Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

M R SHAH

546 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 401–546.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJ SINGH & ANR.

2022 INSC 12689 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land on 19‑01‑2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but had not paid compensation to the owners. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had "deemed to have lapsed" under sub‑section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transpa

KAMLA NETI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.

2022 INSC 12649 December 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Kamla Neti, a daughter of a coparcener belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, claimed a one‑fifth share of compensation awarded for land acquired by the State, invoking the survivorship right under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Reference Court and the Orissa High Court rejected her claim on the ground tha

M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

2021 INSC 8549 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka filed a criminal complaint against a private respondent (original accused No.1) and others for offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of the IPC. A charge‑sheet was filed only against accused No.1 after a thorough investigation. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings on

S. SHANKARAIAH THR. GPA HOLDER & ORSversusTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PEDDAPALI KARIMNAGAR DIST. & ORS.

2022 INSC 11859 November 2022Case Partly allowed

The State acquired land in Karimnagar district for the excavation of coal by Singareni Collieries. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed a low market value; the Reference Court later fixed a higher market value of Rs 1,23,000 per acre and awarded Rs 15,000 per acre for sub‑soil mineral rights. The High Court, however, ded

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusASHA JAIN & ORS.

2022 INSC 11909 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 2005 for a public development project, but compensation to the recorded owners was not paid. The original writ petitioner, who claimed rights under an agreement to sell dated 9 May 2005, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisitio

SUMER CORPORATIONversusVIJAY ANANT GANGAN & ORS.

2022 INSC 11889 November 2022Case Partly allowed

Sumer Corporation (appellant) claimed title to a leasehold property in Worli, Mumbai, and was added as respondent No. 19 in a High Court revision of an eviction decree. The High Court, while staying the eviction order, directed the original lessee to deposit Rs 2,50,000 per month as mesne profit, calculating the amount

CHANDIGARH NURSING HOME AND ANR.versusSUKHDEEP KAUR

2022 INSC 9439 September 2022Disposed off

A minor, Sukhdeep Kaur, filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence by Chandigarh Nursing Home after a wrong diagnosis and treatment caused severe rashes. The District Forum awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation, which the nursing home appealed to the State Commission; the State Commission dismissed the appeal. The

JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURIversusSUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER

2022 INSC 9449 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court granted bail to accused Subrahmanya and Rajesh in a case involving conspiracy to murder, murder, and illegal possession of arms (IPC ss.120B, 302, 201, 34; Arms Act s.27(3)). The appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider the seri

JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED & ORS.versusM/S AJAY SALES & SUPPLIERS

2021 INSC 4659 September 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. and others, entered into a distributorship agreement with the respondent, M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers, which contained an arbitration clause appointing the Sangh's Chairman as sole arbitrator. The respondent later approached the High Court under Section 11 of

SWAMINATHAN KUNCHU ACHARYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2022 INSC 6399 June 2022Appeal(s) allowed

A five‑year‑old boy lost his parents to COVID‑19. The paternal grandfather filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of the child, who was then staying with his maternal aunt. The Gujarat High Court ordered custody to be transferred to the aunt, citing her younger age, income and larger family. On appeal, the Supre

IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERSversusIN RE:

2020 INSC 4209 June 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo motu, examined the plight of migrant labourers stranded during the COVID-19 lockdown and the measures taken by the Central and State governments. While acknowledging the large number of Shramik trains and bus services already deployed, the Court noted lapses in registration, supervision, a

STATE OF M.P.versusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANR.

2022 INSC 2859 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted four accused for the murder of Munshilal, alleging they acted with a common intention to kill. The trial court convicted all under IPC s.302 read with s.34, but the High Court acquitted two accused (Ramjilal Sharma and Brijesh Sharma) on the ground that ocular evidence of them wie

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusSMT. PRIYANKA

2023 INSC 1099 February 2023Dismissed

Dr. Vinod Kumar, a lecturer employed by the State of Uttar Pradesh since July 2001, died on 11 August 2009 while still in service. His wife, Priyanka, filed a writ petition seeking payment of death‑cum‑retirement gratuity, which the State rejected on the ground that the employee had not exercised the mandatory option t

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNARVADA DEVI & ORS.

2023 INSC 1109 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because physical possession had not been tak

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSHAKEEL AHMED & ORS.

2023 INSC 1089 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court ha

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSH. MANISH & ANR

2023 INSC 1089 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying on the Pune M

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUBHASH GUPTA & ORS.

2023 INSC 1089 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because possession of

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSH. NARENDER & ANR.

