Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

B P SINGH

112 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

ATMA RAMversusSHAKUNTALA RANI

2005 INSC 39130 August 2005Dismissed

The tenant, Atma Ram, repeatedly sent money orders for rent which the landlord refused to accept and later deposited the arrears for February 1992 to January 1995 under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. The landlord rejected that deposit and the tenant subsequently deposited rent for February 1995 to July 19

RAVI KHULLARAND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 35730 March 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined land acquisitions made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the "planned development of Delhi" and later for the development of Palam Airport, which were ultimately transferred to the International Airport Authority of India (IAAI). Petitioners challenged the acquisitions on grounds that

M/S. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2005 INSC 16830 March 2005Dismissed

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., a dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, operated a Hot Rolled Mill (HRM) and later set up a Cold Rolled Mill (CRM) as a diversification. The CRM received tax exemption under Bihar's 1995 Industrial Policy notifications 478/479, which was later withdrawn but restored by the Supreme Court. Aft

S. RAJESWARIversusS.N. KULASEKARAN AND ORS.

2006 INSC 18829 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obstructed delivery of possession of land that the respondent had obtained by decree. The respondent filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the executing court, which recorded evidence and adjudicated the matter, effectively treating it as an application under Order XXI Rule 97. The executing c

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), MUMBAIversusM/S. TULLOW INDIA OPERATIONS LTD.

2005 INSC 54428 October 2005Disposed off

The case concerned the customs duty exemption for magnetic tapes (IT software) imported by ONGC and Tullow India Operations Ltd. for seismic surveys under petroleum exploration contracts. The exemption notification required the importer to produce an essentiality certificate from the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusMADRAS TELEPHONE SC & ST SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION

2006 INSC 66228 September 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to clarify whether seniority and promotion granted to certain Telegraph Engineering Service officers, based on earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal that had attained finality, could be altered by later Supreme Court judgments interpreting the

VINAYAKA DEV IDAGUNJI AND ORS.versusSHIVARAM AND ORS.

2005 INSC 31928 July 2005Dismissed

The plaintiffs, who claim to be hereditary archaks (priests) of the Vinayaka Dev temple, sued the temple trustees for a declaration of their hereditary right, a share of devotees' offerings, and to set aside a notice terminating their services. The trustees contended that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Bom

M.B. RAMACHANDRANversusGOWRAMMA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 23828 April 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging the High Court's declaration that the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 was void in its entirety. The Court held that the High Court had overreached; only the amendment of Mysore Act 18 of 1955 (Section 3) could be declared ultra vires, while the amendment to

EWANLANGKI-E-RYMBAIversusJAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS.

2006 INSC 18428 March 2006Dismissed

The petitioners, a Christian member of the Jaintia Scheduled Tribe, challenged Section 3(1) of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, which required the election of the Doloi (chief) to follow the tribal custom that the office must perform both a

AMAR NATH AGARWALLAversusDHILLON TRANSPORT AGENCY

2007 INSC 23528 February 2007Dismissed

The landlord, Amar Nath Agarwala, filed an eviction suit against Dhillon Transport Agency alleging that the tenant had sub-let, assigned or transferred possession of the premises without his consent. The original tenancy was granted to a partnership of four partners which later dissolved; all assets were transferred to

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABADversusM/S. APEX TRADERS, SAHIBABAD

2005 INSC 31527 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Apex Traders, a manufacturer of aerated water, filed a declaration of assessable value under Rule 173‑C claiming deductions for equalized freight and rent on containers (ROC). The Assistant Commissioner allowed the ROC deduction but treated the factory‑gate price as the assessable value for freight, leading to the

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-IversusBISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.

2005 INSC 31727 July 2005Dismissed

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of aerated water, obtained concentrate from a Coca‑Cola subsidiary and collected rent on empty containers (ROC) from dealers while also receiving price‑support incentives in the form of credit notes from the concentrate supplier. The Central Excise Department contended th

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusM/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

2005 INSC 44626 September 2005Dismissed

M/s Aldec Corporation purchased aluminium sheets and sent them to two job processors, VPI and SREW, for slitting, re‑rolling and painting, after which Aldec sold the painted aluminium slats (PAS) for venetian blinds. The Central Excise Department, relying on earlier decisions that slitting and painting did not amount t

M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

2005 INSC 31326 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Birla Corporation Ltd. sought MODVAT credit for duty paid on ropeway spares used to transport crushed limestone from mines 4.2 km away to its factory. The Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the ropeway was not material‑handling equipment within the factory premises.

