Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

ARIJIT PASAYAT

1,966 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 1,201–1,400.

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD.versusFERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.

2007 INSC 114012 November 2007Dismissed

Larsen & Toubro Ltd entered into a purchase order with Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Ltd that contained both Standard Conditions and Special Conditions. A dispute arose over the arbitration clause: the appellant sought an independent sole arbitrator under the Special Conditions, while the respondent insisted that

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusADANI EXPORTS LTD. & ANR.

2007 INSC 114212 November 2007Disposed off

The Union of India issued show‑cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962 alleging mis‑declaration, over‑invoicing and misuse of foreign exchange by Adani Exports Ltd. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Sections 49(3) and 49(4) of the Fore

ANTRAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 114312 November 2007Dismissed

The appellant Antram was convicted for murdering his wife Shobha, who alleged he assaulted her with an axe. Shobha gave four dying declarations—two oral and two recorded—to her daughter, a cousin, a medical officer, and a private doctor before dying a day after discharge from hospital. The prosecution relied on these d

NARESH GIRIversusSTATE OF M.P.

2007 INSC 114412 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a bus driver, was charged under Section 302 IPC for the death of two passengers when a train struck his bus at an unmanned railway crossing. He contended that the train hit the rear of the bus and that there was no negligence on his part, so the murder charge was inappropriate. The High Court rejected hi

SITARAM SAO@MUNGERIversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2007 INSC 114512 November 2007Dismissed

The accused were convicted for the abduction, murder and dacoity of Gayatri Devi based largely on the testimony of an approver, Lalit Sanga, whose statement was recorded under Section 306 of the CrPC after he was granted pardon. The High Court had earlier remanded the case, finding procedural lapses in the recording of

GOPALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 105212 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Gopal, the husband, assaulted his wife with a wooden log during a quarrel witnessed by their children, causing fatal head injuries. He was initially convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced accordingly, a decision upheld by the High Court. Gopal appealed, contending that the killing occurred in a sudden

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.versusPRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD

2007 INSC 105412 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Fourteen daily‑wage workers in the Uttarakhand Irrigation Department had worked for more than six years, completing at least 240 days each calendar year. The Labour Court ordered their regularisation, but the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the workers were entitled to regularisation. O

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusDWARKA PRASAD TIWARI

2006 INSC 69812 October 2006Disposed off

Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, fired his service weapon without orders while on sentry duty, injuring himself. A departmental inquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 found him guilty of misconduct and negligence and dismissed him. The High Court set aside the dismissal as "

RANDHIR SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2004 INSC 59612 October 2004Disposed off

Randhir Singh and another were convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetting the suicide of their wife, who allegedly died by self‑immolation within seven years of marriage. The prosecution proved that the accused repeatedly demanded additional dowry, threatened a second marriage, and harasse

POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR.versusFAZRU

2004 INSC 59912 October 2004Disposed off

The appellant filed a second criminal complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC after an earlier complaint was dismissed. The High Court allowed the second complaint, but the appellant argued it was a mere repetition and that the order to issue process was an interlocutory order that could not be revisited. The Supreme C

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusSHRI GANPAT RAJ

2006 INSC 59712 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a retired employee, filed a civil writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a mandamus directing the employer to pay interest of 18% on delayed pension and other retirement benefits. The High Court referred the petition to a Lok Adalat for settlement, and the Lok Adalat issued an award

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMUNIMAHESH PATEL

2006 INSC 59812 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The wife of the complainant obtained a Janata Personal Accident Policy for Rs 5 lakhs and died in an accident. The insurer refused the claim alleging that the proposal form contained a false statement about the insured's occupation (teacher versus housewife). The complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redre

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF MONTFORT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLversusSHRI VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 41312 September 2005Dismissed

The Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School terminated Assistant Teacher Vijay Kumar on disciplinary grounds. Kumar appealed the termination to the Delhi School Tribunal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, while the school sought referral of the dispute to arbitration under Sect

MANAGEMENT OF KALPATARU VIDYSAMASTHEY (R) AND ANR.versusS.B. GUPTA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 41412 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor on a one‑year probationary basis on 6 September 1994, relieved before the term ended, and then re‑appointed on 1 September 1995 for a six‑month probationary period ending 29 February 1996. He challenged the order relieving him on 1 March 1996, arguing that the appo

DILIP KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.versusCHAIRMAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 41512 September 2005Dismissed

The appellants, holders of B.Ed. degrees, applied for primary school teacher posts in West Bengal where the 1991 recruitment rules require a "trained candidate" to possess a Junior Basic Training/Primary Teacher Training Certificate (JBT/PTTC). They were denied marks for training qualification and contended that a 1971

AIZAZ & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2008 INSC 92712 August 2008Dismissed

The appellants Aizaz and others were convicted for murder and attempt to murder of Ismail under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court’s conviction was affirmed by the High Court, which acquitted one accused (A-4). On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 34 app

VASUDEVversusPARVINDER KUMAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 92812 August 2008Disposed off

The appellant, Vasudev, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 91 of the CrPC alleging that the father of respondents forged the mother’s signature to withdraw money from her bank account, leading to FIR No.61 dated 13‑03‑2002. The trial court disposed of the application with directions, and a subsequ

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)versusAHMED JAAN

2008 INSC 92912 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi filed a criminal revision petition against the discharge of Ahmed Jaan, who was charged with offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 124A and 120B of the IPC for alleged terrorist activities. The trial court discharged him for lack of prima facie evidence. The State’s revision petition and an

STATE OF ORRISAversusNALINIKANTA MUDULI

2004 INSC 44312 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Orissa appealed against a single judge of the Orissa High Court who had quashed three petitions filed by the accused, Nalinikanta Muduli, under Section 482 of the CrPC, relying on the Patna High Court decision J.A.C. Saldanha (1979). The State contended that the cited decision had been overruled by the Sup

CYRIL LASRADO (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusJULIANA MARIA LASRADO AND ANR.

2004 INSC 44512 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The Karnataka High Court had earlier ordered the registration of Cyril Lasrado as occupant of a land parcel under Section 48‑A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. After Cyril's death, a writ petition was filed nearly 19 years later challenging that order, but the petition was filed against the deceased and no noti

A.M. RAMANNAversusLAND TRIBUNAL, MANDY TALUK AND ORS.