2023 INSC 1089 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi had taken possession of land on 14 September 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, held that the acquisition proceedings had deemed to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensati

NORTHERN DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusRAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.

2023 INSC 1079 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Northern Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) acquired land in 1959 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with an award passed in 1964 and possession taken on 1 May 1964. The original owners claimed that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisit

OMKAR SINGHversusJAIPRAKASH NARAIN SINGH & ANR.

2022 INSC 1669 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case involves the murder of Parasnath Singh, who was shot by his son Udaibhan Singh (A‑1) after being urged to do so by his father Jaiprakash Narain Singh (A‑2). Three eye‑witnesses (PW‑1, PW‑2, PW‑4) testified that both accused were present at the pumping set, that A‑2 exhorted his son, and that A‑1 fired the weap

M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERSversusN. SAILESH PRASAD AND ORS.

2022 INSC 1679 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a property gifted to the plaintiff during minority, later revoked, and a development agreement executed with the developer. The plaintiff's father obtained a compromise decree in 2015 granting the plaintiff rights over the property. After attaining majority, the plaintiff filed a suit in 2018 see

NANDLAL LOHARIYAversusJAGDISH CHAND PUROHIT AND ORS.

2021 INSC 7088 November 2021Dismissed

The petitioner filed three separate complaints against BSNL before the District Consumer Forum through three different advocates, and all three complaints were dismissed on merits. After those dismissals, he lodged complaints against the same advocates alleging deficiency in service and claimed Rs.15 lakhs in compensat

AWADHESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2019 INSC 12298 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant's mother complained to the accused Ravinder about his nephew's misconduct, leading to a quarrel in which Ravinder, armed with a country‑made pistol, fired at her from close range, causing her death. The trial court convicted Ravinder under Section 302 IPC for murder, while the High Court reduced the con

MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 6408 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and related offences after the father of a minor girl filed a complaint alleging that the appellant and others had enticed and assaulted his daughter. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court upheld convictions under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and Section 4 of the

GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITYversusM/S ASKA EQUIPMENTS LIMITED

2021 INSC 6418 October 2021Disposed off

The Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (appellant) was ordered by a Facilitation Council under the MSME Act to pay Rs 105,053,387 to M/s Aska Equipments Ltd (respondent). The appellant sought to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and, pursuant to Section 19 of the

RAJIV SHUKLAversusGOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 9418 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The consumer booked a new Tata car and paid the full price, but the dealer delivered a used vehicle that had been used as a demo‑test drive car. The consumer filed a complaint before the District Forum, which ordered the dealer to replace the used car with a new one and awarded a small amount for mental agony; the Stat

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBANWARI LAL AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 4108 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed a High Court order that reduced the three‑year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Banwari Lal, convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing grievous injury to the head of the victim, to merely the 44 days he had already spent in custody. Banwari Lal had not contested his conviction but soug

ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR.

2023 INSC 1068 February 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained miscellaneous applications seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of Justice B.V. Nagarathna's judgment in W.P. (C) No.59/2013, filed by the Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim. The Court observed that substantial amendments to the original writ petition had not

NAWABUDDINversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2022 INSC 1628 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Nawabuddin, a neighbour, abducted a four‑year‑old girl, removed both their clothes, fondled her private parts and inserted his finger into her vagina; he was caught red‑handed and the victim later reported pain, irritation and swelling, corroborated by a medical examination. He was convicted by the trial

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHERversusSMT. DINAVAHI LAKSHMI KAMESWARI

2021 INSC 688 February 2021Disposed off

The State of Andhra Pradesh, facing a sharp decline in revenue due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, issued Government Orders on 31 March and 26 April 2020 that deferred payment of salaries, wages, honoraria and pensions. A writ petition under Article 226 challenged the deferment, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that th

SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S. S. DESWAL & ORS.versusVIRENDER GANDHI & ANR.

2020 INSC 218 January 2020Dismissed

The appellants, partners of a firm, issued numerous cheques to a retiring partner which were dishonoured, leading to 28 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They were convicted and sentenced, but the appellate court suspended the sentence on condition that they deposit 25% of the compensation

MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 8367 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The builders Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt Ltd and TDI Infrastructure Ltd appealed orders of the State Consumer Commission directing them to refund home‑buyers, arguing that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDC) should not require deposit of the entire decretal amount as a condition

MOHD ZAHIDversusSTATE THROUGH NCB

2021 INSC 8347 December 2021Dismissed

Mohd Zahid was convicted in two separate NDPS cases: for possession of 4 kg of heroin in Amritsar (12 years' rigorous imprisonment) and for 750 g of heroin in Delhi (15 years' rigorous imprisonment, enhanced under s.31(ii)). The Delhi trial court did not expressly order the two sentences to run concurrently, and the Hi

INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIAversusBIMAN DEBNATH & ORS.