STATE OF U.P. AND. ANR.versusUPTRON EMPLOYEES UNION CMD-I AND ORS.

2006 INSC 25726 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) could, under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay the wages of workmen employed by M/s. UPTRON, a sick company that is a subsidiary of a wholly‑state‑ow

D. VINOD SHIVAPPAversusNANDA BELLIAPPA

2006 INSC 36425 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant issued a cheque of Rs.1,25,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The respondent sent a legal notice by registered post, which was returned unserved with the endorsement "party not in station arrival not known". A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed and a cri

M/S. BHAGWATI PRASAD PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA

2006 INSC 36625 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant claimed full compensation for two consignments of salt that were not delivered. The Railways admitted liability only partially and sent two cheques with a letter stating that if the offer was not acceptable, the cheques should be returned, otherwise their retention or encashment would constitute full and

MIDNAPORE PEOPLES' CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ORS.versusCHUNILAL NANDA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 36725 May 2006Disposed off

The employee Chunilal Nanda was suspended by Midnapore Peoples' Co‑op. Bank Ltd. and challenged the suspension through multiple writ petitions. The High Court, in contempt proceedings, ordered his reinstatement, payment of arrears and the revocation of his suspension, and also directed the removal of the appointed Enqu

KHUMAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2004 INSC 67324 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

During a flag ceremony near a temple, a dispute arose when an appellant's stick struck a participant, leading to a quarrel. The deceased intervened and was subsequently assaulted with lathis and stones, and trampled, resulting in multiple fractures and a fatal liver injury caused by a rib puncturing the liver. The tria

ATEEF NASIR MULLAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2005 INSC 37824 August 2005Dismissed

The appellant, AteeF Nasir Mulla, was arrested in connection with a bomb blast on a local train and repeatedly remanded while the Special Court extended the statutory 90‑day investigation period under Section 49(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The prosecution’s application for extension detailed a deep‑

VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2005 INSC 37924 August 2005Matter referred to larger bench

Vikram Cement, a cement manufacturer, claimed CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs (explosives, lubricating oil, welding electrodes) and capital goods (limestone crusher, mining equipment) used in its captive limestone mines adjacent to its factory. The department issued show‑cause notices rejecting the credit, arguin

STATE OF PUNJABversusBALWANT RAI

2005 INSC 10724 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab charged Balwant Rai under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing 15 bags of poppy husk. Police, acting on secret information, found the accused sitting on the bags and searched the bags, discovering poppy husk, while a personal search of the accused yielded only Rs.200. The trial court convicted

CREF FINANCE LTD.versusSHREE SHANTHI HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 37323 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that four cheques issued by the managing director of the respondent company were dishonoured. The magistrate recorded a rubber‑seal order stating that cognizance was taken and later issued process against the respondents. The r

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusDAULAT RAM

2005 INSC 37423 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The police, acting on a tip, stopped Daulat Ram who was carrying a bag on his head and offered him a choice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a magistrate, a gazetted officer, or the SHO; he chose the SHO. The bag was opened and contraband opium was found, leading to his conviction under Sections 8

N. SRINIVASA RAOversusSPL. COURT UNDER A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT AND ORS.

2006 INSC 17123 March 2006Disposed off

The case concerned agricultural lands originally purchased by a protected tenant, Uppari Ramaiah, under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1950. Ramaiah sold portions of the land to non‑agriculturists without the required Tahsildar sanction, rendering the transfers void under Sections 47 and 49 of the Tenancy Act. The hei

VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHYversusNIRMALA DEVI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 10223 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

After the death of Mahendra Narayan Sharma, his wife succeeded to his estate and later died. Virendra Kumar Tripathy applied for a succession certificate claiming to be the real brother of Mahendra, while Nirmala Devi claimed to be Mahendra's sister, asserting that their father Ram Briksh Sharma had two wives and that

RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 64622 September 2006Dismissed

The appellants were employees of a co‑operative society that was liquidated and its undertaking merged with the Bihar Electricity Board. The Board did not take over the employees, and the appellants filed writ petitions seeking their absorption. The High Court dismissed the petitions and the appeal was upheld. The Supr

