturer of insecticides, was served with a report from the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory stating that a sample of its product did not meet specifications. The company notified the Insecticide Inspector, within 28 days, of its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the re

MAHESH CHANDRA BANERJIversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3667 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The Banerji family claimed that, apart from 1‑1‑10 bighas of land excluded by the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, the remaining portion of their Plot No. 1002 had been acquired for a development scheme (Yojana No. 7) and that no compensation had been assessed. The State and the Parishad argued that the land

RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

2010 INSC 2907 May 2010Disposed off

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (RNRL) and Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) entered into a Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956, based on a family Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Ambani brothers. RNRL sought enforcement of gas supply terms from RIL, alleging that the Gas Sales Master Agreemen

KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. & ANR.versusM/S. L.M.L. LIMITED & ORS.

2010 INSC 2887 May 2010Dismissed

L.M.L. Ltd., a two-wheeler manufacturer, was declared a Relief Undertaking and later a Sick Company due to market downturn. It applied to Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (KESCO) for reduction of its contracted load from 8 MVA to 1.25 MVA effective 1 April 2006, a decision approved by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Re

INCABLE NET (ANDHRA) LIMITED & ORS.versusAP AKSH BROADBAND LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 2927 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, minority shareholders of a joint venture company (APAKSH Broadband Ltd.), alleged that the majority shareholder, which was also the EPC contractor, mismanaged funds and oppressed them, seeking winding up under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board and the High

HARISH MAGANLAL BAIJALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2010 INSC 2937 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioner appeared for the 1990 Maharashtra State Service (Main) examination and, scoring 604 marks, missed the 14 open-category DSP vacancies, being appointed as Sales Tax Officer instead. After three originally selected candidates were declared ineligible, the petitioner was recommended and appointed as a replac

ANIL KUMARversusB.S. NEELKANTA & ORS.

2010 INSC 3007 May 2010Disposed off

The petitioners sought appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging a live dispute arising from an arbitration clause (Clause 41) in an agreement dated 19 January 2004 concerning a 74% equity stake in Varsha Hill Fort Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The High Cour

UTPAL DAS & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 2947 May 2010Dismissed

The victim, a married woman with two children, was intercepted while traveling by rickshaw, taken to a house under construction and forcibly raped by the two appellants, Utpal Das and Haradhan Sutradar. She was later rescued, identified the accused, and lodged an FIR. The trial court acquitted the appellants, but the C

RANGAPPAversusSRI MOHAN

2010 INSC 2897 May 2010Disposed off

The appellant, a mechanic, borrowed Rs 45,000 from the respondent, an engineer, and issued a post‑dated cheque for repayment. The cheque was presented but the bank returned it with a "payment stopped by drawer" memo after the appellant gave stop‑payment instructions. He failed to honour the cheque within the statutory

SAMIR CHANDRA DASversusBIBHAS CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

2010 INSC 2957 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Jogesh Chandra Das executed a Will in 1983 appointing his wife Parul Bala Das and son Samir Chandra Das as executors. During probate proceedings the executors sold land covered by the Will; Samir signed as a witness to the sale deed. The Calcutta High Court held that by signing as a witness Samir had implicitly renounc

M/S. JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD.versusM/S JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANR.

2010 INSC 2967 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the tenant, alleging that the lease had expired and a termination notice had been served. The tenant denied that the tenancy had been terminated and contested the landlord's claim of admission. The landlord sought a judgment on admission under Order 12

SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2977 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Secretary of the Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association, a minority institution, sought permission to run a Higher Secondary school after the Kerala government abolished pre‑degree courses and allowed colleges with high schools to add classes up to the 12th standard. Although the Council of Ministers had

EKNATH GANPAT AHER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2987 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a land dispute over Gat No. 170 in Maharashtra, where a mob of 75‑100 persons clashed with the complainant party, resulting in two deaths and injuries to members of both sides. The trial court convicted 35 accused under various IPC provisions including murder (s.302) committed by an unlawful assembl

B.P. SINGHALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 2867 May 2010Disposed off

In 2004 the President, on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, removed the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa. A public‑interest writ petition was filed challenging the removals and seeking to read limitations into Article 156(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that the petition was maint

SATHEEDEVIversusPRASANNA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 2997 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Satheedevi owned a 9.98‑acre rubber plantation and had executed a power of attorney in favour of her daughter, who later sold the land to her husband by a registered sale deed. Satheedevi filed a suit for cancellation of that sale deed, stating the property value as Rs 7 lakhs and paying court fees accordingly. The tri

UNION OF INDIAversusRAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.