2022 INSC 11797 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that had set aside the election of office‑bearers of its Eastern India Regional Council (EIRC). The Chairman of the EIRC was disqualified on 22‑12‑2021, creating a vacancy under Regulation 117(2) of the Company Secretaries

NARAYANA MEDICAL COLLEGEversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 11837 November 2022Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh fixed the tuition fee for MBBS courses for the 2011‑13 period by GO dated 18‑06‑2011, but later issued a GO on 06‑09‑2017 raising the fee to Rs 24 lakhs per annum for the 2017‑2020 block without waiting for the report of the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) as req

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusILMO DEVI & ANR.

2021 INSC 6347 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Union of India and others, appealed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed the Department of Posts to reformulate its regularisation policy and to sanction posts for part‑time contingent sweepers (Safai Karamcharies) employed at a Chandigarh post office. The respondents‑applicants

NITABEN DINESH PATELversusDINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL

2021 INSC 6297 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The wife (Nitaben Dinesh Patel) filed a counter‑claim in her husband’s divorce suit seeking a declaration that his alleged second marriage to Hinaben Manubhai Panchal was void and that their child was illegitimate. The trial court allowed amendment of her written statement to include facts about the second marriage (pa

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusSURJI DEVI

2021 INSC 6317 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The late husband of the petitioner, a Gram Sevak, was suspended in January 1996 and terminated in December 1996 under Section 91(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. He filed an appeal against the termination, which remained pending when he died in 2009. In 201

ESTATE OFFICERversusCOLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED)

2021 INSC 6357 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Estate Officer filed Writ Petition No. 8074 of 2011 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was later referred to a Lok Adalat on 30 November 2013. The Lok Adalat members examined the merits of the petition and dismissed it, prompting the appellant to argue that the Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction under th

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAIversusMOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED

2021 INSC 6307 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax issued a revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on 26 March 2012, revising an assessment order for AY 2008‑09 that had been passed on 30 December 2010. The assessee argued that the revision order was barred by the two‑year limitation because it was received by him on 29 No

CHAITU GOWALA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM

2022 INSC 9377 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, were union office bearers accused along with 70 others of murdering the managing director of their company. The trial court, based on identification by three eye‑witnesses, convicted them under Sections 302, 392, 148, 323 and 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to life impris

VELAYUDHANversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 9387 September 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Velayudhan, suffered multiple serious injuries in a vehicular accident, resulting in a 68% permanent disability (the High Court treated it as 100%). He filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs 50,000 for pain and suffering and calculated loss of earnings

M. NAGESWARA REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 2667 March 2022Disposed off

On 18 January 2007, eleven accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked a vehicle, resulting in the death of Rajasekhar Reddy and injuries to several others. The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1‑3 under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC and acquitted accused Nos. 4‑11. The High Court reversed the conviction of No

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHRI VILE PARLE KELVANI MANDAL & ORS.

2022 INSC 257 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed a Bombay High Court order that had exempted charitable educational institutions, run by Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, from electricity duty levied after 1 September 2016. The institutions argued that under the earlier Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 1958 they were exempt, and conte

RAMKHILADI & ANR.versusTHE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.

2020 INSC 117 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased was riding a motorcycle borrowed from its registered owner when he was killed in a collision caused by the rash driving of another motorcyclist. The claimants filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the borrowed vehicle, without joining the owner or insur

NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusORBIT MOTELS AND INNS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR & ORS.

2022 INSC 12566 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a 9,343 sq m land owned by the Maharashtra Public Works Department, originally leased to the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation and sub‑leased to Orbit Motels (respondent) under a 30‑year lease dated 17‑07‑1995, which was terminated by notice on 27‑05‑2002. The State of Maharashtra, invoking

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 8276 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired a parcel of land in 1977 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and took possession of it. Seventeen years later, the landowner (respondent No.1) leased part of the land to respondent No.2 and sued for ejectment, obtaining a decree in his favour. BDA, not

M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2019 INSC 13366 December 2019Dismissed

Unicorn Industries, a manufacturer in Sikkim, claimed that a 2003 exemption notification under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which exempted basic excise duty and certain additional duties, also covered the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), education cess and secondary/higher education cess imposed

SOURABH BRALA AND ORversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 12186 December 2018Directions issued

A group of 150 first‑year MBBS students filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking transfer from Respondent No. 5 College, which had not obtained the necessary approvals, to another college so that they could sit for their examinations. The State Government of Uttarakhand offered to take over the college, its infra

JYOTI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusAMIR CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ANR.

