Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 2023

854 judgments, newest first — showing 801–854.

ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 993 February 2023Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, who are Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) card‑holders, had been allowed since 2005 to appear for the All India Pre‑Medical Test (NEET) and compete for medical seats on parity with Non‑Resident Indians (NRIs) and Indian citizens. In March 2021 the Union of India issued a notification under Section 7B(1)

M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2023 INSC 53 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd and another, classified as credit institutions, challenged the levy of interest tax on the interest component embedded in hire‑purchase instalments under the Interest‑Tax Act, 1974. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that hire‑purchase agreements are composite transactions wit

K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE)versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS

2023 INSC 63 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

A public interest litigation was filed in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court alleging that cinema halls prohibited movie‑goers from bringing their own food and beverages, forcing them to purchase expensive and possibly unhealthy items. The High Court directed cinema owners not to prohibit outside food, invoking the right t

KAUSHAL KISHORversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2023 INSC 43 January 2023Reference answered

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 and Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 34629 of 2017 were referred to a Constitution Bench to answer five questions concerning the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the enforceability of fundamental rights against non-State actors. The petitions arose from st

KISHORE BALKRISHNA NANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2023 INSC 6752 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kishore Balkrishna Nand, filed a written complaint with the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate alleging that the respondent had encroached land and set up a shop that caused nuisance. The respondent subsequently lodged a private defamation complaint before a Judicial Magistrate, relying on the appellant's complai

WAZIR KHANversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2023 INSC 6742 August 2023Dismissed

Wazir Khan was charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of his wife, Bushra, whose body bore 17 incised wounds. The trial court acquitted him, finding the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but the Uttarakhand High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that Khan's failure to explain

JITENDRA NATH MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR

2023 INSC 5762 June 2023Dismissed

The appellant, brother of an accused named Dharmendra Nath Mishra, was summoned to stand trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite not being named in the FIR. The FIR, registered under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleged that Dharmendra, his brother and an

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.versusR. M. DOSHI

2023 INSC 4742 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

R.M. Doshi, a City Engineer of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, was found to have committed irregularities in road construction work. After a departmental inquiry, the Commissioner dismissed him on 7 December 1998 under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The dismissal was challen

OMPRAKASH SAHNIversusJAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 4782 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Om Prakash Sahni, challenged the High Court's order that suspended the life‑imprisonment sentences of three convicts (Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar and Ram Babu Sahni) for the murder of his brother and released them on bail under Section 389 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the High C

G. VIKRAM KUMARversusSTATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

2023 INSC 4752 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower (G. Vikram Kumar) failed to repay a loan to State Bank of Hyderabad, which invoked Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and attached the borrower's properties. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowed the bank to sell the properties but excluded seven flats; Flat No.6401 was not among them. The borrower enter

BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.

2023 INSC 7282 May 2023Disposed off

Madhumita Das was appointed as a Junior Assistant in a post reserved for Scheduled Castes on the basis of a caste certificate issued in 1996. In 2011 the employer, Bhubaneswar Development Authority, discovered that her school records indicated she belonged to a Brahmin caste and she claimed Scheduled Caste status by vi

CC AND CE AND ST, NOIDAversusM/S INTERARCH BUILDING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

2023 INSC 4762 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (Revenue) challenged the CESTAT’s order that allowed M/s Interarch Building Products to treat its construction services as a works‑contract service, pay service tax on the total contract value and claim CENVAT credit on inputs. The Court examined whether Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value)

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXversusM/S. KUMAR PAINTS AND MILL STORES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

2023 INSC 1932 March 2023Dismissed

The Commissioner of Trade Tax appealed against the High Court's decision that mixing base paint with colourants did not create a new product and therefore did not constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(e)(i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessee, M/s. Kumar Paints, argued that the mixing process merely altere

VISHAL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 1912 March 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions filed by Vishal Tiwari and others seeking redress for massive losses suffered by investors after the share price of the Adani Group collapsed following a Hindenburg Research report. The petitions alleged that the Adani companies had manipulated share prices, failed to d

SUPER DIAMOND TOOLS & ORS.versusK. MOHAN RAO

2023 INSC 1922 March 2023Dismissed

The dispute concerned partnership accounts where the surviving partner of Super Diamond Tools alleged that K. Mohan Rao falsified accounts and siphoned funds. An arbitrator, appointed after a court reference, found Rao guilty of fraud and awarded a sum with interest. Rao sought to set aside the award under Section 34 o

ANOOP BARANWALversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 1902 March 2023Case Partly allowed

The writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the practice of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) solely by the executive. The Supreme Court examined Article 324(2) and Constituent Assembly debates, concluding that Parliament was intended to enact a law gover

SNEHASIS GIRI AND ORS.versusSUBHASIS MITRA

2023 INSC 972 February 2023Disposed off

The petitioners, teachers appointed in West Bengal madrasas, filed contempt petitions seeking release of their salaries after the Supreme Court upheld the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008, overturning a High Court decision that had declared parts of the Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had earlie

STATE OF KERALAversusM/S AKAY FLAVOURS AND AROMATICS LTD.