2010 INSC 2877 May 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Rule 16(2) (and sub‑rules 3‑5) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, which allow meritorious candidates belonging to reserved categories (MRCs) who are placed in the general merit list to migrate to the reserved pool at the time of service allocation. The petitioners argued

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURATversusSAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

2010 INSC 2917 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had set aside a penalty imposed on Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd. for concealment of income. The assessee had filed a return showing NIL income and claimed excessive depreciation, resulting in a loss, but the a

KARAM KAPAHI & OTHERSversusM/S. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 2007 April 2010Dismissed

The Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust leased property to the South Delhi Club and later terminated the lease for non‑payment of rent. The Trust sued for possession; the Club contested the Trust’s title and sought relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, while also admitting non‑payment of rent in its s

DAYA SINGH & ANR.versusGURDEV SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 187 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents entered into a written compromise on 26 October 1972 concerning the division of land shares. On 21 August 1990 the appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership and correction of revenue records, alleging that the respondents refused to acknowledge their claim and that a wrong entr

ABDUL RAZAK (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusMANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE AND ORS.

2010 INSC 197 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned tenancy of premises in Goa, where the plaintiffs (respondents) sought declaration of tenancy and possession against the defendants, including the legal representatives (appellants) of a deceased defendant. The appellants filed an additional written statement after being impleaded, which the trial cou

A.S. MOHAMMED RAFIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY HOME DEPT. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 8516 December 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of resolutions passed by various Bar Associations refusing to represent certain accused persons in criminal cases. It held that every individual, irrespective of the nature of the alleged crime, has a constitutional right to be defended and that it is the lawyer's duty to accept

RAM CHANDER TALWAR & ANR.versusDEVENDER KUMAR TALWAR & ORS.

2010 INSC 6776 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a nominee of a bank account held by his deceased mother, claimed exclusive rights over the deposit, arguing that Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 made him the sole owner, thereby excluding his brother, the respondent. The Court examined the language of the provision, holding that it me

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERSversusKASHMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 6786 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were constables, head constables, assistant sub‑inspectors and sub‑inspectors serving in various districts of Haryana, challenged transfer orders that moved them to other districts or ranges, arguing that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 limited such transfers within their own district or range. The P

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE THR. CBI

2010 INSC 6796 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Santosh Kumar Singh, was accused of raping and murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo. The trial court acquitted him, rejecting the DNA evidence and deeming the circumstantial evidence insufficient. The High Court reversed the acquittal, finding the chain of circumstantial facts – continuous harassment, presence

RATHINAM @ RATHINANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2009 INSC 11666 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved the rape and murder of a mill worker, Chitra, for which Rathinam, the son of the mill owner, was charged under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court reversed this acquittal based largely on the later statements of two witnesses, PW‑4 and PW‑5,

GEETA DEVI & ORS.versusPURAN RAM RAIGAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 5706 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, Geeta Devi & Ors., challenged the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court's order dismissing their appeal against a single High Court judge's decision that had rejected a miscellaneous appeal arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The central issue was whether such an intra‑court appea

KALABHARATI ADVERTISINGversusHEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 5716 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Kalabharati Advertising, an advertising hoarding firm, had obtained permission from a society and the Municipal Corporation to erect a hoarding in Mumbai. A public interest litigation led the High Court to form a committee that found the hoarding violated certain guidelines, prompting the corporation to issue orders su

DINESH B. PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 4856 August 2010Dismissed

A criminal complaint was filed against a medicine‑manufacturing company and its directors alleging that the drug was defective due to fungal growth, constituting a breach of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The company and its directors sought to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Guj

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusR. VASUDEVA MURTHY AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4866 August 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an Office Memorandum dated 19 October 1994 issued by the Ministry of Finance, which revised the pay scales of Draughtsmen Grade I, II and III in all Government of India offices. Draughtsmen had approached Central Administrative Tribunals and various High Courts seeking upgradation of their pa

VIJAYA BANKversusSHYAMAL KUMAR LODH

2010 INSC 3536 July 2010Dismissed

Shyamal Kumar Lodh, an employee of Vijaya Bank, filed an application before the Labour Court at Dibrugarh for suspension/subsistence allowance under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The bank contended that the Court, constituted by the State Government, lacked jurisdiction because it had not been sp