JAGAT RAMversusVARINDER PRAKASH

2006 INSC 16422 March 2006Dismissed

Jagat Ram, son of Manshan, claimed possession of land that had been subject to a 1945 compromise granting life interest to Kirpi, widow of Sunder, and thereafter to Manshan. Kirpi later adopted Varinder Prakash and gifted the land to him. After Kirpi's death in 1967, Manshan filed a suit for possession in 1982. The tri

KANCHUSTHABAM SATYANARAYANA AND ORS.versusNAMUDURI ATCHUTARAMAYYA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 9522 February 2005Dismissed

The appellant, a lessor, leased land to the respondent, a tenant, and later filed an eviction petition under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956, which was initially allowed, giving him possession. The tenant appealed and the Sub‑Collector set aside the eviction, ordered restitution and remanded the matter for fresh d

GOA PLAST (P.) LTD.versusCHICO URSULA DSOUZA

2003 INSC 65820 November 2003Disposed off

The former managing director of Goaplast (P) Ltd issued ten post‑dated cheques to the company to repay misappropriated funds, but the first cheque was returned unpaid after the drawer instructed the bank to stop payment. The company gave statutory notice and filed a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrum

BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2006 INSC 63320 September 2006Dismissed

The appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Lakshman, who was sleeping on the 'katta' of his house. The trial court acquitted them, finding that the mother of the deceased (PW‑1) was not a truthful eyewitness and that the younger brother (PW‑2) was not an eyewitness,

JULIETA ANTONIETA TARCATOversusSULEIMAN ISMAIL

2007 INSC 16120 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, owner of a flat, had temporarily moved to her brothers' premises after a severe burn injury and let the flat to the respondent on a licence basis. She later sought eviction of the respondent, claiming a bona fide personal need for her own flat for herself and her nephews/niece. The Trial Court dismissed

M/S. BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusNARAYAN GOPAL UPADHYE

2007 INSC 17320 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bhandari Construction Company, sold an office space to the respondent, Narayan Gopal Upadhye, for Rs.7,75,000 as per a written agreement dated 27‑7‑1997. The respondent paid Rs.5,00,000 by cheque but claimed to have paid the remaining balance, including Rs.4,00,000 in cash, for which no receipt or docume

THIRUNAVUKARASU MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusGOPAL NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS.

2006 INSC 71619 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit and the tenant invoked Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 seeking a court‑ordered sale of the suit‑land. The trial court fixed a price and a six‑month payment schedule; the tenant made only partial payments. On appeal the appellate court enhanced the price and

IMRAN ALIversusHABIBULLAH AND ANR.

2007 INSC 31119 March 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a High Court bail order that contained an extensive, reasoned discussion essentially declaring the prosecution case meritless. The Court held that while a bail order may include reasons, it must not prejudice the trial by making substantive findings on the merits. Detailed observations that a

E. PARASHURAMAN (D) BY LRS.versusV. DORAISWAMY (D) BY LRS.

2005 INSC 57618 November 2005Dismissed

The dispute concerned a building owned by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike that had been leased to Dhanpal and later sold to Doraiswamy through a court‑executed sale deed. Doraiswamy, acting as landlord, filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground of bona‑fide personal need; he died an

NIRMAL SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2004 INSC 65217 November 2004Dismissed

The State alleged that on 14 March 1997 four men, including appellants Nirmal Singh and Ranjan Singh, went to the deceased's house where Ranjan Singh allegedly urged Nirmal Singh to fire, resulting in a gunshot wound that killed the victim. The prosecution relied on the testimony of several eyewitnesses who were relati

SARASWAT CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 51317 August 2006Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined several civil appeals and a writ petition challenging Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which exempts premises let to government, banks, public sector undertakings, foreign missions, multinational companies and private/public limited companies with a paid‑up share cap

DANKHA DEVI AGARWAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTARA PROPERTIES PVT. LIMITED AND ORS.