2007 INSC 74912 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a parcel of land mortgaged by Bore Gowda to his brother Thammaiah in 1960, redeemed in 1963, and allegedly leased to Thammaiah. Bore Gowda later sold the land to his father‑in‑law Karigowda, who in turn sold it to the appellant Ramanna in 1972. Thammaiah claimed occupancy rights as a tenant under

PAPER PRODUCTS LTD .versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2007 INSC 75012 July 2007Disposed off

Paper Products Ltd., a manufacturer of printed flexible packaging, was found by the Central Excise authorities to have omitted the cost of its printing cylinders from the assessable value of its laminates and pouches, leading to a demand for additional duty and a penalty. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudic

BANSHILAL SONI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusKASTOOR CHAND BEGANI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2007 INSC 75112 July 2007Disposed off

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had agreed to sell a house for Rs 5 lakhs and had taken an advance of Rs 50,000, seeking specific performance of the sale. The defendants contended that the Rs 50,000 was a loan secured by an agreement to sell the house as collateral, and that the plaintiff had accepted a parti

PRIYA PATELversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

2006 INSC 42012 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Priya Patel, was charged under IPC sections 323 and 376(2)(g) for allegedly facilitating her husband’s rape of a woman. The High Court upheld the charge, holding that Explanation I to Section 376(2) makes a woman liable for ‘gang rape’ if she assists the act. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the lan

KUSHUM LATAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 42112 July 2006Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the auction of sand and boulder mines under Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The petitioner, who was also a tenderer and a party to a related writ petition, alleged irregularities favoring a politica

UNION OF INDIAversusR. BHUSAL

2006 INSC 42412 July 2006Disposed off

The appellant Union of India challenged a Delhi High Court order that granted a permanent commission to R. Bhusal, an Air Force officer who had served on a Short Service Commission. Bhusal's request for permanent commission was denied by the service board on the grounds that he failed to meet the required performance a

SMT. RAM SAKHI DEVIversusCHHATRA DEVI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28912 July 2005Disposed off

The appellant, Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi, challenged a judgment of the Patna High Court that restored a trial court decree in a land title suit on a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court had decided the appeal without formally framing a substantial question of law as mandated by

BAIJNATH JHAversusSITA RAM AND ANR.

2008 INSC 74912 June 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by three officers who had participated in a raid on a electricity theft case, challenging the dismissal of their petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. After the raid, the accused filed a complaint alleging that the officers demanded illegal gratification, but the complaint lacked

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJAGDEV SINGH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 75012 June 2008Disposed off

The respondents, Jagdev Singh and others, filed a suit seeking promotion as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) after their juniors were promoted on 23 May 1991, claiming they had qualified earlier. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court held the respondents were entitled to promotion from the da

ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 69212 June 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ashok Kumar, was convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC for the death of his wife. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not apply because the marriage had lasted more than ten years, exceeding the seven‑year p

CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) THR. L.RS.versusARVIND KUMAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 32112 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Arvind Kumar Singh sold land to Paras Sah, whose deed was registered on 14 June 1984. Paras Sah then executed a second sale deed in favour of Ghurla Kuer, which was not registered until 31 August 1984. Chandrika Singh, a raiyat of adjoining lands, filed a pre‑emption application on 17 July 1984 under Section 16(3) of t

BHOGADI KANNABABU AND ORS.versusVUGGINA PYDAMMA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 32212 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant tenants, nephews of the deceased landowner Suryanarayana, occupied several acres of land in Vishakhapatnam district. After the death of Suryanarayana's first wife Chilakamma, the second wife Pydamma claimed ownership and filed an eviction suit under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act alleging default and sub‑

THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIAN CASHEW FACTORLES WORKER'S UNIONversusTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 32712 May 2006Dismissed

The South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union challenged the domestic enquiry and subsequent reversion of a manager, S. Sivasankara Pillai, for alleged misconduct. The enquiry was conducted by the corporation's Assistant Personnel Manager, who found the employee guilty and recommended reversion to clerk. The Labour

KEDAR NATH DUBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusSHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 27812 May 2005Disposed off

The appellant, Kedar Nath Dubey, was the successful bidder at an auction of land under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, after the respondent, Sheo Narain Dubey, defaulted on a loan. The auction sale was confirmed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM). The respondent challenged the conf

SHEIKH IKRAM SHEIKH ISRAIL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 41312 April 2007Disposed off

The appellants, residents of Bhandara, manufacture brass utensils in their homes. The Superintendent of Police issued notices ordering them to cease operations, alleging that the mechanical processes generated noise pollution that disturbed nearby residents, teachers, and students. The High Court dismissed the appellan

UNION OF INDIAversusYUMNAM ANAND M. @BOCHA @ KORA @ SURAJ AND ANR.

2007 INSC 41412 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against a Gauhati High Court order that quashed a preventive detention order issued under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detenu had filed a representation against his detention, and the Ministry of Home Affairs sought comments from the sponsoring authority before reject

GAJANAND AGARWALversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 41512 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's daughter died within five months of her marriage, leading to FIRs under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Multiple bail applications under Section 438 of the CrPC were filed by the accused, initially rejected by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, but later

MINU KUMARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 22312 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

An FIR was lodged alleging offences under Sections 341, 323 and 435 IPC. Police investigation found that two women, Minu Kumari and Runjhun Kumari, were not involved and submitted a charge sheet only against two men. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, took cognizance and issued summons against all accused, includi

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAM CHANDRA

2005 INSC 20012 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed a conviction of Ram Chandra under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act, arguing that the High Court erred in holding that the search of the accused in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police (a gazetted officer who was part of the raiding party) violated Section 50. The Supreme Cour

MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATIONversusPROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

2008 INSC 34512 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Manipal Academy of Higher Education challenged the inclusion of amounts received on encashment of earned leave as part of "basic wage" under Section 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which would obligate the employer to make pro‑rata EPF contributions. The Regional Provid

HIMANSHU SINGH SABHARWALversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 34612 March 2008Disposed off

The petitioners, the son of a deceased college professor who was killed in a brutal assault, sought transfer of the criminal trial from Ujjain to another state, alleging witness intimidation, coercion, and bias by the investigating officer and public prosecutor. Several eye‑witnesses and three police witnesses had turn

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR.versusSUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI

2008 INSC 34712 March 2008Disposed off

Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, a daily‑wage worker of the Uttarakhand Horticulture Department, was ordered by the Labour Court in 2001 to be reinstated and to receive back wages of Rs 6,000. The Department sent a letter asking him to join work at the Fruit Preservation Centre, Pauri, but he did not report and instead filed a

GEEJAGANDA SOMAIAHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2007 INSC 27812 March 2007Dismissed

Geejaganda Somaiah was convicted for the murder of his relative Chengappa, who had been seeking an equitable partition of family land. After Chengappa disappeared while meeting a revenue inspector, his body was found the next day. The appellant surrendered, made a voluntary statement to police, and gold ornaments and t

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusCHANDRAPAL SINGH AND ANR.

2003 INSC 17012 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh dismissed Assistant Agriculture Inspector Chandrapal Singh after disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Agriculture Officer, who was subordinate to the Director of Agriculture, the appointing authority. Singh challenged the dismissal before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, arguin

S.P. DEVARAJUversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2009 INSC 16712 February 2009Dismissed

The deceased was stabbed to death during a land dispute and, before dying, gave a statement identifying the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court convicted him under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, relying on the dying declaration and the recovery of the weapon. The accused appeal

MALLIKARJUNA G. HIREMATHversusBRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ANR.

2009 INSC 16812 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a driver employed by the appellant, was directed to take a vehicle with passengers to a temple. While at the temple he slipped on the steps of a pond and drowned. His wife claimed compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that the death occurred in the course of and arising out of hi

HINDUSTAN COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusREGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ANR.

2009 INSC 16912 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Hindustan Co‑operative Housing Society rejected the transfer of membership from its former member Anoop Singh to his daughter Jasjit Kaur, citing the member's failure to furnish a required affidavit. Jasjit Kaur filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court seeking allotment of a plot or refund of monies

STATE OF U.P.versusSHEO LAL & ORS.