SHIVJEE SINGHversusNAGENDRA TIWARY AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3556 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Shivjee Singh filed a protest petition that was converted into a complaint alleging that four persons killed his son. The Judicial Magistrate, after examining the appellant and only two of the four witnesses he named, took cognizance of offences under Sections 302, 1208 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and iss

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. ASIAN GLOBAL LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3566 July 2010Dismissed

The Central Bank of India sued Asian Global Ltd., its sister concern, and several directors for offences under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a cheque issued as a corporate guarantee was dishonoured. The trial court held the bank to be a holder in due course and rejected the direc

SINGAPAGU ANJAIAHversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2010 INSC 3576 July 2010Dismissed

Eight persons, including the appellant Singapagu Anjaiah, were tried for rioting, attempt to commit murder, murder and causing hurt. The appellant allegedly struck the deceased, S. Ramalingam, on the head with a crow bar, causing multiple skull fractures and death, as corroborated by five eyewitnesses and an autopsy re

K.K. RAMACHANDRAN MASTERversusM.V. SREYAMAKUMAR & ORS.

2010 INSC 3586 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K.K. Ramachandran Master, filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of M.V. Sreyam Kumar on grounds of corrupt practices alleged under Sections 123(4), 123(5) and 123(6). The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it failed to disclose m

MD. RAISUL ISLAM AND ORS.versusGOKUL MOHAN HAZARIKA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3596 July 2010Dismissed

The case concerned the seniority of Assam Civil Service (Class‑I) officers promoted from Class‑II and those directly recruited in 1986. An advertisement and selection process began in 1984 under the unamended 1960 Rules, which prescribed a 50% promotion quota. While the selection was underway, the Government amended Ru

C.I.T., MUMBAIversusM/S. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.

2010 INSC 3606 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, C.I.T., Mumbai, challenged the High Court’s order allowing a loss of Rs. 2,09,44,793 claimed by the respondent, a mutual fund unit trader, to be set off against taxable income. The respondent had bought mutual fund units before the record date, received a tax‑free dividend under section 10(33), and sold

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusAJAY WAHI

2010 INSC 3616 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Lt. Col. Ajay Wahi, an officer of the Army Medical Corps, sought premature retirement on medical grounds and was granted voluntary retirement. He claimed a disability pension, which was denied under Regulation 50 of the Army Pension Regulations that bars any disability pension for officers who retire voluntarily. Wahi

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.versusREGENCY CONVENTION CENTRE & HOTELS PVT. LTD.

2010 INSC 3626 July 2010Dismissed

The Airport Authority of India (AAI) leased the Mumbai airport to Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (appellant), excluding a 31,000 sq.m. parcel pending a suit by Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (first respondent) for specific performance of an agreement with AAI. The appellant sought to be impleaded

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusM/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD.

2010 INSC 3636 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Pearl Drinks Ltd. claimed eight deductions while computing excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner allowed six deductions and disallowed two; the company appealed and the tribunal, affirmed by the Supreme Court, upheld the disallowance of the two deductions. The Central Board of Excise and Cust

CHARANJIT LAMBAversusCOMMANDING OFFICER, SOUTHERN COMMAND AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3646 July 2010Dismissed

Major Charanjit Lamba, an officer of the Indian Army, was found guilty by a General Court Martial of falsely claiming transport charges for his household luggage and car, and later of failing to clear electricity dues after a remand. The Court sentenced him to dismissal from service, which he challenged on the ground t

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2010 INSC 2806 May 2010Dismissed

Madras Cements Ltd., a cement manufacturer, claimed Modvat credit for certain items it described as components, spares and accessories used in its mining operations during November‑December 1999. The Revenue argued that the items were not capital goods under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules and disallowed the credi

SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASHOK KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2776 May 2010Case Partly allowed

The South Bengal State Transport Corporation disciplined a conductor for allowing a ticketless passenger and possessing excess cash, relegating him to a Daily Rated Conductor. The employee challenged the punishment, alleging bias because the Enquiry Officer was appointed before his reply was considered and contending t

MD. ASHIF AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2816 May 2010Dismissed

The appellants were initially engaged as Voluntary Health Workers on a nominal honorarium and were later absorbed as Primary Health Workers by the Chief Medical Officer without following the prescribed recruitment procedure. After serving for about fifteen years, they were terminated on the ground that their original a

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusKANTIKA COLOUR LAB & ORS.