2022 INSC 13206 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Municipality of Thanesar from disturbing its possession of land that had been reserved for a public park under Town Planning Scheme No. 5, sanctioned under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The trial court granted the injuncti

INCOME TAX OFFICERversusVIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

2023 INSC 3276 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned whether the amendment to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 introduced by the Finance Act, 2015 applies to searches under Section 132 that were initiated before the amendment’s effective date of 1 June 2015. A search was conducted on 4 September 2013, and material relating to third parties was

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7versusM/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

2023 INSC 3256 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. sold its building for Rs 33 crore in AY 2007‑08 and claimed a deduction of Rs 31.05 crore as "cost of improvement" to discharge encumbrances arising from a family settlement of shareholders. The Assessing Officer accepted this claim and passed an assessment under section 143(3). The Commi

UNION OF INDIAversusPREMLATA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 3966 April 2022Disposed off

The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire about 45 hectares of agricultural land in Nagpur for a defence research project. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation per hectare, which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs 6 per square foo

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSHRI C.R. MADHAVA MURTHY & ANR.

2022 INSC 3976 April 2022Dismissed

The petitioners (Union of India & Ors.) appealed against a Karnataka High Court order that directed the stepping up of pay of two senior officers (respondents) who had been promoted to Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs but whose juniors, upgraded under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, were drawin

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITEDversusRAMCHARAN AND ORS

2022 INSC 12555 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., the principal employer, appealed against orders that reinstated six contract labourers (Ramcharan & others) and directed Kirloskar to absorb them as employees. The labour contract with the contractor (respondent No.7) had ended and the contractor dismissed the workers. The Supreme Court examine

SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 6205 October 2021Disposed off

The Burdwan Development Authority acquired land for a satellite township under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and entered into an unregistered MoA with Bengal Shrachi for public‑private partnership development. The Reference Court enhanced compensation payable to landowners from Rs 5.8 lakh to Rs 35 lakh per acre, prom

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.versusPREMLATA

2021 INSC 6195 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The widowed petitioner Premlata applied for a compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the Dying‑in‑Harness Rules, 1974, after her husband, a Class‑IV messenger in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department, died. Her first application for an Assistant Operator post was rejected for lack of eligibility, and a subsequen

M/S. PEACOCK INDUSTRIES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 9095 September 2022Dismissed

M/S. Peacock Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic moulded furniture, claimed a refund of excise duty under Section 173L of the Central Excise Act for goods returned by its distributors. The Department, after a market survey, valued the returned goods at Rs.8‑10 per kg, treating them as scrap, which was lower than

AHMEDNAGAR MAHANAGAR PALIKAversusAHMEDNAGAR MAHANAGAR PALIKA KAMGAR UNION

2022 INSC 9145 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned whether Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika, after its conversion from a Municipal Council to a Municipal Corporation in 2003, could be compelled to appoint the heirs of its employees on their retirement or superannuation on compassionate grounds, as directed by an Industrial Court award of 1981 and upheld b

ABDUL MATIN MALLICKversusSUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND ORS.

2022 INSC 5185 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a pre‑emption claim under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 where three brothers (pre‑emptors) sought to exercise their right of pre‑emption over shares in a plot sold by their sisters to Abdul Matin Mallick (pre‑emptee). The trial court dismissed the claim, but the First Appellate Court allo

SWADESH KUMAR AGARWALversusDINESH KUMAR AGARWAL & ORS, ETC., ETC.

2022 INSC 5175 May 2022Disposed off

The parties, who were family members, referred their property dispute to a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent without any written arbitration agreement. The arbitrator was later alleged to have delayed the proceedings, leading respondents to file applications under section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conci

ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC.versusTHE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.

2023 INSC 165 January 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, life‑imprisoned convicts in Goa, were released on parole under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and subsequently applied for premature release on the ground that they had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. The High Court held that the period spent on parole must be excluded from the calculation of t

M/S. SHEKHAR RESORTS LIMITED (UNIT OF ORIENT TAJ)versusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 155 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

M/S Shekhar Resorts Ltd., a corporate debtor, was under a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) from September 2018 until July 2020. While the moratorium was in force, the company applied for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and was issued Form No.3 requiring a payment of R

BASAVARAJversusPADMAVATHI & ANR.