2009 INSC 17012 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of Sheo Lal and others, who had been convicted by a trial court for murder (Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC), voluntarily causing hurt (Sec. 323 r/w Sec. 34 IPC) and assault on a woman (Sec. 354 IPC). The prosecution alleged that the accused, who

G. VIVEKANANDANversusSRIRAMULU & ORS.

2009 INSC 17112 February 2009Disposed off

The accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurusamy Naicker. The Madras High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused, but did so without analysing the trial court's evidence or providing reasons for rejecting the conviction. The Supreme Court held tha

M/S CARPENTER CLASSIC EXIM P. LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) AND ANR.

2009 INSC 17212 February 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Mis Carpenter Classic Exim Pvt Ltd, was found by the CESTAT to have under‑valued its import consignments by about 65% to evade customs duty, leading to penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The company argued that a payment of Rs. 25 lakhs made before the show‑cause notice sh

RAM NARESH PRASADversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2009 INSC 17312 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The case arose from an FIR reporting theft of five idols, leading to the investigation and conviction of four accused, including the appellant Ram Naresh Prasad. The prosecution’s application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant was dismissed, but a final report against him was later accepted. Two years later

ASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 15412 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed an FIR alleging an offence under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of the proceedings on the ground that the FIR did not mention his caste. The Bombay High Court allow

KANNIKAversusMOOKAIAH & ANR.

2009 INSC 17512 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The accused Kannika was convicted by the trial court under IPC sections 306 (abetting suicide) and 294(8) (obscene acts). The appellate court acquitted him, but the Madras High Court, on revision, restored the conviction. The Supreme Court was approached to examine whether the High Court erred by not considering the su

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusINDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS.

2009 INSC 17612 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order quashing an FIR under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations, 1995, on the ground that the individual share of the joint family property was less than 1000 sq.m. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's i

SANTOKH SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2009 INSC 17712 February 2009Case Partly allowed

Santokh Singh and his wife were tried for murder after a land dispute in which Santokh fired a pistol at Gurdip Singh, causing his death, and was also injured when his arm was twisted during the altercation. He claimed the right of private defence, arguing he possessed the disputed land, but the trial court and High Co

STATE OF U.P.versusJAGRAM & ORS.

2008 INSC 17212 February 2008Disposed off

The State of U.P. appealed the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of four accused who had been convicted by the trial court for murder (IPC s.302) and voluntarily causing hurt (IPC s.324) read with common intention (IPC s.34). The High Court had set aside the convictions, citing discrepancies in witness statements and th

HAR PRASAD AND ANR.versusRANVEER SINGH AND ANR.

2008 INSC 17312 February 2008Dismissed

The appellants contended that a false affidavit filed with a protest petition, after the informant's death, rendered the magistrate's order invalid. The Sessions Judge had held that the magistrate could not have proceeded, but the High Court reversed, finding that the magistrate's order was based on the police report f

STATE OF H.P.versusRAM KRISHAN

2009 INSC 1512 January 2009Case Partly allowed

The deceased Manohar Lal was assaulted by the accused Ram Krishan and co‑accused Harminder with a stone, which struck the left side of his head, causing fatal brain injury and leading him to fall down a hill. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC. The Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted them, sp

HAMIDBHAI AZAMBHAI MALIKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2009 INSC 1712 January 2009Dismissed

Hamidbhai Azambhai Malik was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act for possession of charas after a police raid on his house. The raid was conducted after a police sub‑inspector, investigating a separate offence, received information that Malik also dealt in contraband and reported it in writing to his supe

BUDDU KHANversusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND

2009 INSC 1812 January 2009Case Partly allowed

Buddu Khan assaulted Dinesh Oli with a brick after Oli bit Khan's cheek in the presence of Khan's wife, causing Oli's death. The trial court convicted Khan under Section 302 IPC for murder, a decision upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court. On appeal, Khan argued that the killing occurred in a sudden fight without premed

RAMJIT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2009 INSC 1912 January 2009Case Partly allowed

The incident arose when a bull owned by the accused entered the complainant's field, damaging crops and leading to a heated exchange between the parties. The accused then entered his house and returned within a few minutes armed with lathis, knives and other weapons, assaulting the complainant's brother, father and ano

A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.versusABDUL KAREEM

2007 INSC 3812 January 2007Dismissed

The applicant, who was the respondent in a civil appeal, filed an application for clarification of a judgment dated 2 August 2005, claiming financial hardship and seeking recovery of a balance after his pension was attached. The opposing party argued that the application was in substance a review of the judgment. The S

MATHAIversusSTATE OF KERALA

2005 INSC 3012 January 2005Disposed off

The appellant Mathai was convicted by the trial court and the Kerala High Court for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by using a stone, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the injury did not amount to "grievous hurt" and that the stone could not be classif

SEWARAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

2007 INSC 125911 December 2007Dismissed

The case arose from a dispute over litigation in which the accused Sewa Ram, Ram Prasad (deceased), Parmeshwari and Sunder Lal attacked Genda Devi with lathis and a kanthi, causing her death, and also assaulted the complainant Shaukat Ali. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC

INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICALS IND. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 126011 December 2007Disposed off

Indu Nissan OXO Chemicals imported certain products and disputed their classification, leading the Customs authorities to levy a penalty of Rs 10 crore under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The company appealed to CESTAT, which conditioned the hearing on a pre‑deposit of Rs 2 crore under Section 129E, a requir

BHIMASHYA AND ORS.versusSMT. JANABI @JANAWWA

2006 INSC 99011 December 2006Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming a half‑share in the ancestral properties of her father Fakirappa, who died leaving two daughters. The husband of the other daughter (Defendant No.1) contended that he was the adopted son of Fakirappa and that the suit‑house property (item 3 of the schedule) was his self‑acq

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARATversusLOV. S. KINARIWALA

2002 INSC 53211 December 2002Dismissed

The respondent, a beneficiary of a trust, received income from a partnership firm which was assigned to the trust and later distributed. The beneficiaries, including the respondent, assigned their interests to a Body of Individuals (B.O.I.) and claimed that the assets should be valued as belonging to the B.O.I. The Ass

MAHMOOD RAJASA SAIYEDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2008 INSC 128411 November 2008Dismissed

Mahmud Rajasa Saiyed was arrested in a POTA case for alleged offences under the IPC, Arms Act and POTA, and was found in possession of a country‑made revolver, a foreign‑made pistol and ten live cartridges recovered from a co‑accused. He applied for bail under Sections 49(6) and 49(7) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act

GULAM MOHD. @ GULAL SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2008 INSC 128511 November 2008Dismissed

Gulam Mohd (Gulal Shaikh) was charged under several IPC, POTA and Arms Act provisions for alleged terrorist activities. He claimed that a confession recorded under Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 was obtained while he was in illegal custody and later retracted it. He applied for bail under Section 4

HARYANA VIDYUT PARASARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. SUPER STAR GRIT UDYOG

2008 INSC 128611 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Vidyut Parishan Nigam Ltd. demanded a penalty of Rs. 11,37,222 from Super Star Grit Udyog for alleged theft of electricity. The consumer filed a suit for declaration and a permanent injunction, while the board raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable under the Electricity (Haryana A

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusPREM SINGH

2008 INSC 128711 November 2008Case Partly allowed

The accused, a school teacher, was alleged to have sexually assaulted a student (PW‑1) and outraged the modesty of several other girls, and also threatened the victim. The trial court convicted him under IPC sections 376, 354 and 506. The High Court set aside the conviction, acquitting him on the ground of an inordinat

STATE OF PUNJABversusCHATINDER PAL SINGH & ORS.

