Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 2022

1,017 judgments, newest first — showing 1,001–1,017.

AJAY KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2022 INSC 7761 August 2022Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order (G.O.) on 7 May 1999 identifying certain posts for reservation for persons with disabilities, reserving some posts for hearing‑impaired candidates but not for those with locomotor disability. In a recruitment for 1,651 Safai‑Karmis posts, three percent of vacancies w

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusRAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)

2022 INSC 6331 June 2022Disposed off

The appellant, operating a resort at Rushikonda Hill, was prohibited by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) from further construction, despite an interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court permitting the work. The appellant challenged the NGT orders, arguing that the High Court already had jurisdiction over the same

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusMAHENDRA PAL BHATIA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 3791 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned eviction proceedings against occupants of several plots in Dhanbad, which the government claimed were part of a coal mine vested in the Central Government under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The respondents argued that the land was private property and not used as a colliery, thus out

TUSHAR ARUN GANDHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

2022 INSC 3831 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation before the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 challenging a Gujarat Government resolution that created a Governing Council and an Executive Council for the redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial (Sabarmati Ashram) and sought that the existing trusts spearhead the

M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDversusM/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.

2022 INSC 3801 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, a mining company, sued the defendant for a declaration that a Rs 56‑lakh cheque, given as security under a memorandum of understanding, was not payable because the defendant failed to protect the plaintiff’s port licence. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusSUBHASH @ PAPPU

2022 INSC 3821 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the High Court's acquittal of Subhash @ Pappu for offences under Sections 302 and 148 of the IPC. The facts involved six to seven persons attacking a shop servant, Bengali, with a knife and a hockey stick, resulting in a stab wound; the victim died thirty days later of septic

THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.versusSURJAKUMAR OKRAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 1341 February 2022Disposed off

The Manipur Legislature enacted the 2012 Parliamentary Secretary Act to create the post of Parliamentary Secretaries, mirroring Assam's 2004 Act which the Supreme Court had struck down as unconstitutional in Bimolangshu Roy. After the Assam judgment, Manipur repealed its 2012 Act by the Repealing Act, 2018, inserting a

STATE OF U.P.versusVEERPAL & ANR.

2022 INSC 1331 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Veerpal and another accused who were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly burning the deceased after a money dispute. The deceased had given two dying declarations: one to a police officer on 20‑12‑2011 and another to a Sub‑Division

FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.versusAMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.

2022 INSC 1291 February 2022

Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL) and Future Retail Ltd (FRL) challenged orders of the Delhi High Court Single Judge that enforced an emergency arbitrator’s interim award in a dispute over FRL’s sale of retail assets to Reliance. The appellants alleged that the judge denied them a fair opportunity to present their defe

VASUDEVversusSTATE OF M.P.

2022 INSC 1351 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The police, acting on information that an absconding accused Rajesh Shukla was hiding in a village house, confronted him and his associate Vasudev Shukla. After Rajesh opened fire, the police retaliated and both accused eventually surrendered, surrendering a rifle and a 12‑bore double‑barrel gun. The trial court convic

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGERversusM/S SHREE GANESH PETROLEUM RAJGURUNAGAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. LAXMAN DAGDU THITE

2022 INSC 1301 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) terminated its dealership agreement with Shree Ganesh Petroleum and the dispute over the lease of the land was referred to arbitration under the dealership agreement. The arbitrator, appointed by the Director (Marketing) of IOCL, increased the lease rent from Rs.1,750 to Rs.10,000 and

SUBHASHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 1271 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a murder under IPC sections 302, 149 and 148, where six accused were convicted based largely on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, PW‑1 Vedram and PW‑2 Jagdish. The post‑mortem report showed only one firearm injury and a single neck injury, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that all pistol‑arme

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHERversusANIE LUKOSE

2022 INSC 1321 February 2022Dismissed

Anie Lukose retired as a selection‑grade lecturer on 31 July 2006 and her basic pension was initially fixed at Rs 8,907 in the pre‑revised pay scale. After a revision of the pay scale, the Accountant General fixed her pension at Rs 19,334 in the revised scale, relying on circulars G.O.(P) No. 211/2011 and G.O.(P) No. 2

THE STATE OF SIKKIMversusJASBIR SINGH & ANR.

2022 INSC 1281 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Sikkim appealed against a High Court order that directed the accused army personnel, Jasbir Singh and another, to be tried by a court‑martial for a murder under IPC sections 302 and 308. The Supreme Court examined whether the offence fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court‑martial or within the c

JOGI RAMversusSURESH KUMAR & ORS

2022 INSC 1311 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a Will dated 15 April 1968 in which Tulsi Ram bequeathed half of his self‑acquired property to his second wife, Ram Devi, as a limited life interest, with the remainder to pass to his son, Jogi Ram, after her death. The question was whether Ram Devi’s interest became an absolute ownership under Secti

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