2023 INSC 195 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Basavaraj, entered into an agreement to sell dated 13 March 2007 with respondent Padmavathi for Rs 12.74 lakhs, paying Rs 3 lakhs as earnest money. The seller failed to execute the sale deed, prompting the appellant to sue for specific performance on 14 February 2008. The trial court decreed specific per

SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANRversusPRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS

2023 INSC 145 January 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals arising from SARFAESI Act proceedings where a borrower (Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries) defaulted on a loan, the secured assets were auctioned, and the auction proceeds exceeded 50% of the claimed debt. The borrower challenged both the steps taken under Section 13(4) and the auction

K. SREEDHARversusM/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS.

2023 INSC 175 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower (M/s Raus Constructions) defaulted on a loan from Indian Bank, leading the bank to invoke the SARFAESI Act, issue possession notices and conduct an e‑auction of the secured properties. The auction purchaser bought one of the properties and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) confirmed the sale. The borrower

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusGIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 125 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a secured creditor, sought possession of mortgaged assets of One Mission Vivacare under the SARFAESI Act after the borrower defaulted. The District Magistrate ordered possession, but the Naib Tehsildar refused, invoking a recovery award under the MSMED Act. The High Court Division Bench held t

BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS.versusJASSA RAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 155 January 2022Dismissed

The land in Rajasthan was allotted to Chunilal, a Scheduled Caste (SC) landless person, who was induced to sign a sale deed in favour of Bhadar Ram, an SC resident of Punjab, through fraud by Puran Singh, a non‑SC. The trial court held the sale void as it violated Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Secti

GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2019 INSC 13144 December 2019Dismissed

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., owner of a tug, entered into a six‑month time charter agreement with New Mangalore Port Trust. The Karnataka tax authorities directed the company to register under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, claiming the agreement attracted tax under section 5C, which taxes the transfer of t

DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCESversusDR. YERRA TRINADH & OTHERS

2022 INSC 11724 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The University conducted digital evaluation of answer scripts for a postgraduate diploma course, and several students filed writ petitions seeking re‑evaluation of their answer sheets. The High Court, after calling for the answer scripts, ordered a fresh re‑evaluation despite the absence of any provision for such a pro

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusARVINDRA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 11684 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) had sanctioned a cash credit facility to Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which later became an NPA. SBI offered a One‑Time Settlement (OTS) scheme requiring the borrower to pay the settled amount by 21 May 2018, but the borrower failed to do so and sought a nine‑month extension. The Punjab and

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

2022 INSC 11744 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of certain lands to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The original writ petitioner, Damini Wadhwa, re

CHOWGULE & COMPANY LIMITEDversusASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & OTHERS

2022 INSC 11664 November 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a trading house, exported processed iron ore between April 1990 and March 1991 and sought an additional licence incentive under the Exim Policy 1988‑91. The DGFT rejected the claim, stating that the later Exim Policy 1990‑93, which listed processed iron ore as an ineligible item, governed the export. The

GAURAV KUMAR BANSALversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 6134 October 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a petition by Gaurav Kumar Bansal seeking relief for families of Covid‑19 victims, examined the implementation of guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Court noted that the NDMA had recommended an

INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

2021 INSC 6004 October 2021Disposed off

Paulmech Infrastructure Private Ltd (appellant) entered into a Letter of Intent (LOI) with Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Ltd (UAHCL) for a 40‑year lease of Hotel Nilachal Ashok, requiring payment of Rs 9.34 crore within 30 days, including a non‑refundable upfront sum of Rs 8.82 crore. The appellant failed to pay the fu

K. KARUPPURAJversusM. GANESAN

2021 INSC 6104 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement that required the defendant to evict tenants and deliver vacant possession before executing the sale deed. The trial court found the plaintiff ready but not willing to accept the property with tenants and therefore dismissed the suit, ordering the

MOHD. RAZA & ANR.versusGEETA @ GEETA DEVI

2021 INSC 6094 October 2021Dismissed

The plaintiff, Geeta, sued the defendants for possession, injunctions and mesne profits, asserting ownership of a Delhi property and that Defendant No.1 was her tenant who had sub‑let to Defendant No.2. In their written statement the defendants claimed they were the owners, stating that Defendant No.2 had purchased the

M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. & ANR.versusDHIREN KUMAR

2022 INSC 7954 August 2022Disposed off

The workman, originally a Junior Supervisor, was transferred from Visakhapatnam to Jharsuguda but refused to report, leading to his suspension and dismissal. He challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, which modified the order, reinstated him, and directed him to join at Jharsuguda, while also directing the ma

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERSversusR. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.