2008 INSC 128911 November 2008Dismissed

The State of Punjab charged four accused with rape, kidnapping and related offences under IPC sections 376, 366, 363 and 308, relying primarily on two dying declarations of the victim, Kumari Poonam, and the statements of her brother and friend. Both eye‑witnesses later withdrew their earlier statements, and the trial

JAGDISH KUMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF H. P. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56211 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were recruited as Tracer Draftsmen between 1974‑76 under a government relaxation of the qualification requirements in Rule 6(i) of the Himachal Pradesh PWD Draftsmen and Tracers Rules, 1961. They were placed in the seniority list in 1977 before passing the departmental examination, qualified in 1980, and

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

2006 INSC 69511 October 2006Case Partly allowed

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

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.versusKETHIYAN PERUMAL

2004 INSC 59211 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu detained Kethiyan Perumal under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, relying on a Forest Officer's report. The detainee's wife filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the report did not state that the detainee's activities were highly dangerous to public or

RANJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2008 INSC 103011 September 2008Dismissed

In 1993 Ranjit Singh, then about 17 years old, was convicted of murder and related offences under the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, contending that he was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and that Section 20 of that Act should apply to his pending

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusDILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL

2006 INSC 59411 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a railway employee, challenged his discharge by filing a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court. The Single Judge issued an interim order reinstating him pending disposal of the petition, but later dismissed the writ petition, expressly stating that the interim relief stood vacated. A review was dismis

SALIM AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2008 INSC 92211 August 2008Disposed off

The case involved a land dispute in which the accused, including Salim, armed themselves and fired upon the complainant's party, resulting in the death of Abdul Gafar. The trial court convicted Salim under sections 302, 203/149, 307/149, 323/149, 325/149 IPC and the Arms Act, while other accused were convicted under va

STATE OF PUNJAB REP. THROUGH SECRETARYversusRAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

2008 INSC 92311 August 2008Case Partly allowed

The deceased Sunita, married to Raj Kumar, was allegedly set on fire by her mother‑in‑law amid dowry disputes. While on her death‑bed she gave a dying declaration identifying her husband and his parents as the assailants; the statement was recorded by police and a magistrate. The trial court convicted all accused under

N.T.P.C. & ORSversusBADRI SINGH THAKUR & ORS.

2008 INSC 92411 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, electricians employed through a contractor for the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), sought to be absorbed as workmen of the corporation, arguing that the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 applied to them and that contract labour should be abolished. NTPC contended that it was a re

UNION OF INDIAversusSANJAY KUMAR JAIN

2004 INSC 43811 August 2004Leave Granted & Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Jain, a Group‑C employee of Indian Railways, qualified in the written test for promotion to Group‑B but was declared medically unfit (visually handicapped) and denied the viva voce test. He challenged the denial before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that refusing promotion on the basis of

GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD AND ORSversusBRAHMA NAND SINGH

2008 INSC 81211 July 2008Dismissed

The appellants, Gauri Shankar Prasad and others, needed money and mortgaged their land to the respondent, Brahma Nano Singh, executing a sale deed and a separate deed of agreement to reconvey the land upon repayment of Rs.36,600. The agreement stipulated that reconveyance must occur within three years, making time the

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusIMRAT AND ANR.

2008 INSC 81311 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that reduced the conviction of Imrat and others from attempt to murder (s.307 r/w s.34 IPC) to voluntarily causing grievous hurt (s.326 r/w s.34 IPC) and reduced their sentences. The facts involved a property dispute where the accused, armed with a lathi a

MADAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2008 INSC 81411 July 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellants entered the deceased's house at night, broke the door and assaulted the deceased and his family with lathis, resulting in the deceased's death. They claimed the right of private defence, arguing they were protecting their property from the deceased's alleged complaint. The trial court convicted them unde

STATE OF HARYANAversusRAMESH KUMAR

2008 INSC 81511 July 2008Disposed off

The respondent, a workman in the Public Works Department, was terminated on 31 March 1993. The Labour Court held the termination illegal, finding that he had completed the requisite 240 days of service in the preceding year. The State of Haryana appealed, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petitio

MAHILA VINOD KUMARIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2008 INSC 81611 July 2008Dismissed

Mahila Vinod Kumari filed a rape complaint against two men, who were later acquitted when she recanted her statement during trial, claiming she had never been raped. The trial court found that she had deliberately fabricated false evidence and, under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sentenced her to

M/S. DLF POWER LIMITEDversusCENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ANR.

2007 INSC 74611 July 2007Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court heard civil appeals challenging the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s dismissal of an appeal against the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission’s tariff order concerning two power plants of DLF Power Ltd. The Court examined whether the State Commission had jurisdiction under the Electric

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARDversusNANDI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

2007 INSC 74311 July 2007Case Partly allowed

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board allotted a 2.5‑acre plot to Nandi Cold Storage Pvt Ltd for a cold‑storage project. Subsequent litigation by the original landowners resulted in a High Court stay order, preventing construction, and the company's loan from Karnataka State Financial Corporation was cancell

MANJULA SINHAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2007 INSC 74411 July 2007Disposed off

Manjula Sinha filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, directing that she not be arrested and imposing a maintenance condition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court'

PAPPUversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2006 INSC 41211 July 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant Pappu was convicted for the death of Mal Singh, who died after a lathi blow to the head during a sudden quarrel at a marriage function. The appellant argued that the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which would reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 30

JYOTHI ADEMMAversusPLANT ENGINEER, NELLORE AND ANR.

2006 INSC 41311 July 2006Disposed off

The widow of a plant engineer who died of a heart attack at a thermal station claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that the death resulted from stress and strain of his duties. The Commissioner awarded compensation, but the respondents appealed, arguing that the death was not caused

MANJULAversusK.R. MAHESH

2006 INSC 41411 July 2006Disposed off

The husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Chennai, on fault grounds, while the wife filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to move the case to the Family Court in Mumbai. During the hearing, both parties agreed that the marriage had irretri

STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.versusP.V. NEELAKANDAN NAIR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28611 July 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether teachers who, after attaining the age of superannuation, continued in service under Rule 62 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 were entitled to the benefit of a pay revision that took effect during the extended service period. The State of Kerala argued that Rule 60(c) of the Keral

HARDEEP SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2008 INSC 74611 June 2008Case Partly allowed

Four accused—Gurcharan Singh, Hardeep Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh—attacked the deceased Amrik Singh with weapons, causing multiple injuries that led to his death. Gurcharan Singh exhorted the others; Hardeep and Harjinder delivered fatal blows to the head, while Jaswinder struck the arm. The trial court

MADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 74711 June 2008Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court examined nine ad‑hoc Additional District Judges appointed to Fast Track Courts who challenged an Orissa High Court advertisement for 16 direct recruitment posts, arguing that the advertisement’s eligibility criteria (maximum age of 45 years and requirement of being a member of the Bar) disqualified th