2023 INSC 7162 February 2023Case Partly allowed

The State of Kerala appealed against M/s Akay Flavours and Aromatics Ltd. regarding the entitlement to a five‑year sales‑tax exemption on raw material purchases under SRO 1727/1993. The dispute centered on whether the exemption period began on the date of Central Government approval of the unit or on the date the unit

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusMULTIPLEX ASSN. OF GUJARAT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT

2023 INSC 7172 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against the High Court’s decision that the tax‑holiday scheme for multiplexes should be interpreted by a notional calculation of exemption limits based on actual ticket collections, without adding a tax element. The scheme granted up to 100% of eligible capital investment as exemption but

BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusDURGA DEVI

2023 INSC 952 February 2023Dismissed

The respondent, Durga Devi, owned an 11‑biswas land parcel in Kullu and sued the appellant, Baini Prasad, for possession and demolition of a verandah he had constructed on that land in 1986, claiming he believed it to be his own. The trial court ordered demolition and restoration of possession to the respondent; the Fi

SHYAM KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.versusSHUBHAM JAIN

2023 INSC 982 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, claiming ownership of a shop, sued the predecessor of the appellants for arrears of rent and eviction. The trial court passed an ex‑parte decree for Rs 8,000 arrears, Rs 3,212 costs and ordered mesne profits of Rs 2,000 per month until possession. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 1

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 942 February 2023Dismissed

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows a candidate to contest elections from more than one constituency for the same office simultaneously. He argued that the provision violated Ar

VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 22 January 2023

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the Central Government's notification dated 8th November 2016 demonetising all series of Rs.500 and Rs.1,000 bank notes under Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The majority held that the word 'any' in Section 26(2) includes

PREM SINGHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2023 INSC 32 January 2023Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Singh, was convicted of murdering his two sons by manual strangulation and of causing the disappearance of evidence by throwing their bodies into a canal. The trial and high courts held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through a cogent chain of circumstantial evidence, th

SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2023 INSC 10361 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged under several IPC sections and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly firing a gun at Rinku Thakur, a member of a Scheduled Caste, and subsequently abusing a witness belonging to the same community. The medicolegal report, however, found no gunshot wound, and the prosecution’s case r

THE KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusAMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER

2023 INSC 10651 December 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society sued for specific performance of a sale agreement, and the respondents were set ex‑parte, resulting in an ex‑parte decree on 15‑02‑1999. The respondents later filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree and sought condonation of a

MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.versusRAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 9691 November 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, legatees of the deceased Mohideen Abdul Khadar, challenged a Madras High Court judgment that upheld the title and possession of Rahmath Beevi over a second scheduled property measuring 15 × 18 feet. The dispute arose from earlier suits where Mohideen claimed title to a first scheduled property and soug

ANIL KUMARversusTHE STATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 9651 November 2023Dismissed

Anil Kumar was convicted of murder and dowry harassment for setting his wife on fire after she poured kerosene on herself during a quarrel. The prosecution proved that Kumar, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted his wife, after which she drenched herself in kerosene to deter further violence, and Kumar deliberatel

SHAKEEL AHMEDversusSYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

2023 INSC 10161 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits of a property relying on an unregistered power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit and will, while the appellant, who was in possession, claimed title through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother. The trial court decreed possession in favour of the resp

HARENDRA RAIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2023 INSC 8061 September 2023Disposed off

The case concerns a murder that occurred in 1995, for which respondent No.2 was initially acquitted by the trial and High Courts but later convicted by the Supreme Court under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. The principal issue before the Court was the appropriate sentence, including whether the death penalty was warr

DERHAversusVISHAL & ANR.

2023 INSC 7851 September 2023Dismissed

The case concerned the share of Derha Ram, son of Kesar Bai, in Mitakshara coparcenary property of his grandfather Phannuram Sahu who died in 1959. Kesar Bai had filed a partition suit claiming her ancestral share; after her death, Derha succeeded to her estate. The trial court awarded Derha a one‑third share, but the

PALLAVIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 7821 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, an OCI card‑holder and U.S. national, applied for a postgraduate medical seat through the NEET (PG) exam and was initially treated as a foreign national, securing a high percentile and being allotted a pediatrics seat in AIIMS during the mock round. Shortly before the first counselling round, the author

REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR.versusMALLIKARJUN & ORS.