2006 INSC 51417 August 2006Disposed off

Dankha Devi Agarwal, a majority shareholder, alleged that her elder son Bhagirath forged her signature to transfer 1,650 of her shares to himself and his wife in order to wrest control of Tara Properties Pvt. Ltd. The transfer was challenged in a suit which was later withdrawn on a petition filed by an advocate who had

REF:versusSMT. SAYALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER, MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2007 INSC 61217 May 2007Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined a reference under Article 317 of the Constitution concerning Ms. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, a member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, who was arrested in connection with alleged malpractices in the 1999 examination. The Court considered four charges: protecting certain candidates, in

SUDHIR MADAN AND ORSversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS

2007 INSC 61317 May 2007Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) scheme for granting squatting/tehbazari/vending rights to street vendors, including its provisions on site identification, allocation, and regulation. Petitioners sought a fresh, independent survey of hawking sites, a directive to give preference to

ILA VIPIN PANDYAversusSMITA AMBALAL PATEL

2007 INSC 62117 May 2007Disposed off

Ila Vipin Pandya, the widow of the deceased Vipin Pandya, filed a testamentary petition for letters of administration which was opposed by Smita Ambalal Patel who filed a caveat claiming creditor status. The High Court dismissed the caveat, but the matter proceeded to a civil suit where Patel quantified a claim of Rs.1

SHEILA B. DASversusP.R. SUGASREE

2006 INSC 9217 February 2006Disposed off

The parties were married under the Special Marriage Act and had a daughter born in 1990. The mother left the matrimonial home with the child in 2000, prompting the father to file a habeas corpus petition and applications under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Section 6 of the Hindu Minority an

G.L. SULTANIA AND ANR.versusTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 60716 May 2007Dismissed

The appellants challenged the price approved by SEBI for a public offer to acquire the minority shares of Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd., alleging that the valuation by the independent valuer did not comply with Regulation 20(5) of the Takeover Code. SEBI appointed an independent merchant banker, Patni &

BINAPANI KAR CHOWDHURYversusSRI SATYABRATA BASU AND ANR.

2006 INSC 34516 May 2006Disposed off

Binapani Kar Chowdhury filed a title suit in 1995 challenging the validity of a sale deed executed by the deceased Avarani Bose in favour of S.S. Basu. The plaintiff died in 1997 and the first respondent, claiming to be the executor and legatee under a 1996 will, was substituted as the legal representative under Order

MAHENDRA BABURAO MAHADIK AND ORS.versusSUBHASH KRISHNA KANITKAR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 14816 March 2005Dismissed

The Bhiwandi Municipal Council took over a strip of land for road widening and granted the appellants only repair permission for the remaining land (ground + two storeys). The appellants nevertheless erected a six‑storey building. The Council served a notice under Sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

RAMESH CHAND DAGAversusRAMESHWARI BAI

2005 INSC 14916 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The wife obtained a judicial separation decree directing the husband to return ornaments worth Rs. 3,25,655 within one month, with a conditional order that if he failed to do so he would pay the value plus 9% interest per annum. The husband returned the ornaments after a delay but within a reasonable time, yet the High

C.T. RADHAKRISHNANversusC.T. VISWANATHAN NAIR AND ANR.

2006 INSC 2216 January 2006Dismissed

The dispute involved a release deed (Exhibit‑B‑9) executed in 1954 by Kunhimalu Amma, as guardian of her minor sons, and her two adult sons, surrendering their rights in a family house to Viswanathan Nair, the sole other member of the Marumakkathayam thavazhi. The appellant, Radhakrishnan, contended that the deed was a

U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusRISHABH ISPAT LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 102115 December 2006Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation and the claimants concerning land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court upheld the Reference Court’s award of Rs.11 per square yard for land abutting the road and Rs.9 per square yard for other land, find

M/S. DHODHA HOUSEversusS.K. MAINGI

2005 INSC 61715 December 2005

The Supreme Court considered two appeals arising from suits alleging infringement of copyright and trade‑mark rights – one by Dhodha House (sweet‑meats) filed in the Ghaziabad district court and another by Patel Field Marshal (diesel engines) filed in the Delhi High Court. Both lower courts had held they lacked territo

HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD.versusM/S HEDE & CO.