K. SAGAR, M.D., KIRAN CHIT FUND MUSHEERABADversusA. BAL REDDY & ANR.

2008 INSC 74811 June 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a chit fund, and the respondent, a prized subscriber, were involved in a dispute over unpaid amounts after the subscriber defaulted on payments. The subscriber approached the consumer dispute redressal machinery seeking a direction for the chit fund to pay a sum, leading to proceedings before the Distric

OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2006 INSC 31711 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant Om Prakash was convicted of raping a married woman (the prosecutrix) in the veranda of a Zila Parishad near a court, after having come to the premises to help her husband obtain bail. The victim’s testimony, corroborated by an eye‑witness (her brother‑in‑law) and medical examination, led the trial court t

MAHABIRversusTHE STATE OF DELHI

2008 INSC 48611 April 2008Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two appeals arising from convictions for robbery and murder under Sections 394/34 and 302/34 IPC. The key issue was whether the refusal of the accused to participate in a test identification parade (TIP) and the fact that the accused had already been shown to the eyewitness rendered the ident

JITENDRA SINGHversusBHANU KUMAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 48711 April 2008Case Allowed

The appellant Jitendra Singh filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of a civil suit pending before the Additional District Judge, Alwar, to another court. The Rajasthan High Court ordered the transfer of the suit to the District Judge, Jaipur, relying on alleged lack of co

MUKESH TIKAJI BORAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 40811 April 2007Dismissed

The appellant challenged the preventive detention of his brother Bherchand Tikaji Bora under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, arguing that the detenu had been fully exonerated in adjudication proceedings under FERA and that this should nullify the detention order. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that exoneration do

M.M.S. INVESTMENTS, MADURAI AND ORS.versusV. VEERAPPAN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 40911 April 2007Dismissed

M.M.S. Investments sued Veerappan and others for specific performance of a sale agreement. After a decree was passed, the defendants sold the disputed land to new purchasers who were impleaded in the appeal. The High Court allowed the impleadment but held that the defence of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c

RATHNAIAHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2008 INSC 34211 March 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, Rathnaiah, was convicted by a trial court for rape under Section 376 IPC and for offences under Sections 324 read with 34 and 342 read with 34, receiving a seven‑year rigorous imprisonment for the rape and shorter terms for the other offences. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court affirmed his conviction b

CHANDER KANTA BANSALversusRAJINDER SINGH ANAND

2008 INSC 34311 March 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Chander Kanta Bansal, sought to amend her written statement 18 years after a 1986 suit for a right of passage was filed, invoking Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to introduce a 1982 partition agreement. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the Delhi High Court set aside that order, finding the amendmen

UTTAR GUJARAT S.R.V. SANGH LTD.versusM/S. MEHSANA DIST. CENT. CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 33611 March 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, Uttar Gujarat SRV Sangh Ltd., was ordered by the Board of Nominees to pay Rs.77,786 with 18% interest to respondent No.3, after an injunction prevented it from paying respondent No.1. The appellant was impleaded in writ petitions filed by respondents No.1 and No.2 but was not served notice and thus was n

RAMESH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 33711 March 2008Dismissed

The petitioner, an employee of the Border Roads Organisation, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking parity in service benefits with army personnel and officers of the General Reserve Engineering Force. He argued that a prior Supreme Court decision (R. Viswan) mandated such parity. The Union of India contended

STATE OF U.P.versusGAJADHAR SINGH AND ORS.

2009 INSC 14411 February 2009Dismissed

During a village election in April 1995, Gajadhar Singh and his associates created a disturbance. While two accused held the hand of polling agent Chandra Bhan Singh, Gajadhar fired a concealed country‑made pistol, killing the victim and injuring three others. The trial court convicted all seven accused under Sections

PANKI THERMAL STATION AND ANR.versusVIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGTHAN AND ORS.

2009 INSC 15011 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellants, Panki Thermal Station and others, challenged an order of the Uttar Pradesh Labour Commissioner dated 6 August 1999, which under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 directed that 118 contract workers be regularised and paid wages, holidays and allowances on

ELIAMMA & ANR.versusST ATE OF KARNAT AKA

2009 INSC 13911 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of M.T. George and for concealing the offence, under Sections 304 Part II and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They appealed the conviction and alternatively claimed that they were entitled to release on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.versusDHANENDRA SHRIRAM BHURLE ETC.

2009 INSC 14011 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Nagpur Bench order of the Bombay High Court that granted bail to the accused Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle and others, who were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Arms Act, 1959 and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had concluded, without detaile

M. GOPALAKRISHNANversusSTATE BY ADDL. S.P. CBI, B.S. & F.C., BANGALORE

2009 INSC 14111 February 2009Dismissed

The CBI filed a case under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against M. Gopalakrishnan, then Executive Director, Chairman and Managing Director of Indian Bank. Gopalakrishnan sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusNINGAPPA @ BHYRAPPA @ NINGEGOWDA & ANR.

2009 INSC 14211 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted by the Sessions Court for culpable homicide under Sections 304 Part I and Part II of the IPC in connection with the murder of Venkatesha Gowda. The Karnataka High Court set aside these convictions in a brief, non‑reasoned order, without analysing the eye‑witness testimonies or the dying d

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)versusD. A. M. PRABHU AND ANR.

2009 INSC 14311 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi filed a criminal appeal against D.A.M. Prabhu and others for allegedly violating Clause 17 of the Textile (Control) Order, 1986 by declaring incorrect fibre composition, thereby contravening an order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The trial court and a special jud

STATE OF PUNJABversusPRITAM CHAND AND ORS.

2009 INSC 14511 February 2009Disposed off

The State of Punjab appealed the acquittal of partners of Jagdamba Rice Mills who were charged under Section 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the case on the ground that the dispute was merely a civil breach of contract and that the arbitration award settled the matter.

VADAMALAIversusSYED THASTHA KEER

2009 INSC 14611 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Head Constable, and a Sub‑Inspector were charged under Sections 323, 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly beating and illegally detaining a complainant at a police station from 10 May to 13 May 1988. The trial court convicted them, but the first appellate court acquitted them, holding tha

KALAWATI W/O DEVAJI DHOTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 14711 February 2009Dismissed

Kalawati w/o Devaji Dhote was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of a child witness (the deceased's son) and the dying declaration of the victim, Babital. The High Court upheld the conviction and the appellant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the child’s testi

CHINNAPONNUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2009 INSC 14811 February 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Lakshmi during a sudden quarrel. The appellant appealed to the Madras High Court, which admitted the appeal but disposed of it without hearing because the appellant's counsel did not appear. The counsel explained tha

JAYASEELANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2009 INSC 14911 February 2009Dismissed

The appellant, A1, was convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for stabbing the deceased. The trial court acquitted him, citing an alleged delay in lodging the FIR and an unexplained injury on the accused. The Madras High Court set aside the acquittal, held that the FIR was lodged within a

THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALAversusTHE COUNCIL OF PRINCIPALS OF COLLEGE IN KERALA & ORS.

2009 INSC 15211 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered a civil appeal filed by the University of Kerala against the Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala and others, challenging the implementation of anti‑ragging measures ordered by the Court in earlier cases. The Court examined the reports of the Committee headed by Dr. R.K. Raghavan, wh

RAKESHversusSTATE OF M.P.