2023 INSC 4904 May 2023Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu Government issued two Government Orders (G.O. No. 423 dated 28‑07‑2011 and G.O. No. 451 dated 11‑08‑2011) to set up 36 Anti‑Land‑Grabbing Special Cells and to transfer land‑grabbing cases to specially constituted courts. The orders did not define “land grabbing” or lay down any criteria for selecting cas

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

2023 INSC 5014 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land had been possessed in 2004 and

KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYAversusRAJLAKSHMI CHAUDHURI AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 4944 May 2023Disposed off

The victim‑complainant alleged that she was raped by three accused on 29 November 2018 and filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, citing a two‑year delay and inconsistencies in the complainant's

DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS

2023 INSC 4914 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought possession of a 3‑acre agricultural field based on a registered sale deed dated 21‑04‑1979. The defendants argued that the deed was a sham, executed as collateral for a money‑lending transaction, and that the sale violated the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Ac

M/S VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LTD & ORS.versusMR. DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR.

2023 INSC 5004 May 2023Disposed off

The corporate debtor Amtek Auto Ltd pledged 66.77% of its shares in JMT Auto Ltd as security to M/s Vistra ITCL (appellant No.1) for short‑term loans extended to its group companies. Vistra filed a claim as a secured creditor, which was rejected by the resolution professional and later by the adjudicating authority. Th

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAIversusGLOWSHINE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD

2023 INSC 4924 May 2023

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the High Court’s order upholding the ITAT’s finding that a sale of development rights by Glowshine Builders was a transaction in stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer had originally treated the receipt of Rs 15,94,06,500 as short‑term capital gains, but the ITAT rev

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusASHISH AGARWAL

2022 INSC 5104 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The Union of India appealed against the High Courts' orders quashing reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 had substituted sections 147‑151, introducing section 148A as a condition precedent for issuing a notice under section 148. The Supreme Court

FORUM FOR PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2021 INSC 2834 May 2021Case Allowed

The petitioners challenged the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB‑HIRA) on the ground that it largely reproduces the provisions of the central Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and therefore violates the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution. The Court e

DR. A. SELVARAJversusC.B. M. COLLEGE AND ORS.

2022 INSC 2644 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. A. Selvaraj, a retired Associate Professor of C.B.M. College, Coimbatore, retired on 30 June 2011 but faced a delay in receiving his retirement/pension benefits despite repeated representations, prompting a writ petition in 2013. While the terminal benefits were eventually settled during the pendency of the petitio

M/S BOMBAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIESversusDEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.

2022 INSC 1524 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Bombay Chemical Industries (appellant) contested an application filed by a former employee (respondent No.2) before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking difference of wages for the period 2006‑2012, claiming he was employed as a salesman. The appellant denied any employment relat

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusSACHENDRA SINGH RAWAT

2022 INSC 1534 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased and the accused had an initial altercation at a mehendi ceremony which was broken up by villagers. Later, around midnight, the accused pursued the deceased to his house and repeatedly struck him on the head and other parts with a wooden stick (phakadiyat), causing severe skull fractures and brain injuries

THE RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK (RMGB) & ANR.versusRAMESH CHANDRA MEENA & ANR.

2022 INSC 104 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The employee (original writ petitioner) of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank was charged with misconduct and a departmental inquiry was initiated. He sought to be represented by a legal practitioner and later by a retired bank employee as his defence representative (DR). Regulation 44 of the Bank's Service Regulation, 20

ELLORA PAPER MILLS LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 114 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Ellora Paper Mills Ltd entered into a supply contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh and, after a dispute, the parties were referred to an arbitral tribunal called the Stationery Purchase Committee, which was composed entirely of state officers. The appellant sought termination of that tribunal under Section 14 of th

M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR.versusK.P. DWIVEDI

2021 INSC 8163 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board entered into a construction contract with K.P. Dwivedi, which was later rescinded by the Board. The contractor invoked the arbitration clause, and the High Court, by consent of both parties, appointed the Housing Commissioner as arbitrator. The arbitrator

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPANKAJ JAGSHI GANGAR

2021 INSC 8243 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra charged Pankaj Jagshi Gangar with offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for running a matka business, funding an international gangster and being an active member of an organised crime syndicate. Th

POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 9253 December 2021Dismissed

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) issued a tender for the sale of gas. Pooja Ceratech Private Limited submitted a price bid but later claimed a mistake and sought to modify the bid. ONGC opened the price bids without the petitioner, disqualified it and invoked the bank guarantees furnished as security deposit, inv

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT-4), MUMBAIversusM/S RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED

2021 INSC 8153 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT‑4) Mumbai challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that, under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, recalled its earlier 2013 order favoring the Revenue in a dispute with M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd over the taxability of software payments. The Supreme Court held

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusSANDEEP KAUSHIK AND ORS.