2007 INSC 57615 May 2007Dismissed

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. and Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. entered into extraction and purchase agreements with Hede & Co. containing a clause allowing the lessee to renew the lease every five years at its sole option. The lessees exercised the option in December 2001, but Hede & Co. denied renewal, leading t

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.versusGREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

2007 INSC 29815 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded for 681 bighas of tea garden land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had fixed compensation at Rs.10,876 per bigha for land and Rs.75 per tea bush, which the appellants argued were inadequate and excessive respectively. The Court considered

SYNCO INDUSTRIESversusSTATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2415 January 2002Dismissed

Synco Industries filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging that State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had frozen its sanctioned working facilities without prior notice, seeking damages of Rs. 15 crore and additional expenses of Rs. 60 lakh. The NCDRC dismissed the petition

SARASWATI DEVI GUPTAversusSUDHA RANI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 61614 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The suit for specific performance of a house sale was decided in favour of the plaintiff, Raghu Nath Prasad, who later died. His legal representatives and an assignee, Saraswati Devi Gupta, claimed the decree. The Supreme Court earlier upheld the assignee’s right to enforce the decree and to prefer appeal, rejecting a

LAL DEVI AND ANR.versusVANEETA JAIN AND ORS

2007 INSC 57214 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a Shimla property after the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. During the trial, the vendor's counsel was absent because they were engaged in a High Court matter, and no representation of their absence was made to the District Judge. After

PATEL JOITARAM KJALIDAS AND ORS.versusSPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.

2006 INSC 100213 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, obtained a compensation award from a Reference Court under Section 18 but were denied interest on the additional amount (Section 23(1A)) and solatium (Section 23(2) ) following the then‑law of Prem Nath Kapoor (1996). The Special Land Acquis

HANSA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusKIDARSONS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

2006 INSC 70113 October 2006Case Partly allowed

The dispute arose between members of the Nanda family over Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd., whose main income from an agency contract had ceased. A family settlement was reached whereby appellant No.2 (Narendra Nath Nanda) would transfer his 30.14% share in the company in exchange for an equivalent portion of the compan

VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR (D) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2005 INSC 20413 April 2005Disposed off

The appellants' lands were acquired in 1980 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for submergence by the Kadana Dam. The dispute centered on how to determine the market value of the acquired lands, whether deductions for development and for the largeness of the tract could both be made, the appropriate percentage of suc

SWAMY ATMANANDA AND ORS.versusSRI RAMAKRISHNA TAPOVANAM AND ORS.

2005 INSC 20513 April 2005Dismissed

The appellants (Swamy Atmananda and others) challenged a Madras High Court judgment that had upheld a decree declaring the respondent society (Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam) as the sole educational agency of several private schools. The key issue was whether Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools

SWAMY ATMANANDAversusSWAMI BODHANANDA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 20613 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Swamy Atmananda, challenged a Madras High Court order that had granted a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the respondents to assist in taking over management of certain institutions in accordance with a decree of a civil court. The High Court had allowed the writ petition, treating it as an a

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBIRAM LAL

2005 INSC 20713 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Biram Lal for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 376 and 450 IPC based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and four witnesses. The High Court upheld the conviction for house‑trespass (Section 450) but set aside the

MCDERMOTT INTERNTIONAL INC.versusBURN STANDARD CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 32612 May 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between McDermott International Inc. (appellant) and Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (respondent) arising from a complex offshore construction contract with ONGC, where the arbitrator had issued a "partial award" deferring certain claims and later an additional and final award. The Court hel

M/S. JAI BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF J & KAND ORS.

2006 INSC 32012 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Jai Beverages Pvt. Ltd. set up a soft‑drink bottling plant in Jammu with a capital outlay of over Rs 27 crore and sought exemption from General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax under the Jammu & Kashmir New Industrial Policy (1998‑2003) which offered special incentives to "prestigious units" having an investment of Rs 2

GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAversusHARYANA BREWERY LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 7512 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Haryana issued a show‑cause notice demanding excise duty on beer brewed by Haryana Brewery Ltd, alleging that the wastage in the brewing process exceeded the statutory allowance. The brewery contended that duty could be levied only after the beer became fit for human consumption and that the 7% wastag

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.versusA.P. PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56411 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh issued a Pay Revision Committee recommendation and Government Order No. 114 (1999) that revised pay scales would be notionally effective from 1 July 1998 with monetary benefits payable from 1 April 1999. Employees who retired between 1 July 1998 and 31 March 1999 claimed pension, gratuity an

PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT (D) TH. LR. SMT. SADHNA RAIversusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 41111 July 2006Dismissed

The landlords filed a suit for possession of a Delhi flat against the tenant. After years of adjournments, the tenant’s counsel recorded on oath a statement that the tenant would vacate the premises by 22‑Jan‑2002 and pay rent until then; the landlord’s counsel accepted the terms. The trial court entered a consent decr

SALIM AKBARALI NANJIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 31611 May 2006Dismissed

The Development Credit Bank sought the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) permission to write off Rs 120 crore of non‑performing assets (NPAs) from its reserves. The RBI approved the request, and a shareholder of the bank filed a writ petition alleging that the RBI acted ultra vires by not following the procedures prescribe

GURBAX SINGHversusKARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 7411 February 2002Dismissed

Jamail Singh executed two sale deeds on the same day, one (Ex P-2) at 10:00 a.m. and the other (Ex D-1) with no time recorded. Lower courts found that Ex P-2 was executed earlier and therefore should have priority over Ex D-1. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed this finding and dismissed the appeal against it.

UBS AGversusSTATE BANK OF PATIALA

2006 INSC 31210 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

USB AG issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of a beneficiary for the import of tin ingots. The beneficiary presented documents and USB AG paid the amount on 6 April 1998. Later, State Bank of Patiala (the issuing bank) learned that the beneficiary and its associated firms were involved in fraud and, on 3 Fe

HASAN ALI RAIHANYversusUOI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1499 March 2006Disposed off

Hasan Ali Raihany, born in India to Iranian parents, was deported in October 2005 without being told the reasons. He later obtained a Single Entry Permit from the Indian Embassy in Tehran and re‑entered India, but was repeatedly summoned to the Kurla Police Station and feared further deportation without due process. He

M/S. HOTEL KINGS AND ORS.versusSARA FARHAN LUKMANI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 8058 November 2006Disposed off

The owners of a plot of land (Hotel Kings) leased the land to a company which assigned the lease to Yashdhir Hotels. The lease deed expressly required monthly rent, but the lessee argued that rent was payable every six months because rates and taxes, payable by the lessee, formed part of the rent. The trial court held

SADHU SINGHversusGURDWARA SAHIB NARIKE AND ORS.

2006 INSC 5868 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Ralla Singh, a Hindu male, executed a will bequeathing his self‑acquired property to his wife Isher Kaur for life, with a restriction that she could not alienate the property and that after her death the two nephews would inherit. After Ralla's death, Isher Kaur gifted the property to a Gurdwara, which the nephews chal

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusKASHI RAM

2006 INSC 7947 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan charged Kashi Ram with the murder of his wife and two infant daughters, alleging that the victims were last seen alive with him on 3 February 1998 and that the house was found locked thereafter, with the bodies discovered on 6 February. The trial court convicted him based on medical evidence of s

PURUSHOTTAM AND ANRversusSHIVRAJ FINE ART LITHO WORKS AND ORS

2006 INSC 7967 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Purushottam (and others) against Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works concerning a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm to recover sums owed for goods supplied before the firm’s registration. The High Court had dismissed the suit, holding it barred under Section 69(2) of the In

L. CHANDRAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 6126 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved fraudulent withdrawals from recurring deposit accounts of Singareni Collieries workers at a Sub‑Post Office. A postal assistant (A‑3) fabricated vouchers with forged signatures and thumb impressions, and the Sub‑Post Masters (A‑1 and A‑2) signed the vouchers without verifying their authenticity. The t

K. CHANNEGOWDA AND ORS.versusKARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4896 October 2005Dismissed

The Karnataka Public Service Commission conducted a competitive examination for gazetted probationer posts, after which several unsuccessful candidates alleged irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts, particularly favouritism by the Chief Examiner. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ordered fresh evaluati

BAGIRATH SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4006 September 2005Dismissed

The case concerns the validity of a 1995 Consolidation Scheme for Shamlat Deh lands in three villages of Haryana, originally framed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1966 and later modified after a series of challenges. Earlier, the Deputy Commissioner had quashed the partition of these lands unde

SURINDER SINGH @ SHINGARA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2005 INSC 4016 September 2005Disposed off

Surinder Singh, convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment, appealed his conviction. While his appeal was pending, he applied for regular bail; the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied it, though a co-accused was released on bail. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's