2008 INSC 16611 February 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant Rakesh was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Kailash and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, contending that the evidence did not establish his guilt and that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel, invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to reduce the charge. The Supreme Court

SIRISIA STHAL, IMLI CHATI, MUZAFFARPUR & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 16711 February 2008Case Allowed

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, specifically an amendment to Section 29 that removed an exemption for extra units used for religious rites. They contended that the amendment was not prot

M/S INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE

2008 INSC 16811 February 2008Dismissed

MIS Intel Design Systems (India) Ltd. manufactures contractors, switches and control boxes that are supplied to the Ministry of Defence for use in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. The company sought to have these items classified under Chapter 8710 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing that they are part

GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KUM KALANversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2008 INSC 16911 February 2008Case Allowed

The Gram Panchayat of Village Kum Kalan challenged a 1995 amendment (Amendment Act No. 8) to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which retrospectively validated land transfers that had been invalidated by a Supreme Court judgment in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh. The amendmen

M. PURNACHANDER RAOversusSRI NAWAB MAZAHARUDDIN KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 17011 February 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a bona‑fide purchaser of agricultural land in Raidurg, relied on a chain of title tracing back to the original estate holder. A suit filed in 1958 resulted in a preliminary decree that excluded certain items (including the appellant's land) from distribution because they were under revenue enquiry. After

BRAJENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

2008 INSC 4311 January 2008Dismissed

Mishri Bai, a crippled Hindu woman married to Padam Singh, lived separately from her husband and in 1970 claimed to have adopted Brajendra Singh, seeking to treat them as a joint family to retain excess agricultural land under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. The trial court and first appellate

LABH SINGH & ORS.versusBACHAN SINGH

2008 INSC 4711 January 2008Case Allowed

Lash Singh and others filed a suit for pre‑emption of agricultural land, claiming a superior right as a co‑sharer under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. The vendor, Singh Ram, had sold half of the land, part of which was owned jointly with his sister Angrezo, a female. The trial court upheld the plain

RATHNASHALVANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2007 INSC 2911 January 2007Dismissed

On 23 July 1996 the appellant, driver of a lorry, allegedly drove at high speed, struck a tree and caused the deaths of three persons and grievous injuries to three others. He was convicted under Sections 304‑A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the conviction under Section 279 was set aside but the convi

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN AND ANR.versusS.C. SHARMA

2005 INSC 2611 January 2005Case Partly allowed

The respondent, a Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, applied for earned leave with permission to go abroad which was rejected, after which he failed to report for duty for an extended period. The employer declared him absconding and terminated his services under Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classi

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusGANESHI LAL

2007 INSC 125310 December 2007Case Partly allowed

Ganeshilal, a temporary peon in the Law Department of the Rajasthan State Government, was terminated and claimed the dismissal violated Section 25‑G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State contended that the Law Department was not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, and therefore the em

HARYANA LAND RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusNIRMAL KUMAR

2007 INSC 125110 December 2007Disposed off

The employer, Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd., retrenched Nirmal Kumar, a watchman‑cum‑peon, in 1991. The workman filed a claim petition alleging illegal retrenchment, and the Labour Court held that the dismissal violated Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, ordering reins

BINDHA PRASAD & ORS.versusBHAN DATT (DEAD) BY L.RS.

2007 INSC 125610 December 2007

The appeal concerned a sale deed executed by a tenant, Raghoram, who had deposited twenty times the land revenue to convert his sirdari rights into Bhumidhari rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The sale deed was executed on the same day as the deposit, but Raghoram died before a Bhumi

ASHFAQversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2003 INSC 70110 December 2003Dismissed

Four accused entered the complainant's house, threatened the occupants with a pistol and knives, and stole cash, a gold chain and a Sten gun. The victims identified the accused in court, but no test identification parade was conducted. The trial court convicted them under Sections 452, 392 and 397 IPC read with Section

SURESH CHANDRA JHAversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 82410 November 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant and several others were appointed as assistants in a private engineering college under the Bihar Private Engineering College Control Act, 1990. The appellant was ranked 20th in the merit list, while respondent No.8 was ranked 43rd, but the respondent joined two days earlier. The State, invoking Sections 5

CHIEF ENGINEER OF B.P.D.P./R.E.O., RANCHIversusM/S. SCOOT WILSON KIRPATRICK INDIA PVT. LTD.

2006 INSC 82510 November 2006Disposed off

The Chief Engineer of B.P.D.P./R.E.O., Ranchi appealed against a High Court order that dismissed its arbitration appeal as non‑maintainable. The appeal concerned whether an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award falls within Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hig

HARBANSversusOM PRAKASH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56010 November 2005Dismissed

Harbans (plaintiff) and co‑defendants claimed ownership of a suit land on the basis that a usufructuary mortgage created over a century ago had become extinguished because the statutory limitation period for redemption (60 years) had expired. The defendant, Om Prakash, asserted that he had redeemed the mortgage by payi

PURSHOTTAM LAL DAS AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 68710 October 2006Disposed off

The appellants, who were Class III basic health workers, were promoted to clerk posts in 1992. An audit later held the promotions illegal because Class III employees belong to a technical cadre and cannot be promoted to non‑technical clerk positions, and the promotions violated statutory quota, reservation policy, and

GANGADHAR BEHERA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA

2002 INSC 43310 October 2002Dismissed

The case arose from a violent clash over the construction of a shed that resulted in the death of a man. The prosecution alleged that a group of accused formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the victims and caused the murder. The trial court convicted fifteen accused under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 307 IPC; the High

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADUversusMUTHUSAMY AND ANR.

2008 INSC 102710 September 2008Dismissed

The deceased was alleged to have been throttled and poisoned by his father and brother, who were the accused. The forensic laboratory report found no poison, leading the prosecution to abandon the poison allegation and rely on purported extra‑judicial confessions for conviction under IPC s.302 read with s.34. The trial

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

2008 INSC 102810 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

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

A.M. MOOSAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

2007 INSC 90410 September 2007Dismissed

A.M. Moosa, an export house, claimed a deduction under Section 80‑HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1992‑93. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the computed "profits of the business" were negative. The disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

M. SRINIVASULUversusSTATE OF A.P.

2007 INSC 90510 September 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M. Srinivasulu, was convicted under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC for the self‑immolation death of his wife. The prosecution relied on three letters written by the deceased, alleging they demonstrated a dowry demand and cruelty. The Supreme Court examined whether the letters a

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTORversusT. VENKATESH MURTHY

2004 INSC 51010 September 2004Case Partly allowed

The State prosecuted T. Venkatesh Murthy, a public servant, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Although a sanction was granted by the Superintending Engineer of the Karnataka Electricity Board, the trial court held that the sanction was insufficient under the Board's 1987 Re

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ASSAM

2004 INSC 51310 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against a Guwahati High Court decision that held all offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 to be bailable. The Supreme Court examined the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Act and clarified that it merely gives the railway officer two options—admit to bail or forwa

LOPCHAND NARUJI JAT AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2004 INSC 51410 September 2004Dismissed

The appellants were intercepted in Surat in 1988 with 180 detonators and were charged under Section 9-B(i)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 5 of TADA, 1985. The trial court convicted them only under the Explosives Act, sentencing each to one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000; the High Court affirmed th

STATE OF U.PversusGOVIND DAS@ GUDDA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 82510 August 2007Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Allahabad High Court’s order acquitting Govind Das and others, which had set aside convictions under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and rejected a death‑sentence confirmation. The High Court had relied mainly on the acquittal of a co‑accused and a claim o

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusRAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, IAS AND ANR.