2023 INSC 7831 September 2023Reference answered

The appeal concerned the inheritance rights of children born of void or voidable Hindu marriages who are legitimated under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The central issue was whether such children are entitled to a share in the ancestral or coparcenary property of their parents, or only to the

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusSHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC

2023 INSC 6611 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan challenged the constitutional validity of sub‑rule (10) of Rule 4 and sub‑rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, which rejected pending applications for minor‑mineral leases and introduced an auction‑based allocation. The appellants argued that the High Court er

YADAIAH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 6641 August 2023Dismissed

The case concerned land allotted in the 1960s to landless Scheduled Caste/Tribe persons in Manchirevula village, which the assignees later transferred through a General Power of Attorney to a third party who sold the land. The State of Telangana issued a second show‑cause notice (SCN) alleging violation of the Andhra P

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITEDversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.

2023 INSC 4701 May 2023Dismissed

Gujarat Composite Ltd. entered into a licence agreement with A Infrastructure Ltd. in 2005 that contained an arbitration clause, and later entered into a tripartite loan agreement with the same party and Bank of Baroda that lacked any arbitration provision. Disputes arose over possession, loan repayment, and conveyance

SANKET KUMAR AGARWAL & ANRversusAPG LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED

2023 INSC 7271 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in June 2021, which the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed on 26 August 2022. They applied for a certified copy of the order, received it on 15 September 2022, and e‑filed an appeal before the National Company Law Ap

SHILPA SAILESHversusVARUN SREENIVASAN

2023 INSC 4681 May 2023Reference answered

The Constitution Bench examined the scope of Article 142(1) of the Constitution, holding that the Supreme Court may depart from statutory procedure and even substantive law to achieve "complete justice" provided the exercise is guided by fundamental public policy. It ruled that, in cases of settlement between parties,

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANITA SINGH & ORS.

2023 INSC 4731 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired a parcel of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing notifications and passing an award, while Anita Singh (Respondent No.1) claimed to have purchased the land. Singh filed a writ petition invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS.versusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

2023 INSC 4721 May 2023Dismissed

The appellants were arrested in 2019 for offences under the IPC, UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act and a chargesheet was filed within the 180‑day period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. They applied for statutory/default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was filed without a sanction order, arguing

THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANRversusAMAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC

2023 INSC 1891 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Chhattisgarh filed criminal appeals against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order quashing FIR No. 9/2020, which alleged that Aman Kumar Singh (AS) and his wife Yasmin Singh (YS) had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABADversusM/S J.R. ORGANICS LTD.

2023 INSC 1831 March 2023Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise valued specially denatured spirits (SDS) supplied by M/s J.R. Organics Ltd. by taking the highest price of SDS at another unit on a particular date, invoking Rule 6(p)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1994. The assessee challenged this, arguing that the value should be based on the mo

RAVI DHINGRAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2023 INSC 1821 March 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellants kidnapped a 14-year-old boy for ransom. The trial court and High Court convicted them under Section 364A IPC (kidnapping for ransom) with life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the ingredients of Section 364A, particularly the requirement of a threat to cause death or hurt. The Court found that th

M/S. BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITEDversusM/S. RAJWANT SINGH & OTHERS

2023 INSC 1871 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, BLS Infrastructure Ltd., filed eight complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. The complainant’s statement and cross‑examination were recorded, and the trial court closed the complainant’s evidence, directing the case to proceed to defence evidence and an app

VIKAS RATHIversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2023 INSC 1861 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Vikas Rathi, owned a tool manufacturing firm where the deceased, Bachchu Prasad, worked. After Prasad's murder, an FIR was lodged against unknown persons, and later the deceased's wife alleged Rathi's involvement, leading to his being listed as a prosecution witness. The complainant filed an application

B V SESHAIAHversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR

2023 INSC 931 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a private complaint by Respondent No.2. While a revision petition was pending, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) providing for amicable settlement or arbitration, and obligating Respondent No.2 to file a compr

M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTDversusTHE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.

2023 INSC 921 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., a manufacturer of mosquito repellents, was assessed by the Excise & Taxation Officer at a 4% VAT rate, but the Revisional Authority, suo motu, raised the rate to 10% and issued show‑cause notices. The company challenged the revisional orders by filing a writ petition under Article 226, arguing

K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2023 INSC 911 February 2023Case Partly allowed

K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. sought to continue operating a storage terminal and an underground pipeline for edible oil imported through Chennai Port. The Union of India, invoking the 2011 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification under the Environment Protection Act, granted post‑facto clearance under paragraph‑4.3,

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