2022 INSC 7893 August 2022Case Partly allowed

The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) appealed a Delhi High Court order that directed it to appoint Sandeep Kaushik as a driver with seniority, after the High Court had held the original recruitment process defective because appointments were based solely on viva marks. DTC argued that 14 years had elapsed, the recruit

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVARLA RAMAIAH ETC.

2023 INSC 4853 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Andhra Pradesh government issued two Government Orders appointing a Cabinet Sub‑Committee and later a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged corruption by the previous administration and subsequently sought to refer the matter to the CBI, prompting writ petitions challenging the GOs. The High Court staye

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusDELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP & ANR

2023 INSC 4843 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether proceedings under Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 can continue after an auditor resigns, and whether the provision is constitutionally valid. The Court held that the NCLT's enquiry under Section 140(5) must run to its logical end irrespective of the auditor's resignation, an

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusSATPAL & ORS.

2023 INSC 2013 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned land owned by a Gram Panchayat in Haryana that had been earmarked for a school and its playground. Respondents had illegally occupied about 5 kanal 4 marla of this land and constructed houses. While eviction orders under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act were upheld b

UNION OF INDIAversusSANJIV CHATURVEDI

2023 INSC 2103 March 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The Union of India appealed against a High Court of Uttarakhand order that set aside the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) transfer of an original application (OA) from the Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The Union argued that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdict

DEBIDUTTA MOHANTYversusRANJAN KUMAR PATTNAIK & ORS.

2023 INSC 2033 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from an auction for a lease of minor mineral rights under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, which required bidders to submit a solvency certificate issued by a revenue officer. The Sub‑Collector had expressly directed that the certificate be issued in the name of Gurukrupa Charitable T

THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRSversusDR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS.

2023 INSC 2093 March 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a challenge by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs against the High Court’s order striking down Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President a

GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRSversusUNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

2023 INSC 1993 March 2023Dismissed

The appellant, owner of Shop No. 27 in the Chandigarh Agricultural Produce Market, sought allocation of an auction platform adjacent to his shop, arguing that his licence and the "One Site One Shop" policy gave him a right to that specific site. The respondent, a senior licence holder since 1970, was allotted the platf

AMIT KATYALversusMEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 2603 March 2022Disposed off

The appellant, promoter of Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., failed to complete the Krrish Provence housing project after eight years, prompting three home‑buyers (original applicants) to file a Section 7 application before the NCLT seeking initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and a refund of Rs 6.

GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

2022 INSC 2593 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice‑Chancellor of Sardar Patel University, alleging that the appointment violated the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010/2018 which require ten years of professorial experience and a search committee constituted as per those regulations.

SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2022 INSC 1413 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

An FIR was lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC against six persons, including Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain, alleging misappropriation of deposits and the sale of an attached property. The FIR primarily implicated a co‑accused, Arun Kumar Maheshwari, while the only allegation against th

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusDILIP UTTAM JAYABHAY

2022 INSC 53 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) dismissed driver Dilip Uttam Jayabhay after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of rash and negligent driving that caused a 1992 accident killing four passengers. Although the driver was later acquitted in a criminal trial under IPC sections 279 and 304(a) du

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusKARAMPAL AND ANR.

2022 INSC 12482 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, based on the fact that compensation had not been paid. The

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH), NEW DELHI AND ANR.versusSURESH B. KAPUR & ORS.

2022 INSC 12452 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned lands in Chattarpur, Delhi acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, later governed by the 2013 Act. The High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because possession had not been taken and compensation, though deposited in court, was not tendered. The

PRAMOD SINGH KIRARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 12412 December 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Pramod Singh Kirar, applied for the post of Police Constable in 2013‑14 and, in the verification form, truthfully disclosed that he had been tried under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for an alleged offence arising from a matrimonial dispute, for which he was acquitted in 2006. The selection board

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusKRISHNA SAINI & ORS.

2022 INSC 12462 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had n

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusSUDESH VERMA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 12492 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi High Court had held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession of the land had not been taken. The Supreme Court examin

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusMOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANR.

2022 INSC 12472 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner, who was a subsequent purchaser. The land in question had been possessed

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUBHASH JAIN AND ORS.