BAGIRATH SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4026 September 2005Dismissed

Bagirath Singh and another appealed to the Supreme Court against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dismissing their review petition. The review petition sought a re‑examination of the High Court's judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of 1998. The Supreme Court examined whether the appeal raised any substan

DHARAM VEER SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4036 September 2005Dismissed

The petitioners, land holders affected by a consolidation scheme for Shamlat Deh lands, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging displacement because they were not parties to an earlier High Court writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of 1998) that had been dismissed. The earlier petit

MAHADEO BAJIRAO PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4046 September 2005Dismissed

The appellant, a lessee of land acquired for a railway project, was denied compensation when the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared a "nil award" on 29‑8‑1994, awarding compensation only to the land owners. A telegram sent on 18‑9‑1994, received on 20‑9‑1994, served as notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acqu

IN RE: SMT. SAYALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.versus.

2005 INSC 4825 October 2005

The President of India, under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, referred the matter of alleged misbehaviour by Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, a member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, to the Supreme Court for inquiry. The allegations stemmed from a 1999 examination scam, leading to her arrest by the Anti‑Co

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL, KOLKATA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 4805 October 2005Dismissed

Britannia Industries Ltd. claimed a deduction of Rs 31,38,017 for rent, repairs, depreciation and maintenance of a guest house used in its business for AY 1994‑95. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount under Section 37(4) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, and the High Court upheld the disallowance. The company appeale

NARESH KUMAR GOYALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4835 October 2005Dismissed

The appellant, NARESH KUMAR GOYAL, challenged a preventive detention order issued by the State of Bihar under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, alleging that the order was passed belatedly and that the authorities made no effort to execute it, thereby suggesting it w

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I, NEW DELHIversusM/S. S.R. TISSUES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 3405 August 2005Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged Mis. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. for cutting and slitting duty‑paid jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller rolls, napkins and facial tissues, alleging that this constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracted duty under a different ta

T. MADHAVA KURUPversusT.C. MADHAVA KURUP (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2125 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the succession of a "Tavazhi" (customary joint family) property in Kerala after the death of the last female member. The trial court held that the two surviving male members became co‑owners and allowed a partition suit filed by the heirs of one of them; the High Court reversed, treating the property

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusSANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND ORS.

2007 INSC 7243 July 2007Dismissed

The Punjab Government issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire 9,354 acres for the proposed new town of Anandgarh. Writ petitions challenged the acquisition, arguing that the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 required the Board constituted under Section 3 to

RAM KRISHAN MAHAJANversusUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 7253 July 2007Dismissed

The Chandigarh Administration issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire lands in Mani Majra for Scheme Nos.2 and 3, which the petitioners challenged on the ground that the acquisition was not for a "building scheme" under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The Supreme

ADITYAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2873 May 2006Dismissed

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

CHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIAversusLAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2483 May 2005Dismissed

The Church of North India (CNI) sought a declaration that the earlier Brethren Church had ceased to exist, that CNI was its legal successor with rights over its properties, and a perpetual injunction restraining dissenting members from obstructing its functioning. The plaintiffs filed the suit in a civil court before C

SULTAN MOHIYUDDIN AND ORS.versusBASHEER AHMED SHARIFF AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2603 May 2002Disposed off

The landlord appealed a High Court decision after eviction proceedings were started under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. While the case was pending, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, which exempts non‑residential premises larger than 14 square metres from its provisions. The tenant argued that, becau

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTCversusB. SWAMY

2007 INSC 3693 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a bus conductor for APSRTC, was caught on 23 May 2000 issuing tickets of 0.50 paise instead of the correct fare of Rs 4 to sixteen illiterate female passengers, thereby pocketing an extra Rs 52. The management dismissed him, and the Labour Court upheld the dismissal as justified misconduct. The responde

CHAIRMAN, NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPN. LTD.versusC. GOVINDA PADAYACHI AND ANR.