2010 INSC 2826 May 2010Disposed off

The insured imported two machines and obtained transit insurance. During road transport only the printer machine was damaged; the film processor remained functional. Surveyor reports and the manufacturer’s engineer confirmed that the printer was extensively damaged and could not be repaired in India, while the film pro

BHIM SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2766 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Scheme as unconstitutional, arguing that the allocation of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India violated Articles 266(3), 275, 282 and the principle of separation of powers, and gave MPs an unfair electoral advantage. The Court exa

CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA RAILWAY RECT. BOARD & ANR.versusK. SHYAM KUMAR.& ORS.

2010 INSC 2836 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

In a recruitment drive for Group‑D railway posts, the Railway Board ordered a re‑test after a vigilance report revealed question‑paper leakage, mass copying and impersonation. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the order, but the High Court set it aside using the Wednesbury principle, directing appointments bas

KALLAKURICHI TALUK CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusM. MARIA SOOSAI & ORS.

2010 INSC 2846 May 2010Disposed off

M. Maria Soosai, an accountant of Kallakurichi Taluk Co‑op Housing Society, was deemed to have resigned in 1990 after being absent without leave, pursuant to the Society’s bye‑laws and Rule 149(10)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1988. After five years he sought relief before the Labour Court and, wh

A.K. BEHERAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2010 INSC 2786 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged several amendments made by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006, including the abolition of the Vice‑Chairman post, the new qualification criteria for Administrative Members, the ten‑year total tenure limit (s.10A), differential service conditions for members appointed before an

AVINASH CHAND & ORS.versusAGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEES

2010 INSC 2796 May 2010Dismissed

The appellants, who had been working as auctioneers on a commission basis in the Kaithal Market Committee since 1963‑64, were terminated in 2000 after the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Board reiterated a 1982 directive that auctioneers should not work beyond the age of 60. They challenged the re

ATLA SIDDA REDDYversusBUSI SUBBA REDDY AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2856 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioner sought a declaration of title to land that he claimed to have purchased in 1984 from Syed Ghouse Bi (alias Chand Begum), who had allegedly acquired it from Lakshmamma in 1974. The defendant contended that Lakshmamma had already sold the same land to Thondolu Mahaboob Basha in 1968, a deed (Ext.B2) that,

UTTAM CHAKRABORTYversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2010 INSC 1986 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

An eight‑month‑pregnant woman was found dead with severe abdominal injuries and the foetus removed. The husband, Mission Suklabaidhya, and his friend, Uttam Chakraborty, were convicted of murder; the husband received the death penalty and the friend life imprisonment. Both appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined

BAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 1996 April 2010Dismissed

The petitioner, Bahadur Singh, was caught after police raided his house based on secret information and recovered six bags of poppy husk from a locked room that he opened with a key in his possession. He was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment, which the High

MOHAN KUMAR RAYANAversusKOMAL MOHAN RAYANA

2010 INSC 1976 April 2010Dismissed

Mohan Kumar Rayana and Komal Mohan Rayana, who were married in 2000, separated and contested custody of their daughter Anisha, born in 2002. The Family Court awarded custody to the mother with the father receiving alternate weekend visitation and a 50% share of school vacations, a decision affirmed by the Bombay High C

HARI KISHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 136 January 2010Disposed off

The appellant Hari Kishan was convicted under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his brother's sibling Dinesh, based primarily on the testimony of Harkesh (PW‑2), who claimed to be an eye‑witness and to have sustained injuries in the same incident. The trial and High Courts accepted his evi

BODDELLA BABUL REDDYversusPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

2010 INSC 146 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Boddella Babul Reddy, was convicted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) arising from a factional clash in which he was alleged to have hurled a bomb that killed a coolie. The trial court had acquitted all accused, including the appellant, on the ground that the prosecution evidence

HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2010 INSC 156 January 2010Dismissed

In a criminal proceeding under Sections 406 and 114 IPC, the trial court had framed charges against respondents No.2‑4 and later, under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C., added respondent No.5 as a co‑accused. The newly added accused sought to have the proceedings against him commenced afresh from the inquiry stage (Section 244)

INDRESH KUMARversusRAM PHAL AND ORS.