2006 INSC 50510 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 against an IAS officer. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR, alleging that the State of Rajasthan had withdrawn its consent for

GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.versusKOLLUTLA OBI REDDY AND ORS.

2005 INSC 35110 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956. Original acquisition and awards were made in the early 1980s; fresh notifications were issued in 1991 and market values were fixed in 1992 pursuant to the amended Nagarjuna Act. Writ

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusR.B. SHARMA

2004 INSC 43210 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The employee R.B. Sharma, a manager of State Bank of India, was suspended and faced both a departmental inquiry under the SBI Officers Service Rules and a criminal prosecution under the IPC for alleged fraud involving large sums. The employee obtained a stay of the departmental proceedings from the Delhi High Court, wh

BALJ NATHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008 INSC 79610 July 2008Dismissed

Baijnath and his cousin Kalika Prasad were involved in a land dispute that was being settled by a village Panchayat. During the meeting Baijnath struck Kalika on the head with a lathi, causing severe head injury; Kalika later died from the injury. The trial court convicted Baijnath under Section 304 Part I of the India

BHUPINDER SINGHversusUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH .

2008 INSC 79710 July 2008Dismissed

Bhupinder Singh, already married, concealed his first marriage and married Manjit Kaur, who later discovered his prior marriage, gave birth, and filed a complaint. He was convicted by the trial court under Sections 376 and 417 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusGULAB SINGH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 79810 July 2008Case Allowed

The deceased, Jyoti, was found dead with her hands and face tied and twelve ante‑mortem injuries on her body. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court altered the conviction to Section 307 IPC (attempt to

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusSALES TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA-1 CIRCLE AND ORS.

2008 INSC 79910 July 2008Case Allowed

Mis. Steel Authority of India Ltd, a public sector undertaking engaged in manufacture and inter‑state sale of iron and steel, was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 2001‑02 with a demand of Rs 19.25 crore. The company appealed the assessment before the Assistant Commissioner (first appellate au

ANITA DEVI AND ORS.versusSATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH AND ORS.

2008 INSC 80010 July 2008Case Allowed

The deceased, Pramod Kumar, died in a vehicular accident and his dependants filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation based on a notional annual income of Rs.15,000, citing lack of concrete evidence of the deceased's

CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, DEHRADUN AND ORS.versusDHANI RAM AND ORS.

2007 INSC 73810 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who had worked as casual labourers in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts between 1989 and 1995, claimed entitlement to regularisation under the Government of India's 1993 "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme" after being disengaged due to lack of work. T

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusSMT. SHANTI PATHAK AND ORS.

2007 INSC 73910 July 2007Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined two motor accident death claims where the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had applied multipliers based on the age of the deceased to calculate loss‑of‑income compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the first case, a 25‑year‑old deceased’s parents (both over 65) wer

M/S R.N. JADI & BROTHERS AND ORS.versusSUBHASHCHANDRA

2007 INSC 74010 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were served summons but filed their written statement two days after the 90‑day deadline prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court nevertheless accepted the statement, a decision challenged before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the provision was ma

IBRAHIM NAZEERversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2006 INSC 40810 July 2006Dismissed

Ibrahim Nazeer was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) after customs seized electronic goods from his baggage at Chennai airport. His wife filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention, arguing that the detaining authori

DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusBHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI

2006 INSC 40910 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a peon in the Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra, was terminated for misconduct by an order that dispensed with a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, citing reasons for doing so. The respondent challenged the termination, arguing that the reasons were recorded only after the

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusSHRI OM PRAKASH

2006 INSC 41010 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a former member of the Armed Forces discharged on 13 June 1967, was appointed to a civil post in 1972 and claimed a pension under Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The State argued that the gap of more than three years between discharge and appointment dis

TULIP STAR HOTELS AND ORS.versusUNION OF CENTAUR-TULIP EMPLOYEES AND ORS.

2007 INSC 55610 May 2007Disposed off

Tulip Star Hotels entered into a purchase agreement that required the introduction of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). While most workers accepted VRS cheques, a new union of employees demanded that the VRS amounts be paid in separate cheques, which the employer refused to honor. The union filed a complaint under t

GURPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2005 INSC 27110 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was appointed Auction Recorder of the Patran Market Committee in 1986. A complaint alleged that he was ineligible because of a 1974 conviction under s.61(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, but the Market Committee held the conviction involved no moral turpitude and the appointment was lawful. Respondent No.4

PAUL VARGHESEversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 40510 April 2007Disposed off

The case concerned the prosecution of three accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanctioning authority approved prosecution of only one accused, but the trial court later impleaded the other two under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that this provision overrides Section

LOK RAMversusNIHAL SINGH AND ANR

2006 INSC 21810 April 2006Dismissed

The appellant Lok Ram was not originally named as an accused in a dowry‑death case in which his sons were convicted. The complainant applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon Lok Ram as an accused; the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the complainant was an interested

T.N. GODAYARMAN THIRUMALPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 21910 April 2006Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the Central Empowered Committee’s (CEC) recommendations to demolish fish‑tanks (bunds) constructed inside Kolleru Lake Wildlife Sanctuary and to prohibit the use or transport of inputs for pisciculture, arguing that demolition could only follow acquisition of private lands and that the bunds

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusCHAUDHARI RAN BEER SINGH & ANR.

2008 INSC 32810 March 2008Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a High Court order that had interfered with the executive's decision to create a new district, Baghpat, under a notification issued pursuant to Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1908. The High Court had d

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.versusBHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS.

2008 INSC 33010 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, whose lands were acquired by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. for a residential colony, filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the company employ one member of each family, alleging an agreement containing such a clause. Hindustan Zinc contended that the employment clause existed only in agreements for land

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusCOMPOTAR

2008 INSC 33110 March 2008Disposed off

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 8,11,351 with 6% interest to the claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Allahabad High Court, on appeal, directed the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to deposit the entire award and invest it for payment to the claimant, without providing reasons for this di

VENKATESHAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 33210 March 2008Disposed off

Venkateshappa filed a writ petition challenging the status of certain lands, contending they were inam lands under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Mysore Inam Abolition Act, 1954 (as amended). The Karnataka High Court Single Judge directed the Land Tribunal to first determine whether the lands were inam la

MAHABOOBversusMAKTUMSAB

2008 INSC 33310 March 2008Case Allowed

Mahaboob filed a suit seeking a declaration that he owned 7 acres and 10 guntas of land inherited by his father in a 1973 partition. The defendant argued that Mahaboob had overstated the area, claiming only 7 acres. The trial court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, decreed in Mahaboob's favour for 7.10 a

GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANKversusWORKMEN, ALL INDIA OVERSEAS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

2006 INSC 15310 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Indian Overseas Bank employed about 767 jewel appraisers on a commission basis and the bank's employees' union claimed they were part‑time workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, relying on a prior Indian Bank decision, held them to be workmen, a view affirmed by the Madras High Co

SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2005 INSC 12810 March 2005Disposed off

Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, asserting that she was married to the respondent under customary rites while he already had a living wife. The trial court and High Court had granted her maintenance and that for the child, but the High Court held that she was not a legal wif

STATE OF KERALAversusM/S ZOOM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2009 INSC 13710 February 2009Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the rejection of Zoom Developers’ consortium bid for the Vizhinjam seaport PPP project. The issues were whether the modified consortium agreement dated 11‑March‑2008 altered the membership of the consortium after the 31‑Jan‑2008 cut‑off, and whether the use of the term “joint and several resp

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORIX AUTO FINANCE (INDIA) LTD.versusSHRI JAGMANDER SINGH AND ANR

2006 INSC 7810 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Orix Auto Finance, repossessed a truck from the respondent hirer after the latter defaulted on instalment payments under a hire‑purchase agreement containing a clause allowing repossession on default. The hirer filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, and an interim order directi

TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCILversusRAJAPPA & ANR.