2006 INSC 1943 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corp., acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and paid compensation to the respondent, C. Govinda Pada Yachi, as determined by the Collector and later enhanced by a reference court. The High Court directed the appellant to deposit the enhanced amount, allowing the re

JOSEPH ANTONY LAZARUS (DEAD) BY LRS.versusA.J. FRANCIS

2006 INSC 1953 April 2006Dismissed

Mrs. Solomon Lazarus executed a Will in 1979 bequeathing her house property to her son Joseph Antony Lazarus and another son, Cecil Lazarus. Joseph Antony Lazarus applied for probate without disclosing other interested heirs, and probate was initially granted but later revoked on a petition by his sister A.J. Francis.

COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusIMENK SOU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 1143 March 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained several Special Leave Petitions arising from a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, wherein the High Court had directed the Secretary, Ministry of Coal and senior officers of Coal India Ltd. to appear personally and produce original documents. The Union of India, through the Solici

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

2006 INSC 713 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

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

SHIVA NATH PRASADversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

2006 INSC 723 February 2006Dismissed

The case arose from a criminal complaint alleging that the deceased Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) and her husband Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) had created five mutual trusts intended for charitable institutions, which were later allegedly revoked and the assets misappropriated through a forged will in favour of R.S. Lodha.

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERSversusSUKHPAL SINGH BAL ETC. ETC.

2005 INSC 3982 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh seized a tanker operating under a national permit for failing to pay the additional tax required under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, and ordered the owner to pay the tax plus a ten‑times penalty under Section 10(3). The owner challenged the penalty as unconstitutional,

SRI BARAGUR RAMACHANDRAPPA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 5072 May 2007Dismissed

The author Dr. P.V. Narayana published a novel titled "Dharmakaarana" depicting the 12th‑century saint Basaveshwara, which included a controversial Chapter 12 alleging the saint's sister bore an illegitimate child. Several eminent persons complained that the chapter insulted religious sentiments, prompting the Karnatak

MASOODA PARVEENversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 5082 May 2007Dismissed

Masooda Parveen, the widow of Ghulam Mohi‑ud‑din Regoo, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking compensation and a compassionate appointment, alleging that her husband died in army custody and that the Army violated Section 6 of the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act by not promptly informing the nearest poli

DUDHGANGA VIKAS SEWA SANTHA MARYADITversusDISTT. COLLECTOR-KOLHAPUR AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2832 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dudhganga Vikas Sewa Santha Maryadit, invested in the shares of the Kolhapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 30‑12‑2002 and became a member of that federal society. An election for office‑bearers of the federal society was scheduled for April 2006, but the appellant's name was omitted from the

KAILASBHAI SHUKARAM TIWARIversusJOSTNA LAXMIDAS PUJARA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 5921 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord let an apartment to a tenant in 1975. The tenant later shifted to another residence in 1981, but the tenant's husband's cousin continued to occupy the original premises. The landlord filed an eviction suit under Sections 13(1)(e) (sub‑letting) and 13(1)(k) (non‑use) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging H

K. RAGHUNATHversusCHANDRASEKHAR AND ANR.

2004 INSC 6881 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord evicted the tenant under Sections 22(1)(h) and 22(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and the Small Causes Court ordered eviction on 4 February 2000. The tenant filed a revision petition under Section 50(1) on 6 April 2000, having sent the arrears of rent by money order on 11 April 2000. The Kar

SHATRUSAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

2005 INSC 3951 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Shatrusail Ya Digvijay Singh Jadeja filed declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which the Income Tax Department rejected. The Gujarat High Court held the declarations competent, ordered the Designated Authority to determine the amount payable under Section 90, and additionally directed the appellant t

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOTversusSHATRUSAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

2005 INSC 3961 September 2005Dismissed

The respondent‑assessee, Shatrusail Ya Digvijay Singh Jadeja, had tax assessments for years 1984‑85 to 1991‑92 under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act, which were appealed but dismissed in 1992‑93 for failure to pre‑deposit tax. After the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (effect

UNION OF INDIAversusMUNSHI RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1321 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India acquired land for the Hissar Cantonment extension and the Collector awarded compensation, which was enhanced by a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court and later the High Court further increased the compensation, but the Supreme Court reduced it in 1997. Wh

J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD.versusK.P. AGRAWAL AND ANR.

2007 INSC 911 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. dismissed employee K.P. Agrawal for misconduct after an inquiry that found all charges proved. The Labour Court later held the inquiry unfair, found only one charge proved, and substituted dismissal with a lesser punishment of withholding two annual increments, also adding a paragraph granting back

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