2022 INSC 12502 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Supreme C

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusP.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC.

2022 INSC 12432 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR in 2021 against 18 persons, including former Kerala Police and Intelligence Bureau officials, for allegedly filing false espionage cases against ISRO scientists. The FIR was filed following a Supreme Court‑directed committee report (Justice D.K. Jain) that rec

SOLOMON SELVARAJ & ORS.versusINDIRANI BHAGAWAN SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 12422 December 2022Disposed off

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and applied under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC to sue as indigent persons. The trial court rejected the application, and the High Court affirmed, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata and was an abuse of process. On appeal, the Sup

STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERSversusLINDE INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 12402 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand challenged the tax treatment of oxygen gas sold by Linde India Ltd to Tata Steel, contending that it is not a "raw material" for steel production under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and therefore should attract the normal 3% sales tax rather than the concessional 2% rate. The Hi

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 11532 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but compensation had not been paid to the owners. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

2022 INSC 11542 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but had not yet paid compensation to the owners. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabili

M. MOHANversusTHE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2022 INSC 9032 September 2022Dismissed

M. Mohan, a landowner, challenged the acquisition of his land under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, arguing that the notification issued under s.15(1) violated procedural requirements of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 because the Highways Department did not file a statement of answer to his objections

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusNANDU @ NANDUA

2022 INSC 9012 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court's order that reduced the sentence of the accused, Nandu, from life imprisonment to the period already served (approximately seven years and ten months), while maintaining his conviction under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The tria

SATYAJIT KUMAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2022 INSC 7852 August 2022Case Partly allowed

The Governor of Jharkhand issued a 2016 notification reserving 100% of Class III and IV district‑level teaching posts for local residents of thirteen scheduled districts. This was challenged as violating Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3), 35 and the non‑obstante clause of Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule. The High Court de

SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2022 INSC 7882 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari, filed FIRs in 2019 and the accused filed Special Criminal Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of the proceedings. The Gujarat High Court initially stayed any coercive steps on 10‑Oct‑2019, an order that the Supreme Court

DALBIR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 7142 July 2019Disposed off

Dalbir Singh, an army soldier posted to 3 Rashtriya Rifles, participated in a cordon‑and‑search operation on 13 August 2006 in Jammu and Kashmir. During an intense exchange of fire, a fellow soldier, Sapper Gurmail Singh, was killed and the militants seized the Light Machine Gun. Singh jumped over a stone wall, was wou

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

2023 INSC 4742 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

OMPRAKASH SAHNIversusJAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 4782 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

G. VIKRAM KUMARversusSTATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

2023 INSC 4752 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2023 INSC 4762 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

PHOOL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 8121 December 2021Dismissed

The victim was alone at night when the accused entered her room and raped her. She reported the incident to her sister‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law, who did not believe her and even beat her, forcing her to go to her parental home where an FIR was lodged three days later. The trial court convicted the accused under Section

NEHA TYAGIversusLIEUTENANT COLONEL DEEPAK TYAGI

2021 INSC 8111 December 2021Disposed off

Neha Tyagi, the wife, lodged several complaints with the Army alleging her husband Deepak Tyagi's extra‑marital affairs; the Army enquiry cleared him. The husband subsequently filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and the Family Court decreed divorce, which the Rajasthan High Court affirmed.

KERALEEYA SAMAJAM & ANR.versusPRATIBHA DATTATRAY KULKARNI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2021 INSC 5941 October 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, a private school management, were directed by the Bombay High Court to pay salary arrears to teaching and non‑teaching staff as per the 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations. While willing to pay, the petitioners sought to limit the arrears to the three years preceding the writ petitions, arguing

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 5271 September 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered the Union of India's demand that telecom service providers (TSPs) pay Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues as determined in earlier judgments, while several TSPs were under insolvency proceedings. The Court examined whether spectrum, a natural resource licensed under the Indian Telegraph Act,

EIH LIMITEDversusNADIAVIRJI

2022 INSC 7741 August 2022Dismissed

The landlord (EIH Ltd.) and tenant (Nadia A. Virji) entered into a tenancy agreement for a commercial showroom with a fixed rent of Rs 10,000 per month, while the tenant also agreed to pay municipal taxes separately. The landlord terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed an evic

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

2022 INSC 3801 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusSUBHASH @ PAPPU

2022 INSC 3821 April 2022Case Partly allowed

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

STATE OF U.P.versusVEERPAL & ANR.

2022 INSC 1331 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

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