2008 INSC 3810 January 2008Case Allowed

The plaintiff, Rajappa, filed a suit claiming 3 acres 22 guntas of land as ancestral property. The municipal council defended that the land was designated as "Sega Local Fund" under the Karnataka Municipalities Act and that a mandatory notice under Section 284(1) had not been issued. The trial court dismissed the suit

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusBACCHUDAS@ BALARAM AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2510 January 2007Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order acquitting Bacchudas and others, who had been convicted by a trial court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II read with Section 34. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's widow (PW‑1), his son (PW‑2) and a

JAYANTILAL INVESTMENTSversusMADHUVIHAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2610 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Jayantilal Investments, a promoter, was sued by MadhuVihar Co‑operative Housing Society for conveyance of title and an injunction restraining further construction on a plot in Kandivali. The Society argued that under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) the promoter must obtain flat‑takers' consent for any additi

KRISHNA BHAGYAJALA NIGAM LTD.versusG. HARISCHANDRA REDDY AND ANR.

2007 INSC 2710 January 2007Case Partly allowed

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd entered into a construction contract with G. Harischandra Reddy that contained Clause 29, which provided for disputes to be referred to the Chief Engineer as arbitrator. When a dispute arose, the contractor invoked Clause 29, but the Chief Engineer initially refused, leading the contractor

K.C. SKARIAversusTHE GOVT. OF STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 1710 January 2006Case Partly allowed

The appellant, an independent contractor, entered into an item‑rate construction contract with the State of Kerala and claimed Rs. 2,00,000 for work done, paying court‑fee on that amount. The trial court decreed the suit for the claimed sum, finding the State had breached the contract by delaying material supply, level

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusDEVENDRA NATH RAI

2006 INSC 1810 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, Devendra Nath Rai, while on quarter‑guard duty, refused to let three army personnel in civilian attire make a "lights out" entry, claimed they were terrorists, and opened fire, killing two soldiers and grievously injuring two others. He was tried by a General Court Martial under the Army Act and sentenced

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSUBEDAR DEVASSY PY

2006 INSC 1910 January 2006Disposed off

The Union of India filed a civil contempt petition alleging non‑compliance with directions given in a writ judgment against Subedar Devassy. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the contempt proceeding, finding no contempt, but thereafter issued additional directions, which the Union challenged before the Supreme Co

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusGOPINATH DASH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 6109 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa issued an executive order to allot quarters to armed police personnel on a rotational basis for a minimum of three years, aiming to address a shortage of accommodation. Petitioners challenged this policy as unfair and illegal, first before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appl

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusSARVESH BERRY

2004 INSC 7069 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The employee, Sarvesh Berry, was found by the CBI to possess assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, leading to a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a departmental enquiry under Hindustan Petroleum's conduct and discipline rules. Berry filed a writ petition seeking a stay of

SOHAN LAL JUNEJA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2006 INSC 8119 November 2006Disposed off

The appellants were charged in an FIR for alleged misappropriation of stock, which they claimed was essentially a civil dispute under arbitration. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim protection under Section 438 of the CrPC, conditioning it on the deposit of Rs 10 lakh with the complainant. The appellants

STATE OF KERALAversusKURISSUM MOOTTIL ANTONY

2006 INSC 8129 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Kerala appealed the Kerala High Court’s acquittal of Kurissum Moottil Antony, who had been convicted under Sections 377 and 451 IPC for committing an unnatural offence on a ten‑year‑old girl. The High Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the victim’s testimony was not corroborated and that a r

JAGANNATH AMINversusSEETHARAMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 8139 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Jagannath Amin's mother filed a suit for partition of scheduled agricultural land, claiming she was a co‑owner and therefore in constructive possession of the property. The plaintiff argued that court fees should be computed under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, i.e., on the deeme

INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITEDversusCAPT. RAMAN DOULAGAR

2006 INSC 8149 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Indian Airlines Limited filed a transfer petition under Article 139-A(2) of the Constitution seeking to move a writ petition pending in the Madras High Court to the Delhi High Court, arguing that several other writ petitions involving identical issues were already pending there. The respondent argued that the transfer

ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 8159 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., a paper manufacturer, brought bamboo— a notified agricultural produce—into the Madhya Pradesh market area as raw material for paper production. The Market Committee levied a market fee under Section 19(1)(ii) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, claiming the bamboo was brought

RUKMANI AMMAL AND ANR.versusJAGDEESA GOUNDER

2005 INSC 5559 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a usufructuary mortgage where the mortgagee, Rukmani Ammal, purchased the mortgaged property in a court‑sanctioned auction in 1966. The plaintiff, Jagdesa Gounder, who had bought a portion of the property from the original owner in 1964, sued for declaration of title and possession. The Supreme Court

PARAMJIT BHASIN AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5569 November 2005Disposed off

The petitioners challenged state government notifications that allowed vehicles to continue carrying excess load after the offence had been compounded under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 113, 114, 194 and 200, holding that Section 200 only permits compounding

ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.versusANWAR ALI

2007 INSC 10249 October 2007Case Partly allowed

Anwar Ali filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging that his electricity supply was disconnected without prior notice. The Forum awarded him Rs 50,000 compensation with interest, an order upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissi

M/S VISHAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 10259 October 2007Dismissed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) issued a notice under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 to Mis Vishal Properties alleging unauthorized construction and improper use of the ground floor of its plot. The appellant sought a change of user for the ground and upper floors, whi

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

2006 INSC 6859 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

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

KAILASHversusSTATE OF M.P.

2006 INSC 6869 October 2006Case Partly allowed

Kailash was convicted under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (dowry harassment) of the IPC for the death of his wife, whose body was found in a well, indicating death "otherwise than under normal circumstances." The trial court sentenced him to ten years for the 304B offence, with no separate sentence for 498A, and

STATE OF U.P.versusAWDHESH

2008 INSC 10249 September 2008Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of Awdhesh, who had been convicted for dacoity under Section 396 IPC. The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment, but the High Court set aside the conviction, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the lack of a direc

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 3509 August 2005Disposed off

The Union of India appealed a decision of the Orissa High Court that had struck down Clause‑iii of paragraph 7 in Notification No. 514/1994, which defined a person working ‘below ground’ to include open‑cast excavations deeper than six metres. The High Court held that the Ministry of Labour lacked statutory authority u

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