2010 INSC 166 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Indresh Kumar alleged that Inspector Ramphal and six other police officers tortured him and his family in 1992. The trial court convicted Ramphal under IPC sections 218, 342 and 323, while acquitting the six co‑accused. The High Court later set aside Ramphal’s conviction and acquitted all accused, dismissing Indresh Ku

SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2010 INSC 176 January 2010Dismissed

The appellants Sunil Kumar, Tilak Singh and Ram Singh were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of Salim, who died from head injuries inflicted with sticks. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses, including the deceased's fathe

V. RAMAKRISHNA RAOversusTHE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

2010 INSC 6705 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the initial market value was fixed by the Collector. After a reference under Section 18, the Reference Court increased the value, but the appellant, who had not made a Section 18 application, sought equal compensation through Section 28A(1) and

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusABU SALEM ABDUL KAYYAM ANSARI AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6715 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed a decision that allowed a co‑accused to cross‑examine an approver whose pardon, granted under Section 307 of the CrPC, was later forfeited by a certificate under Section 308. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 306, 307 and 308, holding that forfeiture of the pa

MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusHARTAR SINGH SANGHA

2010 INSC 6725 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Man Kaur, owned a plot that was sold to the respondent, Hartar Singh Sangha, by an agreement executed through attorney‑holders. The respondent paid earnest money and claimed he was ready to complete the purchase, but the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. The respondent sued for specific performance

THANU RAMversusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 6735 October 2010Dismissed

Thanu Ram's wife, Hirabai, committed suicide by self‑immolation in the fourth year of their marriage while six months pregnant. She made a dying declaration before a Naib Tahsildar, which a doctor affirmed was given in a sound mental state. The prosecution proved that the husband and his mother subjected Hirabai to men

BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6745 October 2010Dismissed

Bharti Cellular Ltd, holder of a licence to provide cellular services in the Delhi Metro area, challenged the computation of licence fees, interest, penal interest and the unit call rate applied by the Union of India. The dispute arose from the date of commencement of the licence, the method of counting subscribers, an

SHYAM TELELINK LTD. NOW SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2010 INSC 6755 October 2010Dismissed

Shyam Telelink Ltd. was granted a basic telecom licence in 1998 with a requirement to commence commercial operations within twelve months. Due to technical deficiencies, permission to start operations was denied, and the Union of India offered a Migration Package in July 1999, which the company unconditionally accepted

KANWAR NATWAR SINGHversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR

2010 INSC 6765 October 2010Dismissed

Kanwar Natwar Singh and others appealed against the Directorate of Enforcement after a show‑cause notice was issued under Rule 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. The appellants demanded that the adjudicating authority furnish copies of all documents in its possess

DEBASHIS DAW & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 4795 August 2010Disposed off

The appellants were convicted for forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, assaulting a victim who later died, and injuring another person. The trial court and High Court upheld the convictions under Sections 148, 149, 324 and 304 IPC based on eyewitness testimony of the victim, his parents, and medical

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusDONDUSA NAMASA BADDI

2010 INSC 4805 August 2010Dismissed

The appeal arose from a search and seizure conducted on 3 September 1987, where the investigating officer failed to record the information received in writing and did not forward a copy to his immediate superior as required by Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The State argued t

BUDH RAM & ORS.versusBANSI & ORS.

2010 INSC 4815 August 2010Dismissed

Budh Ram & Ors. appealed against a decree that declared them co‑owners of land along with Smt. Parwatu, a proforma defendant who died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants sought substitution of Parwatu's legal representatives but failed to obtain condonation for the delay. The lower appellate court held th

STATE OF U.P.versusSIYA RAM & ANR.

2010 INSC 4825 August 2010Case Partly allowed

The case concerned three accused charged with an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted one accused and convicted the other two. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Siyaram on the ground that his shot did not cause injury and reduced Jiya Lal’s sente

RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR THR. CBI

2010 INSC 4835 August 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court had earlier set aside a High Court order granting bail to Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and directed his surrender. A review petition was filed challenging that order and also seeking exemption from surrender. The Court observed that despite the bail cancellation, the accused had neither surrendered

VINAYKISHORE PUNAMCHAND MUNDHADA & ANRversusSHRI BHUMI KALPATARU & ORS.

2010 INSC 4845 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords alleged that the original tenant partnership "Bhumi Kalpataru" clandestinely sub-let the premises to a new firm "Shri Bhumi Kalpataru" without their written permission. The Rent Controller held that a sub‑tenancy existed and granted relief under clause 13(3)(iii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and

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